Obama; New Type of Hope, Same Type of Stupid (Gun Control)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
Previous Ban Expired in 2004 During the Bush Administration

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

ABC News reports (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1) that the Obama administration is going to pursue the same legislation that
1) Had no effect on crime
2) Is seen as a step to greater gun control by gun control groups
3) Took the rights of Americans for no gain
4) Is unconstitutional
5) Cost Clinton control of Congress in 1994

So much for 'respecting the second amendment'. I guess you just can't fix stupid. This time, the reasoning isn't even that people are misusing them in our country, but in Mexico. We have to suffer because of foreign criminals. Who thinks the cartels couldn't get weapons easily from corrupt police and military?

CR

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Hopefully this passes. We need more and more government regulation; it's the quickest way to jade the populace and disenchant people of the virtue of government.

[drone]

Hopefully this passes. We need more and more government regulation; it's the quickest way to jade the populace and disenchant people of the virtue of government.

:laugh4:


"Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades," the warning said. "Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez."
Let's see. Automatic weapons, illegal. Grenades, illegal. So this is basically another attempt to lose the Southern and Midwestern voters. ~:rolleyes:

I guess I'd better get a few spare mags for my pistol now, before the price shoots up to $150 again....

[Sheogorath]

:laugh4:


Let's see. Automatic weapons, illegal. Grenades, illegal. So this is basically another attempt to lose the Southern and Midwestern voters. ~:rolleyes:

I guess I'd better get a few spare mags for my pistol now, before the price shoots up to $150 again....

Because OBVIOUSLY they're buying their guns in the US, right?

And certainly banning them in the US will stop sale of said weapons in Mexico, right?

I mean, a US company SURELY wouldn't buy assault weapons from, say, India, and ship them to Mexico, right? I mean, it's obvious that companies have our best interests in mind, right?

...Right? :annoyedg:

EDIT:
On a side note, flamethrowers are legal. I heard it on the internet. :D

Maybe I should get one of those.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I mean, a US company SURELY wouldn't buy assault weapons from, say, India, and ship them to Mexico, right? I mean, it's obvious that companies have our best interests in mind, right?

Do have any evidence of large scale arms dealing by US companies or are you simply making stuff up?

Even if there were, this bill would do nothing - not a single thing - to hamper or stop the scenario you described.

CR

[drone]

Because OBVIOUSLY they're buying their guns in the US, right?

And certainly banning them in the US will stop sale of said weapons in Mexico, right?

I mean, a US company SURELY wouldn't buy assault weapons from, say, India, and ship them to Mexico, right? I mean, it's obvious that companies have our best interests in mind, right?

...Right? :annoyedg:

EDIT:
On a side note, flamethrowers are legal. I heard it on the internet. :D

Maybe I should get one of those.

:inquisitive:I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, so here goes again.

Grenades and automatic weapons are ALREADY illegal for the most part. This reinstatement will not stop these weapons from reaching Mexican drug-runners. Proper enforcement of existing laws will. But it's always easier to pass a meaningless law than actually do something about the problem.

[Xiahou]

I guess I'd better get a few spare mags for my pistol now, before the price shoots up to $150 again....Maybe this should've been part of the stimulus package. If people think a new AWB is going to pass, gun sales will skyrocket. :idea2:

This reminds me of the Obama campaign ads that were running at least a couple times an hour around here. They trotted out some hunter who proclaimed that Obama supports the Second Amendment and personal ownership of guns and therefore, he supports Obama. What a load. ~:handball:

[Strike For The South]

Knowing this won't pass I'm not going to feign outrage.

However I will plug my Charity: SOS, Save Our Strike is a grass roots organization lobbying the Org government to provide longtime and most loved member SFTS a stimulus to help him buy various things, like guns and ostrich skin boots. As of right now all of his funds are being drained buy groceries gas and other purchases which he is forced to pay because his parents, after 18 years of love and care booted him 400 miles away. This is an undoubtedly because they don't care about poor people.

His funds are only growing by 1.8% He is in a recession.

Paypal is accepted. So is envelops with money.

[seireikhaan]

:drama2:

[Ice]

:drama2:

Pretty much.

This is a non issue for me. I doubt I'll ever feel the need to own one of these weapons.

[rory_20_uk]

But it's always easier to pass a meaningless law than actually do something about the problem.

We're in recession - this will save money!

~:smoking:

[Sheogorath]

Do have any evidence of large scale arms dealing by US companies or are you simply making stuff up?

Even if there were, this bill would do nothing - not a single thing - to hamper or stop the scenario you described.

CR

Exactly my point.

I was being hypothetical in this case, since this bill would only directly affect those manufacturing arms and/or selling arms in the US. Thus it would make little sense to include foreign manufacturers and dealers.

As to US companies dealing in Mexico, it's a safe bet at least a few are. It's a nice, big, market right next door. Very difficult to ignore.


:inquisitive:I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, so here goes again.

Grenades and automatic weapons are ALREADY illegal for the most part. This reinstatement will not stop these weapons from reaching Mexican drug-runners. Proper enforcement of existing laws will. But it's always easier to pass a meaningless law than actually do something about the problem.

I was, indeed, being sarcastic.

[Marshal Murat]

So Obama wants to prevent Mexicans from buying weapons that are already illegal? Have a good time trying to enforce that when we can't even close our own borders. If Americans want to sell Mexicans guns, we'll find a way.

[Lemur]

Just as soon as Congress is done bringing back the Fairness Doctrine (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/senate-bans-fairness-doctrine-revival-87-11.ars) they'll get right on this.

[Major Robert Dump]

Hey maybe all those SKSs I bought for $100 a piece right after the ban expired in 2004 will be worth something now. They sat in a trailer for years, never fired, still covered in petroleum jelly. I've used one and modified it to hold a 30 round magazine,the others are still boxed. I'm gonna be a criminal!!! Maybe I'll sell to the cartel

[Hooahguy]

Just as soon as Congress is done bringing back the Fairness Doctrine (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/senate-bans-fairness-doctrine-revival-87-11.ars) they'll get right on this.
if they enact that, im moving to china.
not really though....

i still cant figure out what goes on in the pro-gun control peoples heads.
cant they understand that gun control only takes away guns from law-abiding people.
the criminals will get them anyhow if they want them.

[Xiahou]

Just as soon as Congress is done bringing back the Fairness Doctrine (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/senate-bans-fairness-doctrine-revival-87-11.ars) they'll get right on this.How soon (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/a-fairness-doctrine-by-any-other-name.ars) can we expect that do you think?

So are we going to see formal reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine, or passage of the Screw Rush Limbaugh Act of 2009? Almost certainly not. Is there a measure of none-too-subtle enthusiasm among those with the power to grant or revoke licenses for pressuring broadcasters to introduce more "democratic dialogue" and greater "diversity" of programming? Manifestly. But don't worry, they're not going to call it a Fairness Doctrine.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Just as soon as Congress is done bringing back the Fairness Doctrine (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/senate-bans-fairness-doctrine-revival-87-11.ars) they'll get right on this.

Obama's administration supports this, unlike the fairness doctrine.


This is a non issue for me. I doubt I'll ever feel the need to own one of these weapons.

Our defense of liberty in our country should not be limited to our personal interests. We should try to defend liberty everywhere, and band together to prevent government intrusion on any of our rights.

For example, I rail on against the weakening of the fourth amendment, excessive police force, and the drug war, though I've never smoked pot and never plan too.

Finally - do you ever plan to own a pistol? The 1994 bill banned magazines over 10 rounds for any gun. I've got a compact pistol with a 14 round magazine.

CR

[CountArach]

Sounds good to me.

[Strike For The South]

Finally - do you ever plan to own a pistol? The 1994 bill banned magazines over 10 rounds for any gun. I've got a compact pistol with a 14 round magazine.

CR

You Americans are so dumb. Just take 4 rounds out!


Sounds good to me

You Would

[Devastatin Dave]

My AK and AR have alrady been "misplaced". Oh well...

I guess Obama is just doing what comes natural to him...

Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State. – Heinrich Himmler

Only an armed society can be the real bulwark of popular liberty. – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie. – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Every good Communist should know that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. The Communist party must control the guns. – Mao Tse-Tung

On the morrow of each conflict, I gave the … order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results. – Benito Mussolini

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas? – Joseph Stalin

If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves. – Joseph Stalin

[Husar]

Finally, he should ban bear arms completely if you ask me. Noone needs them and they're dangerous, like knives.

[Hooahguy]

husar, i will quote my earlier post....


i still cant figure out what goes on in the pro-gun control peoples heads.
cant they understand that gun control only takes away guns from law-abiding people.
the criminals will get them anyhow if they want them.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Sounds good to me.

Only because you would like us all to be peasants under an omniscient government! You would trade the exciting life of liberty for the promise of government security! ~;p


husar, i will quote my earlier post....

It's not about crime. It's about control; liberty offends them.

CR

[Hooahguy]

personally i cant wait until im 21. i plan on getting a concealed firearms license.
i go to the shooting range at least once a month....

[Mooks]

if they enact that, im moving to china.
not really though....

i still cant figure out what goes on in the pro-gun control peoples heads.
cant they understand that gun control only takes away guns from law-abiding people.
the criminals will get them anyhow if they want them.

The same thing that runs through the head of the people that support keeping marijuana illegal; sheer emotion. No rationalisation or debate,just pure emotion.

[Hooahguy]

The same thing that runs through the head of the people that support keeping marijuana illegal; sheer emotion. No rationalisation or debate,just pure emotion.
i am rationalizing the situation.
heres the situation:
obama bans guns. lawful people turn thier guns in. crminals dont.
crime shoots way up.
if im not mistaken, after DC banned guns the crime rate shot way up?

[CountArach]

Only because you would like us all to be peasants under an omniscient government! You would trade the exciting life of liberty for the promise of government security! ~;p
Glad you put that smilie there :wink:

i still cant figure out what goes on in the pro-gun control peoples heads.
The idea being that guns don't kill people - but they make it a hell of a lot easier to. That's the simplest way to explain our thought process. They don't just deny them to law-abiding citizens, they deny them to small-time criminals who may not have normally wanted to get serious enough to look for illegal weapons traders.

[Hooahguy]

but what about the big time crimnals?
you cant just assume that the small guy dont want guns. oh, im sure they do. a crime done by a small crook is the same as a crime done by a big crook.
dont underestimate the small time crooks.
under estimating in general is a bad thing to do.

[CountArach]

but what about the big time crimnals?
What about them? They are going to get guns either way, but this way it is going to cost them more and be much harder to get - the black market can still be found-out.

you cant just assume that the small guy dont want guns.
If gun control prevents even one rape turning into a rape-murder then I would be happy with gun control.

under estimating in general is a bad thing to do.
Like underestimating what the police force is capable of?

[Strike For The South]

What about Texans who are being murdered by border gangs who are armed to the teeth.

[Hooahguy]

What about them? They are going to get guns either way, but this way it is going to cost them more and be much harder to get - the black market can still be found-out.
thank you for just making my point.
doesnt matter how hard itll take. they will get them. and they will strike. and we lawful citizens wont have any means of self defense.


If gun control prevents even one rape turning into a rape-murder then I would be happy with gun control.
what if the would be victim had a gun? then there wouldnt be a rape in the first place.


Like underestimating what the police force is capable of?
it is well known that the police cant be everywhere at all times. in fact, most cities in the US are reducing the numbers of policemen, such as Atlanta. :no:

[Mooks]

What about Texans who are being murdered by border gangs who are armed to the teeth.

If innocent texans are being murdered by foreigners from across the border, why isnt the military getting involved? Isnt that the whole purpose of the military? :dizzy2:

[Strike For The South]

If innocent texans are being murdered by foreigners from across the border, why isnt the military getting involved? Isnt that the whole purpose of the military? :dizzy2:

LOL. Im going to give you one guess. It starts with M and ends with exican

[Hooahguy]

If innocent texans are being murdered by foreigners from across the border, why isnt the military getting involved? Isnt that the whole purpose of the military? :dizzy2:
both the border patrol and National guard are woefully understaffed. well, at least the BP is. most of the guardsmen are overseas. idk why, but they are.
but still, they cant be everywhere at all times. weve got a huge southern border.

[Mooks]

LOL. Im going to give you one guess. It starts with M and ends with exican

I know that they are mexican, I shouldve put "americans" in place of texans.



both the border patrol and National guard are woefully understaffed. well, at least the BP is. most of the guardsmen are overseas. idk why, but they are.
but still, they cant be everywhere at all times. weve got a huge southern border.

Nobody really cares about illegal immigrants. But when they are literally raiding our border, why isnt the military (Not the weekend warriors) taking action?

Are the weekend warriors the reserves or the NG, I get them confused.

[Hooahguy]

b/c it will start a war maybe? as far as i can tell from the situation, they are making quick strikes into the US, then getting the heck outta there. then they strike somewhere else.
now tell me how the army is supposed to protect us from that 24/7.

the weekend warriors are the NG, AFAIK.

[CountArach]

thank you for just making my point.
doesnt matter how hard itll take. they will get them. and they will strike. and we lawful citizens wont have any means of self defense.
You don't have a lawful means of self-defence now... you even said as much yourself - you aren't able to shoot. So how would your situation change if guns were banned?

what if the would be victim had a gun? then there wouldnt be a rape in the first place.
What if said person is taken by surprise by someone who has a gun? They reach for their concealed firearm, but their sudden movement gets them shot...

I don't see any good coming from that....

it is well known that the police cant be everywhere at all times.
No they can't, and nor do they need to be when there are fewer guns.

Anyway gun control debates get me wound up and I know that neither side is ever going to change their views. So I shall depart this thread.

[Strike For The South]

I know that they are mexican, I shouldve put "americans" in place of texans.



Nobody really cares about illegal immigrants. But when they are literally raiding our border, why isnt the military (Not the weekend warriors) taking action?

Are the weekend warriors the reserves or the NG, I get them confused.

No the Texans on the border are 85-90% Tejano.

I see Count Arach has avoided my questions, therefore I win

[Hooahguy]

You don't have a lawful means of self-defence now... you even said as much yourself - you aren't able to shoot. So how would your situation change if guns were banned? when did i say we dont have lawful self-defense now? ok, so you have to be 21 to own a gun, so what? ill wait. ill take precautions. i dont really have to go out in the real world until im 21 anyhow. until then ill be in college, high school, so....


What if said person is taken by surprise by someone who has a gun? They reach for their concealed firearm, but their sudden movement gets them shot...

I don't see any good coming from that....
but at least give them the chance. maybe if some woman in a vacant parking lot saw someone approaching her, she has time to pull out a gun. if she was taken by surprise then she is in deep trouble anyhoow, but give her the chance to defend herself in the first place.


No they can't, and nor do they need to be when there are fewer guns.
you just said before that the bad people who really want guns will get them. and now you are saying we will need fewer cops? :inquisitive:
on the contrary. if we dont ban guns we will need fewer cops because there will be more people to protect others if the police isnt around.

EDIT: no one is replying, so ill assume victory...
horray!

[Fiddling_nero]

This is the exact issue that caused me to not vote for George Bush in 2004.
(Note I didn't vote for Kerry either. I'm not a fool to think that he would have done any different.)

[seireikhaan]

I repeat:

:drama2:

I see no reason people need an assault weapon to defend themselves, with the exception of the situation Strike mentioned- in cases of cross-border raids, regardless of political expediency, the police and/or military need to be on that job.

But if people feel more comfortable thinking that owning an assault weapon somehow makes them the torch-bearers of the founding fathers, I don't particularly care if assault weapons were legal either.

P.S.- No citizen group is overthrowing the US government with assault weapons anyways, FYI. You gonna be put down HARD. Y'all gonna need to be a bit less, ya know, obvious. Subterfuge and the like, in and out operations. Concealed weapons gonna be the best bet there.

[Hooahguy]

oh good, were back to assault weapons.
but i agree with seireikhaan on the topic of assault weapons. they arent needed nowhere near as much. anyhow, pistols are better.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Arach, why do you care about firearm restrictions in another country?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

No they can't, and nor do they need to be when there are fewer guns.


Only there won't be fewer guns, or murders. It'll switch to knives. And then you'll have to ban knives. (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1321620) And then kitchen implements. And so on.

And, in spite of all this, even small-time criminals are still going to have means of getting guns. In Toronto, for example, where do small-time criminals get their handguns? From the bigger gangs.

:idea2:

[CountArach]

Arach, why do you care about firearm restrictions in another country?
*Temporarily breaks his self-imposed ban on this thread*

Its the pacifist in me - no one, anywhere, should be shot by another human being for any reason. Getting rid of guns across the world ensures that.

But I think the question itself doesn't make sense - why should anyone care about Third World poverty? Why should anyone care about the Palestine-Israel conflict? Why should anyone, anywhere, care about things that happen on the other side of the world? Think about why you care about these things and then you will have your answer.

*Goes back into exile... for real this time...*

[Sasaki Kojiro]

*Temporarily breaks his self-imposed ban on this thread*

Its the pacifist in me - no one, anywhere, should be shot by another human being for any reason. Getting rid of guns across the world ensures that.


Someone with a chainsaw who's trying to cut you into little pieces deserves to be shot.

[Strike For The South]

*Temporarily breaks his self-imposed ban on this thread*

Its the pacifist in me - no one, anywhere, should be shot by another human being for any reason. Getting rid of guns across the world ensures that.

But I think the question itself doesn't make sense - why should anyone care about Third World poverty? Why should anyone care about the Palestine-Israel conflict? Why should anyone, anywhere, care about things that happen on the other side of the world? Think about why you care about these things and then you will have your answer.

*Goes back into exile... for real this time...*

You are allowed to have these views because your country uses guns. Men killed so you could afford to have your lofty ideals.

I was joking in earlier posts but you realize what a pacifist is right?

[CountArach]

I was joking in earlier posts but you realize what a pacifist is right?
One who opposes and rejects the use of violence.

[Major Robert Dump]

So Mexico not only refuses to help the US with illegal immigration but in fact encourages it, Mexico whines about the "fence" to the point that the great wall is being turned into a small levee easily climbed over for "flood protection," the problems with Mexico are due in large to the acts of Mexico itself.....but we are going to change laws here to help stop guns from going south. The guns the mexicans are complaining about are already illegal here.

Personally, I don't think this has a shot in hell of passing unless he does it by executive order. Too many of my fellow blue dogs dominate southern states, it's just not going to happen. I also think Americans tend to naively underestimate the selfishness of other Americans: the fact of the matter is that most of us could give to ***** about Mexico and it problems. Really. Who cares?

What Mexico needs right now is to get rid of this faux democratic capitalist society its pretending to be, admit its an international welfare state whose release-valve-of-problems is pointed right at the US, and just have some crazy communist fascist dictator come in and show people who is boss. Then we couldnt be their friends anymore because they were commie dictators, and they wouldn't be allowed to leave their country because they would all be conscripted to state jobs and duties, and they would build a fence to keep Americans out. That would be awesomeness!!!11

[Crazed Rabbit]

Its the pacifist in me - no one, anywhere, should be shot by another human being for any reason. Getting rid of guns across the world ensures that.

Pacifism as a philosophy is pathetic.


If gun control prevents even one rape turning into a rape-murder then I would be happy with gun control.

What about government cameras everywhere - in all stores, in all houses. Would you be happy with that if it prevented a single murder?

You're excusing the relinquishing of liberty by arguing for an infinitesimal security increase. And assuming you wont go for the government cameras everywhere scheme, its because you are biased against guns.

Yes, guns are deadly. More deadly than any weapon before it. But that is why we need them.

With a gun, no longer is the physically more powerful person able to impose their will on others. No longer do people who train for years with a weapon have a great advantage over others.

It has given power to the people. It is the democratic weapon.

Now, people use guns to defend themselves. If you took that right, people would die. Why is preventing a rape-murder so much more important in your eyes than allowing someone to defend their life with a gun?

And I want to emphasize here that gun control is not effective. It doesn't lower crime or keep small time crooks from getting weapons.

CR

[LittleGrizzly]

With a gun, no longer is the physically more powerful person able to impose their will on others.

Your right, its the person who can afford the better gun, who has taken time to train with the gun, and then physical traits such as your eyesight, ability to move quickly being a somewhat 4th place requirment....

Hmm i wonder who could afford the better gun and have more experience in using it....

[Fisherking]

This is only a smoke screen of an excuse to do what the Ds like to do…work on eroding the rights they don’t like…banning guns as a start.

Why would Mexicans buy expensive arms from the US that are only semi-automatic when they can get cheep automatic weapons from a hundred different countries.

Not to pick on the Ds for eroding rights…the Rs just erode different ones.

[Husar]

husar, i will quote my earlier post....

So where do criminals get their guns from?
Once again, if we had a world government, then gun control would actually work because you couldn't smuggle in guns from other countries.
It's the same with so many ideas, they only really work when everybody in the world shares them in which case you would probably not need many of them anymore.

But even then, in most countries with gun control there are less dead people due to gun violence than in the US every year, either way you want to argue, you guys are doing something wrong, whether it's a lack of gun control or just being a culture of violence™.
So if the gun ban is not a solution then what is the soluution? be a bit creative now, you can't say this won't work, we just like dieing in droves and then lean back, gimme an alternative.

Like, for example, banning games and movies with violent content.

[Meneldil]

But even then, in most countries with gun control there are less dead people due to gun violence than in the US every year, either way you want to argue, you guys are doing something wrong, whether it's a lack of gun control or just being a culture of violence™.

Wait, wait, are you trying to be rational here? Because we all know the US are the awesome sauce, and that the lack of gun-control is the very epitome of liberty.

Now, I actually don't care about gun-control in the US. For some reason, it seems to be a big deal, unlike the patriot act or other similar things. I just think that if people feel the need to own guns to be safe, then they live in a failed state.

[Fragony]

edit, that wasn't very smart

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The point I take away from this is: Obama is (drum roll please) a somewhat-left-of-the-middle-of-the-road Democrat.

He re-re-reversed the ban on overseas abortion funding that Bush had re-reversed that Clinton had reversed that Reagan had instituted as a gesture towards his pro-abortion supporters.

Now there is an effort, unlikely to pass but public enough because of the nature of the weapons mentioned that serves as a gesture towards his pro-gun restriction supporters.

More than a few etc.'s to be added to those two if you scan the particulars of the recent spending/stimulus bills and executive orders.

Why am I supposed to be surprised by this? Its garden variety image politics and ALL of the last 5 occupants have played this game.

Now, it does seem to undercut Obama's claim to be a "new type" of political leader, but I'd suggest that nobody -- not even a majority of our far too ignorant voters -- really expected things to be different. Same Calimari, different spicing.

[Hooahguy]

So where do criminals get their guns from?
Once again, if we had a world government, then gun control would actually work because you couldn't smuggle in guns from other countries.
It's the same with so many ideas, they only really work when everybody in the world shares them in which case you would probably not need many of them anymore.

But even then, in most countries with gun control there are less dead people due to gun violence than in the US every year, either way you want to argue, you guys are doing something wrong, whether it's a lack of gun control or just being a culture of violence™.
So if the gun ban is not a solution then what is the soluution? be a bit creative now, you can't say this won't work, we just like dieing in droves and then lean back, gimme an alternative.

Like, for example, banning games and movies with violent content.

here (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706)

6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.

False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.

The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason. Let's hope more people are catching on.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But even then, in most countries with gun control there are less dead people due to gun violence than in the US every year, either way you want to argue, you guys are doing something wrong, whether it's a lack of gun control or just being a culture of violence™.

A ban on firearms and their confiscation would reduce the number of deaths from firearms accidents. I suspect that the murder rate would go down as well -- but that the number of attempted murders and aggravated assaults would increase.

A huge chunk of the violence is actually a byproduct of the insane profits available from the sale of illegal drugs. Attacking that problem would, I suspect, have a far more direct impact on the reduction in gun deaths.

[Hooahguy]

A ban on firearms and their confiscation would reduce the number of deaths from firearms accidents. I suspect that the murder rate would go down as well -- but that the number of attempted murders and aggravated assaults would increase.

A huge chunk of the violence is actually a byproduct of the insane profits available from the sale of illegal drugs. Attacking that problem would, I suspect, have a far more direct impact on the reduction in gun deaths.
@Seamus Fermanagh- i dont know if the murder rate would go down. it could also go up. as was said before, crooks who want guns will get them, and law-abiding people wont. there wont be means of viable self-defense.
too much reliance on the governemnt for protection is not good.
Reagan (or maybe someone elese?) once said: "the scariest words to hear are 'im fromt he government and im here to help.'"

it is much easier to train with a gun than it is to train with a knife. now, for self defense for the averae person, man or woman- is a knife better than a gun? maybe for men, since they are by nature stronger and more able with weapons and could successfully fend off an attacker with a knife.
but women, who are naturally at a disadvantage when it comes to male attackers, are not at an advantage.
a gun is far more suited for women.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So where do criminals get their guns from?
Once again, if we had a world government, then gun control would actually work because you couldn't smuggle in guns from other countries.
It's the same with so many ideas, they only really work when everybody in the world shares them in which case you would probably not need many of them anymore.

Still wouldn't work - simple guns are not too hard to make at home, plus there would be corrupt police and army personnel selling arms.


But even then, in most countries with gun control there are less dead people due to gun violence than in the US every year, either way you want to argue, you guys are doing something wrong, whether it's a lack of gun control or just being a culture of violence™.
So if the gun ban is not a solution then what is the soluution? be a bit creative now, you can't say this won't work, we just like dieing in droves and then lean back, gimme an alternative.

Like, for example, banning games and movies with violent content.


Most of the violence in the US is due to gangs (says the FBI) and banning guns won't change that. Legalizing drugs likely would.

CR

[Yoyoma1910]

Most of the violence in the US is due to gangs (says the FBI) and banning guns won't change that. Legalizing drugs likely would.

CR

Possibly, however most of the gangs where I live developed out of a sense of street vengeance. You killed my peeps, so now I'm going after your peeps.

Drugs do exist as a way to make quick cash, without having to have either an education or a place of work, and I suppose that helps the gangs purchase a better arsenal and such, however the violence would likely still exist.

[Devastatin Dave]

Arach, why do you care about firearm restrictions in another country?

He's just trying to enlighten us dumb old American hicks..

[Seamus Fermanagh]

@Seamus Fermanagh- i dont know if the murder rate would go down. it could also go up. as was said before, crooks who want guns will get them, and law-abiding people wont. there wont be means of viable self-defense.
too much reliance on the governemnt for protection is not good.
Reagan (or maybe someone elese?) once said: "the scariest words to hear are 'im fromt he government and im here to help.'"

it is much easier to train with a gun than it is to train with a knife. now, for self defense for the averae person, man or woman- is a knife better than a gun? maybe for men, since they are by nature stronger and more able with weapons and could successfully fend off an attacker with a knife.
but women, who are naturally at a disadvantage when it comes to male attackers, are not at an advantage.
a gun is far more suited for women.

I said that I thought the murder rate would go down -- but suspect that violence would increase. Murders would be lessened not because of the criminal element -- there'd be a slight increase from that direction as some of the nuttier ones felt less threatened. I was referring to the fairly large chunk of those murders that represent loved ones killing loved ones during a fight of some kind. Firearms make such killings easier. I'm well aware that you can kill someone with a knife and that cutting tools can do horrific things (John Wayne Bobbitt), but they are usually far less lethal in this advanced medical era we're in. Again, I'm talking a decrease in deaths, not a decrease in violence or injuries.

On the flip side, criminals would still have guns and would be at a significant advantage in their quest to deprive others of rightful property -- and the rightful owners would have little chance of the authorities stepping in to prevent such a theft in time. As you suggest, the physically stronger would also be in a position to enforce their will on others more readily, again presuming that the police can't get there in time to prevent it. I would find this a gross infringement of my rights.

Be aware, however, that many gun control propronents truly believe that the life of a person who is seeking to take your property is worth more than your property -- even though you have sacrificed a portion of your life to acquire same. In their opinion, you should incur an ongoing cost (insurance) so that your property may be replaced when taken by another.

I view them as having abrogated their right to life by directly threatening your property rights, but then again I am a Conservativus Rex who hasn't evolved to higher* levels.

*to be read properly, this word should DRIP sarcasm.

[Fisherking]

Still wouldn't work - simple guns are not too hard to make at home, plus there would be corrupt police and army personnel selling arms.



Most of the violence in the US is due to gangs (says the FBI) and banning guns won't change that. Legalizing drugs likely would.

CR
My infuses.


Sorry CR but that part just won’t fly. You have no idea what length the US military, particularly the US Army will go to in order to recover a missing weapon or even its parts.

You may have heard stories, but that is all they are.

[Lemur]

[M]any gun control propronents truly believe that the life of a person who is seeking to take your property is worth more than your property -- even though you have sacrificed a portion of your life to acquire same.
Hmm, surely some sort of proportionality has to be taken into account. If a bully in school demands your pen, shooting him is probably an overreaction. Even if you sacrificed a minute of your life to have that pen.

People who use deadly force to defend their families and homes have my sympathy. People who deliberately kill others (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0) to deter a property theft do not.

I don't think there are many pro-gun advocates who would argue for indiscriminate use of lethal force. Likewise, I don't think there are many gun-control advocates who don't believe you have a right to defend your home and your family. The differences are in matters of degree and context.

That said, I think gun control in the U.S.A. is abysmally stupid. If the Obama Administration wastes its time bringing back a ban on pistol magazines that hold in excess of 10 rounds ... man, that would just be the height of foolishness.

[Husar]

So basically the problem are not the guns and everybody here thinks that murder, rape and stealing are pretty normal in a free society and the only counter that should be there is telling your kids how to blow a guy's brain out?

Or does anyone have another suggestion for what should be changed? :inquisitive:

[Lemur]

So basically the problem are not the guns and everybody here thinks that murder, rape and stealing are pretty normal in a free society and the only counter that should be there is telling your kids how to blow a guy's brain out?
Violent crime is a reality in any society. It's not common and it never has been (thank God), but it does exist, and to pretend that it's particular to any nation is silly.

The police cannot be everywhere. The police should not be everywhere. The first person who should defend you is you. The first person who should defend your family is you.

In America we are and have been an armed society since inception (although we were a lot less armed before the mid-1800s, if you believe the historians). We believe in the individual's right to defend self, hearth and home.

In the United Kingdom, on the other hand, they're installing CCTVs in pubs, and every town has its own surveillance cameras. I'd rather live with armed people than have the government watching every street corner and every bar.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I said that I thought the murder rate would go down -- but suspect that violence would increase. Murders would be lessened not because of the criminal element -- there'd be a slight increase from that direction as some of the nuttier ones felt less threatened. I was referring to the fairly large chunk of those murders that represent loved ones killing loved ones during a fight of some kind. Firearms make such killings easier. I'm well aware that you can kill someone with a knife and that cutting tools can do horrific things (John Wayne Bobbitt), but they are usually far less lethal in this advanced medical era we're in. Again, I'm talking a decrease in deaths, not a decrease in violence or injuries.


Hmm. What information are you using?

Looking at the 2007 FBI Crime stats, there are only six more husbands and wives of offenders (596 total) killed by all weapons (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_09.html) during none felony events (arguments and brawls) than they are people beaten to death (590) (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_10.html) during the same none felony events.

Overall, murders where the victim is a relative, and the murder doesn't occur during another felony crime, account for 9.5% of total murders.

It isn't known how many of those are actual 'loved ones' killing people they would normally love. (Wives as victims make up 3.3% of those none-felony relative murders.)


People who deliberately kill others to deter a property theft do not.

Playing devils advocate, he did first confront them. He did not shoot them from hiding. But I do think people are justified in confront robbers with all force necessary even if they don't invade your home.


Sorry CR but that part just won’t fly. You have no idea what length the US military, particularly the US Army will go to in order to recover a missing weapon or even its parts.

We're talking world government here - I wasn't speaking necessarily about the US Army (I would worry first about the police here) but armies and soldiers in other countries. Such a worldwide ban would greatly increase the prize for black market guns and so greatly increase the incentive. Doesn't Thailand execute all drug dealers? Yet people still try to smuggle them in, because of the immense profit.


In the United Kingdom, on the other hand, they're installing CCTVs in pubs, and every town has its own surveillance cameras. I'd rather live with armed people than have the government watching every street corner and every bar.

:bow:

CR

[Husar]

Violent crime is a reality in any society. It's not common and it never has been (thank God), but it does exist, and to pretend that it's particular to any nation is silly.

The police cannot be everywhere. The police should not be everywhere. The first person who should defend you is you. The first person who should defend your family is you.

In America we are and have been an armed society since inception (although we were a lot less armed before the mid-1800s, if you believe the historians). We believe in the individual's right to defend self, hearth and home.

In the United Kingdom, on the other hand, they're installing CCTVs in pubs, and every town has its own surveillance cameras. I'd rather live with armed people than have the government watching every street corner and every bar.

Yes, I agree on most points, in fact, I wouldn't mind being allowed to have a gun but I doubt I would feel the need to spend a lot to get one or the need to get one at all. Apparently a lot of Americans however, do feel a strong need to get one and behave as if they will get swamped and overrun by criminals if they're not allowed to get one which makes me look at the USA as much more criminal than Germany where I feel pretty safe even without a gun.
I don't have any statistics in my head but IIRC the crime rates in the US(and possibly the UK) are a lot higher than in some other western societies, so why is that? Do you ever ask yourselves that outside of "we needz moar gunz!!!" or do you just accept it and shoot everybody who enters your minefield on the front lawn?

Concerning CCTV, I have never supported that, I accept cameras in the subway stations but I would certainly not want them on every public place, street, road, school, university etc.
I recently read some politician here wants that and said he expected people to vote for his party because of that so I decided to vote for the party he attacked for a lack of cameras...

And to come back to guns, I work at a fuel station and company policy is to give out all the money and let the thieves leave if there is a robbery. quite frankly with one or two guys pointing guns at me I would not appreciate if some customer drew his own gun and started shooting around. Generally I would only find a personal gun useful if I were always allowed to carry it around in a concealed holster, if I got robbed at gunpoint in a dark street I could hardly run home, get my gun and then start a firefight, even just drawing a gun would prolly make the other guy pull the trigger so the use of guns is somewhat limited to home defense if you ask me and even then how can you get your gun while you sleep?
Like I said, nothing against having one IMO, but the use of the things seems a bit blown out of proportion sometimes if you ask me. :shrug:

[Strike For The South]

Hmm, surely some sort of proportionality has to be taken into account. If a bully in school demands your pen, shooting him is probably an overreaction. Even if you sacrificed a minute of your life to have that pen.

People who use deadly force to defend their families and homes have my sympathy. People who deliberately kill others (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0) to deter a property theft do not.

I don't think there are many pro-gun advocates who would argue for indiscriminate use of lethal force. Likewise, I don't think there are many gun-control advocates who don't believe you have a right to defend your home and your family. The differences are in matters of degree and context.

That said, I think gun control in the U.S.A. is abysmally stupid. If the Obama Administration wastes its time bringing back a ban on pistol magazines that hold in excess of 10 rounds ... man, that would just be the height of foolishness.

Joe Horn did the right thing.

[Major Robert Dump]

Someone being in your house, where all sorts of things can be done to you and you don't know their intent or numbers, is one thing. But simply using deadly force to stop, say, a theft of something in your front yard or a purse snatching is both barbaric and dangerous. Now, were you to attempt to make a lawful citizens arrest and restrain them, which escalated into your defending yourself because they used force on you or came at you, then yeah use force.

We don't hang people for stealing horses anymore. People who advocate deadly force for property crimes in general really are the scourge, and thankfully the minority, of gun-rights supporters.

[Major Robert Dump]

LaPeirre calls out a reported on CNN, she blindly defends, she is wrong, he is right, exactly what we've been saying all along: automatic weapons are already banned. The CNN ban story showed a bunch of clips with autos being fired

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60aIaNZA0h8

[LittleGrizzly]

In the United Kingdom, on the other hand, they're installing CCTVs in pubs, and every town has its own surveillance cameras. I'd rather live with armed people than have the government watching every street corner and every bar.

Why is this being treated as an either USA stlye gun plicy or UK style CCTV theres plenty of good examples outside of our overuse of CCTV. It seems like an attempt to build an argument of having guns vs having CCTV, the truth is you don't need either for security...

[Husar]

We don't hang people for stealing horses anymore. People who advocate deadly force for property crimes in general really are the scourge, and thankfully the minority, of gun-rights supporters.

Well, most of the threads popping up here by pro-gun people are about some ex-marine shooting people in a shop, then we have them defend a guy who runs outside to shoot the thieves who just robbed his neighbor despite a policeman telling him not to and then there was this thread about the really great patriot who managed to see some guys coming into his house and then did the following within the (roughly estimated) 5 seconds he had before they were inside:

- ran to his porperly locked weapons locker
- opened the lock with the key
- got his unloaded gun out
- loaded the gun
- shot at the criminals and made them flee

obviously this patriot was as fast as Superman because we all know the real responsible patriots always lock their guns up in a safe place and unload them before doing so because having them lie around loaded is very unsafe, kids or other people could grab them and do stupid things.
Well, that's just what I learned on this forum of course, so I fully understand how a properly locked up and unloaded gun can:

- keep your kids from doing stupid things with it

and:

- allow you to shoot any possible intruders

especially the ones that come during the night while you sleep.

Now seriously, I understand this works now and then, when someone seems to have really bad sleep or the criminals are absolute idiots, but if someone with a little bit of brain comes I'd think you don't really have a chance, alternatively your kids starts a school shooting because you didn't lock your gun away and everybody on every forum calls you an idiot because you didn't unload your gun and lock it away as every responsible gun owner should.

[Jolt]

CR I have a question for you. Why do you need Assault Rifles?

[Strike For The South]

CR I have a question for you. Why do you need Assault Rifles?

The zombies aint gonna kill themselves.

[Devastatin Dave]

CR I have a question for you. Why do you need Assault Rifles?

Because I have a small penis of course...

[Lemur]

It's not small, Dave, it's concentrated goodness. I thought we agreed that was how we would refer to it ...

[Major Robert Dump]

Why does it have to be about need?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Because some people don't think through their arguments.

Jolt, do you need the internet?

[Major Robert Dump]

I thought there was a life long ban on gun threads anyway. Didn't something crazy happen back in 2000, like a bunch of Welsh TW players broke into Gregoshi's house and made inflammatory posts in the now-defunct Org gardening section which made Idaho mad and threaten to kill himself? Or am I getting things mixed up?

[Ronin]

Jolt, do you need the internet?

Personally I do not NEED the internet.....to follow through on what you are trying to get at here...I´ll say right here than when people start using the internet to blow other people´s heads off I´ll accept the need to make the internet use heavily regulated like guns should be.

whoever since I can´t violently kill my neighbour using my Internet connection I´d say that the parallel you are trying to create doesn´t really apply.

[Major Robert Dump]

You've obviously never used AOL

[Crazed Rabbit]

CR I have a question for you. Why do you need Assault Rifles?


Why does it have to be about need?

It is not about needing anything. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I am a free man and should not have to prove I need anything or convince the government they should allow me to have it.

It is my right.


I thought there was a life long ban on gun threads anyway. Didn't something crazy happen back in 2000, like a bunch of Welsh TW players broke into Gregoshi's house and made inflammatory posts in the now-defunct Org gardening section which made Idaho mad and threaten to kill himself? Or am I getting things mixed up?

It happened before I joined, or entered the backroom (there was a time when I spent most of my time on the MTW forums!), but I heard a gun debate caused a bunch of people to get their ideological friends to register and start some sort of super-flamming debate. And that was what made them put in the junior member bit.

CR
also I've been playing a lot of left for dead lately...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

whoever since I can´t violently kill my neighbour using my Internet connection I´d say that the parallel you are trying to create doesn´t really apply.

Mom: Girl killed herself over online hoax (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21844203/)

edit: South Korean man dies after Starcraft marathon (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4137782.stm)

Do you need video games Ronin?

[Jolt]

Jolt, do you need the internet?

I am making a simple question, to see if I can understand the rationale of violent opposition to banning firearms which frankly, don't add up to the protection of anyone.

As to your question, yes I need the internet as a concentrated source of information which I primarily use to the advancement of my personal life. Furthermore I need to internet as a tool to coordinate my country so my personal needs (And the needs of the society) are better fulfilled.

[Jolt]

It is not about needing anything. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I am a free man and should not have to prove I need anything or convince the government they should allow me to have it.

It is my right.

From your point of view, we can extrapolate that it is in your right to possess nuclear, chemical or biological weaponry without your government having any say in it whatsoever. Why are they banning nuclear weapons anyway? Pfft, it only limits your own freedom to defend yourselves.

[Major Robert Dump]

I am making a simple question, to see if I can understand the rationale of violent opposition to banning firearms which frankly, don't add up to the protection of anyone.

As to your question, yes I need the internet as a concentrated source of information which I primarily use to the advancement of my personal life. Furthermore I need to internet as a tool to coordinate my country so my personal needs (And the needs of the society) are better fulfilled.

They do add to the protection of people, both implied and literal, but you don't hear that from most of the media the US exports. Maybe in your country, firearms wouldn't help. We live in different places.

Gun control works fairly well in countries that have not allowed firearms for a very long time. Constitution aside, it won't work here. There are too many guns, there is too much crime, and we have a fairly open immigration and legal system which does well at protecting peoples rights but nonetheless slows justice down to a snails pace sometimes and makes it very easy for people to move around the country to avoid prosecution and target new victims.

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but this is from ABCs 20/20 from 2007. I don't like the packaging of the story, but considering its coming from what many consider to be a liberal network maybe somebody listened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ&feature=related

This violent opposition to firearms regulation is just as furious on the other side, where people lie their heads off or use personal tragedies as a catalyst for regulation. Even the leadership if DC -- in the wake of a city who clearly expressed they wanted their guns back -- refused to acknowledge facts, smothered people with hyperbole, accused them of fraud, muzzled peoples opinions and laid out the typical "I know whats best for you" that career politicians are so good at. It took the highest court in the nation to give back what the city had been asking for for years.

The "assault weapons ban" is just feel-good legislation that will do nothing but punish people who have been obeying the law all along, and every step taken is a step gained towards a complete agenda. I don't particularly want to sit through a 20 year period of the literal urban warfare that would ensue between criminals and victims for the long term grand noble cause of a gun free society.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

From your point of view, we can extrapolate that it is in your right to possess nuclear, chemical or biological weaponry without your government having any say in it whatsoever. Why are they banning nuclear weapons anyway? Pfft, it only limits your own freedom to defend yourselves.

Right, and we can extrapolate from your point of view that you want to ban video games and the internet :rolleyes:

Everything you've said was already answered in this thread. Check Seamus's posts and you'll find and answer to this question.

[Lemur]

Let's keep this in perspective. I haven't heard any Congressional leaders calling for a return to the Assault Weapons Ban. I haven't heard the President call for it. So far it's just the AG shooting off his mouth in an interview.

AGs have been known to say stupid things.

Alberto Gonzales said a lot of dumb things. John Ashcroft said a lot of dumb things. Janet Reno said a lot of dumb things. Edwin Meese couldn't get through a day without saying something abysmally stupid.

Until I see real action, I'm not going to start hoarding 17-round Glock magazines. Neither should you.

[Major Robert Dump]

As I said before Big L, I don't think it will happen because it costs democrats dearly the last time around. People either don't want it, and a lot of the ones who do don't understand it.

I would expect some sort insignificant gun control moves by the Democrats in the near future, to make it look like they are doing something, and not unlike the flag burning amendments that pop up from time to time from a Republican looking to woo his constituents.

What really gets my interest where groups are trying to allow guns back on college campuses and in government buildings, theres quite a drama being played out here in okieland.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

From your point of view, we can extrapolate that it is in your right to possess nuclear, chemical or biological weaponry without your government having any say in it whatsoever. Why are they banning nuclear weapons anyway? Pfft, it only limits your own freedom to defend yourselves.

Where did it go, where did it go, come on, where is it...





Oh, yes. Found it.



https://img90.imageshack.us/img90/5119/beating2da2ddead2dhorse.gif

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I am making a simple question, to see if I can understand the rationale of violent opposition to banning firearms which frankly, don't add up to the protection of anyone.

As to your question, yes I need the internet as a concentrated source of information which I primarily use to the advancement of my personal life. Furthermore I need to internet as a tool to coordinate my country so my personal needs (And the needs of the society) are better fulfilled.

"Advancing your personal life" isn't worth the viruses, identity theft, hackers breaking into government systems, and the proliferation of child pornography.

You don't need access to the internet; a select, trained few from the government can handle the needs of society with internet access for them alone.

Unless you really like the proliferation of child pornography? You don't want that, do you?

[Husar]

There are too many guns, there is too much crime, and we have a fairly open immigration and legal system which does well at protecting peoples rights but nonetheless slows justice down to a snails pace sometimes and makes it very easy for people to move around the country to avoid prosecution and target new victims.

Now that is something like the answer I was looking for.

Maybe the problem isn't really gun control and someone should open a thread about how to improve your legal system to become faster etc.
at least that would be constructive criticism and not just "No we need gunz to shoot immigrantz and because we like to do that and why not!".

[Jolt]

"Advancing your personal life" isn't worth the viruses, identity theft, hackers breaking into government systems, and the proliferation of child pornography.

Yes, I do need the internet despite those problems simply because those problems are to be dealt with by the government (Except for the viruses). If the Internet was banned, there wouldn't be a replacement. If Assault Rifles were banned...bleh, you still had ordinary firearms, pistols and shotguns to defend yourself. That is why my question went unanswered, because people don't need Assault Rifles in any scenario.


You don't need access to the internet; a select, trained few from the government can handle the needs of society with internet access for them alone.

The "few" can't handle the scope and size of what the Internet has become, otherwise the virtual flux of information would drop from 9999999999999999999999 to 100. Internet has become an integral part of every developed society in the world. Halting it would lead to a gigantic recession due to interdependency bonds being cut off all the sudden. Assault Rifles aren't an integral part of any society that I know of (Unless you talk about Somalia).


Unless you really like the proliferation of child pornography? You don't want that, do you?

One side - Child pornography = Other side - World Economy
One side - Assault Rifles = Other side - Pistols & Shotguns

Yeap, seems like they are too similar.

[Jolt]

Where did it go, where did it go, come on, where is it...





Oh, yes. Found it.



https://img90.imageshack.us/img90/5119/beating2da2ddead2dhorse.gif

Hehe. :2thumbsup:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yes, I do need the internet despite those problems simply because those problems are to be dealt with by the government (Except for the viruses). If the Internet was banned, there wouldn't be a replacement. If Assault Rifles were banned...bleh, you still had ordinary firearms, pistols and shotguns to defend yourself. That is why my question went unanswered, because people don't need Assault Rifles in any scenario.

If you think about it though, who is the Second Amendment directed towards? You will need assault weapons to defend yourself from them.

[Husar]

If you think about it though, who is the Second Amendment directed towards? You will need assault weapons to defend yourself from them.

A hit is a hit and there are rifles that hit with more power than many assault rifles. If you can't aim then you will lose anyway.

[Jolt]

If you think about it though, who is the Second Amendment directed towards? You will need assault weapons to defend yourself from them.

Can't you defend yourself from "them", with a shotgun?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

A hit is a hit and there are rifles that hit with more power than many assault rifles. If you can't aim then you will lose anyway.

Yes, but then why do militaries have assault rifles?


Can't you defend yourself from "them", with a shotgun?

From the government?

[Strike For The South]

First, it's impossible to win against the government so owning guns is useless now the governments such a pushover that we only need shotguns and rifles.

Truly ROFLCOPPTER

[Jolt]

From the government?

Yes. If we go down the "Oppressive Government needs to be repelled with all might necessary" path, why stop in Assault Rifles? It would be better to have artillery already stocked up, tank rounds gathered up, military planes and choppers with full armament, Anti-Air weaponry, etc. That way if the government begins oppressing the people, the people already has a standard army ready to even crush airforce and armored regiments.

[Strike For The South]

Yes. If we go down the "Oppressive Government needs to be repelled with all might necessary" path, why stop in Assault Rifles? It would be better to have artillery already stocked up, tank rounds gathered up, military planes and choppers with full armament, Anti-Air weaponry, etc. That way if the government begins oppressing the people, the people already has a standard army ready to even crush airforce and armored regiments.

Well yes.

I do draw the line at nuclear weapons. I'm not a complete nut.

[Husar]

Yes, but then why do militaries have assault rifles?

They probably can't aim so they try to send as many bullets to the other side as possible.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yes. If we go down the "Oppressive Government needs to be repelled with all might necessary" path, why stop in Assault Rifles? It would be better to have artillery already stocked up, tank rounds gathered up, military planes and choppers with full armament, Anti-Air weaponry, etc. That way if the government begins oppressing the people, the people already has a standard army ready to even crush airforce and armored regiments.

The problem is that most people can't afford that - by the way, there has been quite a successful resistance in Iraq using mostly small arms.

[Ronin]

Mom: Girl killed herself over online hoax (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21844203/)

edit: South Korean man dies after Starcraft marathon (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4137782.stm)

Do you need video games Ronin?


That girl killed herself because a malisious rumour was launched about her.........peer pressure and meaness can do that, and it exists with or without the use of an internet connection, unless that mother actually got on her computer and hit a command that said "kill girl X" I can not see how you can say that girl was killed by the internet.....so the parallel with guns does not stand.


as for the guy that died from playing videogames......any person that engages in a draining activity for 50 straight hours is an idiot...

and yes....I would be all for outlawing stupidity....because that´s the bigger killer of them all.....unfortunately I think that if we outlaw stupidity we are gonna run out of jail space very quickly.

[Ronin]

It is not about needing anything. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I am a free man and should not have to prove I need anything or convince the government they should allow me to have it.

It is my right.
CR



It could be argued that it is also the right of those who are against gun ownership to feel free to walk out of their houses and walk down the street without having to worry if each person they walk past is packing.

I mean....what kind of society does it produce when I have to worry what I say some guy if I get in an argument at work....because he might get pissed enough to pull out a gun?
I wonder how a supervisor in the US post office feels every time he needs to give a negative job evaluation to one of the employees in his charge.....does he get his affairs in order before doing so?

And if some moron cuts me off in traffic do I dare have a moment of unconsidered emotion and give him the finger?....what if he has a gun in his glove compartment?

Is a society where you have to walk on eggshells around your fellow citizens a free one?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Yes. If we go down the "Oppressive Government needs to be repelled with all might necessary" path, why stop in Assault Rifles? It would be better to have artillery already stocked up, tank rounds gathered up, military planes and choppers with full armament, Anti-Air weaponry, etc. That way if the government begins oppressing the people, the people already has a standard army ready to even crush airforce and armored regiments.

You can have most of those things if you register them (and pay a hefty fee). The ammunition would have to be registered individually and separately, so a legal arsenal is very expensive.

How many people have been killed by privately owned anti-tank weaponry, for example? Gangsters are not interested in them because 1) it's silly expensive and 2) every cop and g-man in America will want to bag the the guy who uses it in a mod hit.

Seriously, most of the gun murders in America are from pistols, which is the opposite of your argument.

Ronin - why don't you ask someone in a place with high gun ownership? I suspect that you don't have much experience with such a place. I know I don't.

[Lemur]

And if some moron cuts me off in traffic do I dare have a moment of unconsidered emotion and give him the finger?....what if he has a gun in his glove compartment?
Actually, a car is considerably more dangerous than a gun. Think about it.

I don't see why guns change the equation so very much. Do you worry about a co-worker punching you? He could take that pen in his hand and stab you in the neck. Is that a serious concern? Just because guns make lethal violence easier doesn't mean they make it more likely.

[Ronin]

Actually, a car is considerably more dangerous than a gun. Think about it.

I don't see why guns change the equation so very much. Do you worry about a co-worker punching you? He could take that pen in his hand and stab you in the neck. Is that a serious concern? Just because guns make lethal violence easier doesn't mean they make it more likely.

No...I don´t worry about someone punching me....

....maybe I´m wrong but I don´t see numerous reports about people being stabbed by pens....but I´ll keep and eye out for that.

guns make lethal violence a LOT easier...and therefore more probable to be attempted (and more important to be successful) in a moment of ill-considered anger....I believe there is ample examples to prove this. to say nothing of the lone nut who actually plans it out before coming in to the office and blowing everyone's brains out.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

On the contrary, an angry person would be more likely to think twice if he had a more lethal weapon available. Simply throwing a punch is easy - the victim is not likely to be seriously injured. Drawing a handgun, on the other hand, is not only likely to cause the perpetrator to think twice - it is also very rare.

[Ronin]

On the contrary, an angry person would be more likely to think twice if he had a more lethal weapon available. Simply throwing a punch is easy - the victim is not likely to be seriously injured. Drawing a handgun, on the other hand, is not only likely to cause the perpetrator to think twice - it is also very rare.


So if for example you are in a bar and some drunken fool tries to start a fight with you..you would rather him have a gun than not?

I would rather he had no gun and tried to take a swing at me.....I´m not so sure a person in such a condition would "think twice" before pulling a gun.

[Jolt]

You can have most of those things if you register them (and pay a hefty fee). The ammunition would have to be registered individually and separately, so a legal arsenal is very expensive.

Acording to CR's concept of freedom, I am led to believe that it is even ridiculous that you have to register firearms. How dare the government keep track of how much firearms he has.


How many people have been killed by privately owned anti-tank weaponry, for example? Gangsters are not interested in them because 1) it's silly expensive and 2) every cop and g-man in America will want to bag the the guy who uses it in a mod hit.

True. But something tells me that if Anti-tank weaponry would be as readily available in market as there are Uzi's and glocks, something tells me the number of people being killed by those weapons would skyrocket. I certainly wouldn't be surprised in Gang Wars appearing the said Anti-tank weaponry as a means to do splash damage to the opposite gang.


Seriously, most of the gun murders in America are from pistols, which is the opposite of your argument.

Opposite to my argument? That's funny. My stance is that even pistols shouldn't be available as they are in the USA, although I can understand the basic logic behind having a firearm. My argument in this thread is that there are more than enough types of firearms in the USA able of protecting yourself (Pistols included), so its hard to understand the violent opposition unless you use some kind of out of the blue argument (To other peoples) like (WE NEEDZ ASSAULT RIFLEZ TO KILLZ TEH TYRANTZ!), to which I find odd. Thus they are defending that every citizen, regardless of mental health, ideals and or beliefs (Imagine Neo-Nazi's getting hold of sweet hot brand new Assault Rifles!) is viable to carry firearms which far surpass any limit of common sense I can establish.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So if for example you are in a bar and some drunken fool tries to start a fight with you..you would rather him have a gun than not?

I would rather he had no gun and tried to take a swing at me.....I´m not so sure a person in such a condition would "think twice" before pulling a gun.

You're looking at hypotheticals - where are the statistics?


Imagine Neo-Nazi's getting hold of sweet hot brand new Assault Rifles!

They can - but guess what! They'd be too scared to use them.

[Ronin]

You're looking at hypotheticals - where are the statistics?



The hypothesis is clear enough....I don´t feel I need statistics to back up simple common sense....

and secondly...and more importantly, I´m certainly not gonna spend my sunday night looking up statistics.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I mean....what kind of society does it produce when I have to worry what I say some guy if I get in an argument at work....because he might get pissed enough to pull out a gun?

A polite one.

[Jolt]

The problem is that most people can't afford that - by the way, there has been quite a successful resistance in Iraq using mostly small arms.

That is against a Democratic Government (USA) which is highly pressured by Public Opinion and obeys (Or tries to) the high standards of avoiding colleteral damage. Do you think a dictatorship would think twice before using much more aggressive methods to quell the Iraqi resistence? Do you think a dictatorship the said Americans would try to fight would think twice before using every and all methods to build the :daisy: out of them?

I'll give you two examples. One you got the Sicilian Mafia. In both Democratic Governments of Italy (Pre and Post-Mussolini until nowadays) the governments obviously valued more the interest of the general well-being of the society than ruthlessly quelling the Mafia. When Mussolini got to power, the tactics the Mafia used to protect themselves were quickly turned against them as Mussolini had little sympathy for those who were leeching off the state. He coerced (Jailed, tortured even) Mafioso famillies to bring them out of hiding. As a result what the democratic government couldn't achieve a dictatorship did so with extreme success.
Another example: Gandhi's peaceful resistence movement. The success behind his movement layed in the fact that the UK were a parlamentary monarchy which obivously also took into account their own public opinion, thus why the British Indian authorities didn't do anything rash against him. Gandhi himself said Hitler was a successful man (Or something to that effect), imagining it was Hitler's Germany controlling India, do you think Hitler would think twice about executing Gandhi for trying to free one of Hitler's possessions and censuring the press, as well as crushing any rebellion which would spawn following Gandhi's death? I'll give you a real example based on his peaceful resistence. After he died and there was a call for the French and Portuguese enclaves to join with main India, there was a peaceful resistence movement which together with International pressure made France yield Pondicherry to India. On the other hand, Gandhi's followers came to Dictatorship Portuguese India, using their peaceful resistence movement. Since the dictatorship couldn't care less for its own public opinion they massacred the peaceful resistence followers which entered Goa.

Giving examples for oppressive governments based on Democratic actions is wrong since both follow different patterns and lead to different results.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The hypothesis is clear enough....I don´t feel I need statistics to back up simple common sense....

But the hypothesis cannot be proven. As the lawyers say, no further questions.


Do you think a dictatorship would think twice before using much more aggressive methods to quell the Iraqi resistence?

I can also give you two examples - the Polish resistance and the French resistance.

[Jolt]

But the hypothesis cannot be proven. As the lawyers say, no further questions.



I can also give you two examples - the Polish resistance and the French resistance.

About the French resistence, it was done during the World War II. Were Germany never in the war, I can't see how would the resistence topple anything. As a matter of fact, they passed more time running from the Gestapo than doing anything else.

Polish resistence (Against what, the communists or the Germans?) If against the Germans, in peace-time they'd be crushed in a matter of hours (They were crushed even so), since the rest of the army would be readily available instead of being off fighting foreign armies. Against the communists it was a peaceful movement. Had it used weapons it would have been swiftly crushed.

[Ronin]

But the hypothesis cannot be proven. As the lawyers say, no further questions.



I´m gonna quote my own post to make this as clear as possible

"So if for example you are in a bar and some drunken fool tries to start a fight with you..you would rather him have a gun than not?

I would rather he had no gun and tried to take a swing at me.....I´m not so sure a person in such a condition would "think twice" before pulling a gun."

In my "hypothesis" all I did was describe 2 possible scenarios and ask which one you would rather be in..

this does not require statistics or any other kind of proof to support it....it only requires you to answer honestly.

so?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Acording to CR's concept of freedom, I am led to believe that it is even ridiculous that you have to register firearms. How dare the government keep track of how much firearms he has.
That's not the point. Why don't we see daily massacres using the registered "destructive devices"? Because if you're going to waste some rival gang, it's far cheaper to get a pistol illegally and it doesn't put you in the headlights of a witchhunt (the "RPG killer" would last maybe a few days).


True. But something tells me that if Anti-tank weaponry would be as readily available in market as there are Uzi's and glocks, something tells me the number of people being killed by those weapons would skyrocket. I certainly wouldn't be surprised in Gang Wars appearing the said Anti-tank weaponry as a means to do splash damage to the opposite gang.
It just doesn't make any sense. Criminals don't need high explosives (especially in light of how high-profile fun toys like RPGs would be). Additionally, full-auto Uzi's are already essentially illegal. Gangs still have access to them. Why would a new gun ban be any more effective?


Opposite to my argument? That's funny. My stance is that even pistols shouldn't be available as they are in the USA, although I can understand the basic logic behind having a firearm. My argument in this thread is that there are more than enough types of firearms in the USA able of protecting yourself (Pistols included), so its hard to understand the violent opposition unless you use some kind of out of the blue argument (To other peoples) like (WE NEEDZ ASSAULT RIFLEZ TO KILLZ TEH TYRANTZ!), to which I find odd. Thus they are defending that every citizen, regardless of mental health, ideals and or beliefs (Imagine Neo-Nazi's getting hold of sweet hot brand new Assault Rifles!) is viable to carry firearms which far surpass any limit of common sense I can establish.
Sorry, I got confused with another gun debate on another forum (:wall:). To address your argument:

Why do you need video games? Or leisure forums? You don't. However, assault rifles are already illegal (because assault rifles are full-auto military rifles), and semi-auto rifles are just not used in crime all that much. In my opinion, the (very) few deaths from semi-auto rifles are worth the freedom to have them - for any reason. Just like we accept the death of thousands in auto accidents every year. Because the freedom to have them - economical and otherwise - is worth it.

[Jolt]

That's not the point. Why don't we see daily massacres using the registered "destructive devices"? Because if you're going to waste some rival gang, it's far cheaper to get a pistol illegally and it doesn't put you in the headlights of a witchhunt (the "RPG killer" would last maybe a few days).

True, but even so registered weapons are used often to kill. By users who shouldn't have them because the rules for firearms sales is too loose.



It just doesn't make any sense. Criminals don't need high explosives (especially in light of how high-profile fun toys like RPGs would be). Additionally, full-auto Uzi's are already essentially illegal. Gangs still have access to them. Why would a new gun ban be any more effective?

Uzi's are illegal? That's news for me. It was surprising to see how easily those guys in the Columbine massacre bought them in the shop just across the street.


Sorry, I got confused with another gun debate on another forum (:wall:). To address your argument:

Why do you need video games? Or leisure forums? You don't. However, assault rifles are already illegal (because assault rifles are full-auto military rifles), and semi-auto rifles are just not used in crime all that much. In my opinion, the (very) few deaths from semi-auto rifles are worth the freedom to have them - for any reason. Just like we accept the death of thousands in auto accidents every year. Because the freedom to have them - economical and otherwise - is worth it.

I can't believe you just compared a leisure forum, to a firearm. That was awesome. Leisure forums can't be used to kill innocent lives (I think). I could live without leisure forums. I can also live without firearms. Even semi-automatic rifles isn't needed to protect oneself. There is no other purpose in a semi-auto rifle then there is in a pistol. It serves to kill and to protect oneself. You can kill much more with a rifle and you won't protect yourself much better with a pistol. Cars have other purposes besides killing. Though your arguments are the soundest I've seen in this thread.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

True, but even so registered weapons are used often to kill. By users who shouldn't have them because the rules for firearms sales is too loose.

No way mang. Show me some numbers.


Uzi's are illegal? That's news for me. It was surprising to see how easily those guys in the Columbine massacre bought them in the shop just across the street.
Full-auto would be illegal. I don't really know enough about Uzi's specifically to say.

Most firearms are not used for killing. Are they being misued?

Cars kill more people than guns. We simply can't get rid of either in the US, and another AWB won't change anything.

You say that the value of cars (the other purposes) outweigh the cost in human life they cause. Who are you to say that?

/sorry for the stream of arguments, there's just so many things I want to convey before going to dinner

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I can't believe you just compared a leisure forum, to a firearm. That was awesome. Leisure forums can't be used to kill innocent lives (I think). I could live without leisure forums.


See, this is why the argument is going in circles.

You said that the firearms should be banned because they weren't needed.

Atpg pointed out that you can't ban things because they aren't needed. That isn't some dumb argument, it's putting you back at square one. Your reply is that it's ok to ban things that aren't needed if they can kill you. Fine, now atpg can point out the zillions of other objects that can kill people effectively and aren't needed and you'll come up with some new reasoning. It isn't a ridiculous comparison on his part it's a poorly thought out or expressed argument on yours.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

so?

But it is irrelevant, and not a realistic or logical argument against firearms.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I´m gonna quote my own post to make this as clear as possible

"So if for example you are in a bar and some drunken fool tries to start a fight with you..you would rather him have a gun than not?

I would rather he had no gun and tried to take a swing at me.....I´m not so sure a person in such a condition would "think twice" before pulling a gun."

In my "hypothesis" all I did was describe 2 possible scenarios and ask which one you would rather be in..

this does not require statistics or any other kind of proof to support it....it only requires you to answer honestly.

so?

Answer this one honestly: Your sister's ex-boyfriend has threatened to kill her and you know for a fact that he is headed to her house. Would you rather she had a gun or not?

[Jolt]

No way mang. Show me some numbers.

What, you actually think most kills are from people who go off specifically to the black market to buy a gun to kill someone? Look at the Columbine Massacre, those guys bought their guns legally. I tried to look for numbers, but I have no clue where such American statistics lie. You can kill with a registered gun and not be found out.


Full-auto would be illegal. I don't really know enough about Uzi's specifically to say.

T'was a Tech 9 or whatever the name is.


Most firearms are not used for killing. Are they being misued?

What are they used for? Why do the USA have the highest death percentage by firearms if most firearms aren't used for that specific purpose they are built for?


Cars kill more people than guns. We simply can't get rid of either in the US, and another AWB won't change anything.

You say that the value of cars (the other purposes) outweigh the cost in human life they cause. Who are you to say that?

Not again... Ending this car comparison stuff, I'd guarantee you 90% of the deaths caused by a car are by accident. What about 90% of the deaths caused by firearms? Why the comparison? The government needs to do something about intentional kills. Heck, even the cars are modified so they are not as lethal as they are.
And I didn't say they outweigh anything. Dunno where that came from.

[Ronin]

Answer this one honestly: Your sister's ex-boyfriend has threatened to kill her and you know for a fact that he is headed to her house. Would you rather she had a gun or not?

I would not want her to have a gun....having a gun involved in the situation would just elevate the chance of someone getting shot...now wouldn´t it?

as for the hypotethical situation you just described....if I have prior knowledge of where this ex-boyfriend is headed couldn´t this situation just as easily be resolved by calling my hypothetical sister and telling her to leave her house and go to a safe place? and then calling the police and alerting them of the situation?

Cell phones are readily available over here, have great coverage, and most importantly, can´t be used to kill someone.

also...if I can borrow from my previous example....I am not concerned by a drunk guy in a bar brandishing a cellphone at me....

sounds like a win win solution to me.


Edit: Better yet...let´s leave behind this silly sexist example of the "poor damsel in peril".....
I live in an appartment in a major metropolitan area, I am aware that there is a small statistic probability of a bunch of hooligans crashing my door in and trying to kill me...I live with that idea, and I sleep very well, just like I live with the statistic probability that I might get hit by a car tomorrow walking across the street.
I don´t want a gun, I don´t need a gun, and I don´t think a gun would contribute to my safety or those around me, quite the contrary.

[Jolt]

See, this is why the argument is going in circles.

You said that the firearms should be banned because they weren't needed.

Atpg pointed out that you can't ban things because they aren't needed. That isn't some dumb argument, it's putting you back at square one. Your reply is that it's ok to ban things that aren't needed if they can kill you. Fine, now atpg can point out the zillions of other objects that can kill people effectively and aren't needed and you'll come up with some new reasoning. It isn't a ridiculous comparison on his part it's a poorly thought out or expressed argument on yours.

Thing is, guns kill effectively and people use them to kill effectively (Since there is no other purpose for weapons). I'm not so sure about the other zillion objects.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

What, you actually think most kills are from people who go off specifically to the black market to buy a gun to kill someone? Look at the Columbine Massacre, those guys bought their guns legally. I tried to look for numbers, but I have no clue where such American statistics lie. You can kill with a registered gun and not be found out.
I absolutely think that most kills are with unregistered firearms. Criminals do the majority of killing with firearms. Why would a criminal register himself with the police? And sure, you can kill with a registered gun and not be found out, but it really hurts your chances.


What are they used for?
Hunting, sport shooting, home defense, collecting, owning them because you think they're cool.


Why do the USA have the highest death percentage by firearms if most firearms aren't used for that specific purpose they are built for?
Do you know how many guns we have? You refuse to find statistics but you claim we have this or that death rate. That said, the far majority of firearms in the US are not used for murder.


Not again... Ending this car comparison stuff, I'd guarantee you 90% of the deaths caused by a car are by accident. What about 90% of the deaths caused by firearms? Why the comparison? The government needs to do something about intentional kills. Heck, even the cars are modified so they are not as lethal as they are.
And I didn't say they outweigh anything. Dunno where that came from.

Thing is, guns kill effectively and people use them to kill effectively (Since there is no other purpose for weapons). I'm not so sure about the other zillion objects.
Cars kill quite effectively, as the numbers show. More effectively than firearms, in fact.


I don´t want a gun, I don´t need a gun, and I don´t think a gun would contribute to my safety or those around me, quite the contrary.
No proponent of firearm ownership believes you should be forced to own one, to my knowledge.

[Jolt]

I absolutely think that most kills are with unregistered firearms. Criminals do the majority of killing with firearms. Why would a criminal register himself with the police? And sure, you can kill with a registered gun and not be found out, but it really hurts your chances.

I don't. If you can find the numbers I didn't manage to find, I'd give you reason. You aren't a criminal until you commit a crime. It wouldn't be hard to imagine myself in a situation where I legally buy a normal registered gun, and in some uncontrolable rage situation (Say some whacko murdered my entire familly to steal a car and I just so happen to know where he was taking the car to) and I grab my gun and go after him to kill him. In the beginning I didn't buy the gun with that specific motive. Thus how "criminals" use registered guns.


Hunting, sport shooting, home defense, collecting, owning them because you think they're cool.

Since I don't know personally how the gun culture is in the USA, I'll just have to presume you're right.



Do you know how many guns we have? You refuse to find statistics but you claim we have this or that death rate. That said, the far majority of firearms in the US are not used for murder.

I didn't refuse. I tried but I just couldn't get what I was looking for since I didn't know where to look. I wasn't gonna spend two hours looking for some numbers about a foreign country's registrated weapons percentage in all homicides, especially when most graphics talk about the total of murders or give or divisions when characterizing the total murder rate, to prove I'm right.



Cars kill quite effectively, as the numbers show. More effectively than firearms, in fact.

...*facepalm* I'm not sure if you understood my point, but I won't even try this time.

Anyways, already made my opinion crystal clear. I find useless the legalization of assault rifles as they bring no security for possible more insecurity, when compared to ordinary pistols and firearms.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

From the FBI, homicides in the US in '05 was ~14k, 10k involving firearms.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html

According to a survey in '04, there are 93 firearms per 100 Americans. (Obviously that doesn't mean that 93/100 Americans own firearms).

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/13/1/15

Lets say both figures are right, and have held basically stable until today. There are ~305M Americans.

So let's say there are .93 * 305M = 283,000,000 firearms in the US (rounding down a bit).

Let's also say that every firearm-related murder was done with a separate firearm.

10,000 firearm homicides / 283,000,000 firearms = .000035 = .0035 % of firearms were used for homicide.

Are 99.0065% of firearms being used incorrectly?

[Jolt]

Jesus, 10000 dead in a single year? That's huge. Of course most weaponry aren't being used to kill, but they are used to kill. Noone expected anything near 1% of USA population killed by firearms and 10000 is a gargantuan number nonetheless. Yet don't forget it isn't just about murder, it is about wounds and violent crime. As far as only murder numbers go, 10000 kills in 365 days is brutal. That's 27 people per day, rounded down.

[Major Robert Dump]

Yeah but most of those are in Baltimore, St Louis and Lawton, Oklahoma, so it's okay.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Jesus, 10000 dead in a single year? That's huge. Of course most weaponry aren't being used to kill, but they are used to kill. Noone expected anything near 1% of USA population killed by firearms and 10000 is a gargantuan number nonetheless. Yet don't forget it isn't just about murder, it is about wounds and violent crime. As far as only murder numbers go, 10000 kills in 365 days is brutal. That's 27 people per day, rounded down.

It depends how you look at the number. How many die in, say...car accidents (~;)) every year?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

US fatalities from auto accidents in '07 was ~41k.

10k isn't all that much when you have 305,000,000 people Jolt. Tragic, sure, but the price we pay.

[Jolt]

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

US fatalities from auto accidents in '07 was ~41k.

10k isn't all that much when you have 305,000,000 people Jolt. Tragic, sure, but the price we pay.

It is when you compare it to death per population. In the USA, 10000 deaths in a population of 305.000.000 gives you 1 death per 30500 people, while in Canada, using their death by firearms of 2005, which was 816 (Rounded it to 800), in a population of 33.000.000 gives you 1 death per 41250 people. I'm pretty sure USA's higher than most developed countries. That is why it is a garguantuan value. You have a higher chance of getting killed in the USA by firearms than elsewhere. And its a price you're apparently willing to pay.

EDIT: In the accidents in the USA, there is one death per 7439 people. In Canada, there is one death per 11785 people. As you can see, the difference between USA and Canada accident deaths is of 4000. In firearms murder, it is 10000. More than double.

It is not because cars kill more. They kill relatively the same in most countries. Its because firearms kills many more in the USA.

[Fiddling_nero]

From the FBI, homicides in the US in '05 was ~14k, 10k involving firearms.

That still doesn't take into account the statistic of how many firearms are used in self-defense, in a year that result in fatalities. Those that are not part of those numbers, as that is a murder statistic, not the justifiable shootings that occur.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Acording to CR's concept of freedom, I am led to believe that it is even ridiculous that you have to register firearms. How dare the government keep track of how much firearms he has.
Hell yes. Registration does nothing to lower crime and only gives the government information that it can, and has, both outside and inside the US, used to confiscate weapons.


True. But something tells me that if Anti-tank weaponry would be as readily available in market as there are Uzi's and glocks, something tells me the number of people being killed by those weapons would skyrocket.

What tells you this? The same voices that tell you about those hypothetical scenarios gun-grabbers always seem to be coming up with but never have any factual evidence of?


I certainly wouldn't be surprised in Gang Wars appearing the said Anti-tank weaponry as a means to do splash damage to the opposite gang.

Then you don't really know much about either.


Thus they are defending that every citizen, regardless of mental health, ideals and or beliefs (Imagine Neo-Nazi's getting hold of sweet hot brand new Assault Rifles!) is viable to carry firearms which far surpass any limit of common sense I can establish.

Hell yes. I hate nazis, but I hate even more the idea of a litmus test for rights.

You know, maybe some of the people here could come up with something other than fabricated hypothetical scenarios. They prove nothing.


I would not want her to have a gun....having a gun involved in the situation would just elevate the chance of someone getting shot...now wouldn´t it?

:jawdrop: :wall:

So the chance of the attempted killer getting shot is worse than anything else? The possibility of someone being shot - even if it is the criminal attacker - is so bad that the girl should remain defenseless?

Yes, her having a gun would elevate the chance of the attacker getting shot. That's good, because the other possibility is her getting killed. Now, it seems that you see using a gun - even in defense of an innocent person - as a moral evil, worse than injuring someone in the same way without a gun.

Now, is that correct? Why is that?

CR

[Crazed Rabbit]

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but this is from ABCs 20/20 from 2007. I don't like the packaging of the story, but considering its coming from what many consider to be a liberal network maybe somebody listened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ&feature=related

That's because John Stossel is awesome.

CR

[Major Robert Dump]

I read he caught a lot of flack from some of his colleagues for that story. Typical knee-jerkers.