Ian84 0 #126 January 23, 2004 QuoteNo U.S. state has banned handguns outright. But one U.S. city has done so: Washington, D.C. And Washington D.C. has the distinction of having the highest murder rate in America. Couple of question. 1. What is the penalty for possession of a handgun in DC? 2. What city had the highest murder rate immediately before DC introduced its ban? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #127 January 23, 2004 QuoteThat means in the States making guns illegal to see what happens. . and then back again to see if it follows. ha ha - you first. Make them legal in your country. QuoteJohn's post here - The only logical conclusion you can reach from this mix of circumstances is that the mere presence of lawfully owned guns has no effect upon gun crime rates. That's likely the reality and where I was going with this. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ian84 0 #128 January 23, 2004 Quote and then back again to see if it follows. ha ha - you first. Make them legal in your country. Like hunting season........for humans Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #129 January 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteNo U.S. state has banned handguns outright. But one U.S. city has done so: Washington, D.C. And Washington D.C. also has the distinction of having the highest murder rate in America. Couple of question. 1. What is the penalty for possession of a handgun in DC? 2. What city had the highest murder rate immediately before DC introduced its ban? So now you're going to try and say that it's the lack of severe penalties that is the reason that the handgun ban in D.C. hasn't worked? Murder is punishable by death, or a life sentence. That harsh punishment hasn't stopped murder. Criminals don't consider the consequences when they commit crimes. It doesn't matter what the penalties are. They ignore laws, regardless, because they're criminals. Handgun sales were banned in D.C. in 1976. I don't know what the city crime rates were in 1975. Feel free to look that up if you want. If you have some point to make, just be out with it. D.C. should be a crime-free heaven on earth, according to the anti-gun forces. D.C. requires all firearms to be registered, all owners to be licensed, and prohibits the sale of handguns. It also prohibits anyone from bringing a handgun into the District or transporting a handgun through the city. D.C. has all the gun laws that anti-gun folks love. And yet it remains the murder capital of America! And despite all that, you keep clinging to the belief that there must be some explanation for this - like the penalties just aren't severe enough. This is typical of the anti-gun crowd. Each new law is met with yet more failure, which leads to calls for yet more laws, which leads to more failures, which... This vicious cycle has now put 20,000 gun laws on the books, and yet the anti-gun forces still insist that if they get just a few more laws, then suddenly gun crime will somehow magically cease to exist. It's extremely naive, and they never seem to learn a thing from this cycle. And each new law that gets passed, which doesn't solve the problem, is met with cries like; "We didn't go far enough - this just proves that we need yet more laws!" It's like a nuclear breeder-reactor; it's a self-feeding monster. At no time do they ever admit that any gun law is ineffective, nor do they allow any previous bad laws to be repealed. Thus, it is a one-way road to total gun confiscation, by a thousand small steps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ian84 0 #130 January 23, 2004 QuoteSo now you're going to try and say that it's the lack of severe penalties that is the reason that the handgun ban in D.C. hasn't worked? I probably would argue that, as it makes sense to me but for the purposes of my post it was just a question. QuoteIf you have some point to make, just be out with it. No, not really. Anything I posted on this topic was opinion and not based on facts and figures. You are obviously much more committed to your side of the argument than I am to mine. Your attitude towards guns is very different to what I've grown up with....so I question it to learn more about it. I'm not trying to get under your skin or anything........sorry if I came across that way For what it's worth. I have learned a lot. I'm out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #131 January 23, 2004 QuoteSo you would rather have a "heavily armed law of the jungle", than the "minimally armed law of the jungle we'd have otherwise"? The so-called "minimally armed law of the jungle" you seem to like, is one where only the criminals are armed, and the remainder of us are defenseless. That is not a desirable situation. It's a victim-rich environment for the criminals, with no deterrent effect. What I prefer is a situation where the responsible citizens are allowed to be armed in order to defend themselves against criminals. This ratio of armed people suppresses crime, because the criminals aren't stupid, and don't want to risk getting shot by their targeted victims. So it has two benefits; allowing individuals to defend themselves so they don't become victims, and; lowering the level of crime overall. QuoteWhat about this helpless victim, shot by the gun owner you are defending? What about his rights? Rather than trivialize them as statistically rare, please explain how you rationalize his rights being less important. Statistics are important. If you are being attacked, and have a 95% chance of being seriously injured, and defending yourself with a gun only creates a .5% chance that an innocent bystander will be hurt in the process, then shooting in self-defense is the correct thing to do. An innocent bystander with a very minimal chance of harm, does not have the right to insist that I die in order to preserve his complete safety. Take the case of those passengers on that 9/11 flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. According to your philosoply, they should have stayed in their seats and done nothing, because acting in self defense might have caused innocent passengers to be harmed. Yet by rallying behind the cry of "Let's Roll!", they prevented that plane from being used as a missile against a ground target, and prevented the deaths of many more people. You have a choice; you can let the criminals do what they want, or you can fight them. I prefer to fight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #132 January 23, 2004 QuoteThe gun owner did not have to draw his weapon, when he could have fled the attack... He is clearly not a responsible gun owner... These facts are not in evidence, so you shouldn't jump to conclusions against him. QuoteCould he have been screened in some way to pick up a disposition/temperment unsuitable for ownership? Oh boy, a psychological profiling requirement for gun ownership! Yeah, the anti-gun crowd would love that one. And they would like to pick the psychological screening board too. If someone has a bad temperment, it usually doesn't take long for a criminal record to develop. And once it does, then they are forbidden from owning guns. We should not preclude people from owning guns, based upon some witchcraft crystal ball predictions of what "might" happen in the future. That's not the way to treat free people with respect. QuoteOther than simply wanting to carry a handgun, did he have any particular verifiable need? "Need" should not be a requirement. That implies that someone else gets to decide for me. And I don't trust whoever the government will appoint to make that decision. In a free society, we get to buy and use all kinds of things that we don't really "need". Even many dangerous things that kill lots of people, like motorcycles, boats, chainsaws and parachutes. If we were only allowed to own things that we "need", it would be a very dull world. In a free society, we should be allowed to own things simply because we "want" them. Many child molesters use their computers to cruise the internet looking for innocent young victims which they subsequently harm. Seeing as how computers can create this terrible harm to society, and seeing as how you don't really "need" the computer you are staring at right now - sign off immediately! Get rid of it! Save the children! P.S. We're still waiting for you to come forth and present your proposals on what you think should be done with gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #133 January 23, 2004 QuoteWhat about the "taxpayers and citizens" that end up lying dead in the street through someone else's carelessness? What about their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? The police accidentally kill innocent people now and then in the process of doing their law enforcement. Does this philosophy of yours mean that you believe we should do away with the police, in order to save those innocents? You see, the situation with armed citizens is no different. If you do away with armed citizens, or armed police officers, you'll actually end up with more people getting hurt. No system is perfect. Allowing people to defend themselves against bad guys, despite occassional bad side effects, is still the best option that we have. QuoteSo, you don't want the government doing your thinking for you. So gun owners take the responsibility on themselves to think for everyone else (including innocent bystanders) that they may (and do) kill? Millions of people do it everyday, when they climb into their motor vehicles, and drive... Would you ban automobiles in order to prevent innocent people from being killed by drunk drivers? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #134 January 23, 2004 QuoteWhat about the accidental shootings? Somebody did the shooting. Somebody owned the gun. They are still a danger to my family. You're paranoia about people with guns does not give you the right to determine the gun rights for everyone else. Ralph Nader's paranoia about unsafe automobiles, does not mean that they should be eliminated and everyone should have to use public transit. No matter what measures you institute, there will always be gun accidents. Even the well-trained police and military have them. This is not an argument to eliminate the right to own firearms. No more than about 30 skydiving fatalities each year is an argument to ban the right to own parachutes and jump out of airplanes. Accidental firearms fatalities declined to an all-time low of 700 in 1999, according to the National Safety Council, Injury Facts Report. This total, the lowest since record keeping began in 1903, represents a 13% drop from the previous year and more than a 50% decrease since 1989. We're already going in the right direction with gun safety. We're still waiting to hear you present your own ideas... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jkm2500 0 #135 January 23, 2004 John, Something that I have started to realize about the anti-gunners is that they will never get the point. It isn't about need. It is about desire. It is also about the spirit of freedom. For example I have no desire to own a motorcycle, they are dangerous. There is a great possibility that people will get hurt or killed by owning motorcycles. But we allow that to continue....why? because the desire of the people. The spirit of freedom. I could say that we should ban motorcycles, that would make the streets safer wouldn't it? Not really, those people that would have been riding motorcycles are now driving around in cars. They are still a danger to the innocent bystander. This argument could be used either for or against anything. But the bottom line is that by responsible use of firearms by EVERYBODY there would be no crime......why? well there would be no criminals(ok pretty far out there, but go along with me for a second). Problem is that it doesn't matter what you do as far as laws, the people out there that have no regard for them won't follow them anyway. To get to the spirit of Freedom. It was brought up earlier that we should worry about everyone's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I agree with that statement, however it doesn't make sense that by limiting my rights, you(the anti-gunner) are being concerned with my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. IMO I think that it is naive to even think that by banning guns we will be a safer society. There will always be those out there that are willing to circumvent the laws if the land in order to pursue their agenda. That means that if we ban guns, the only people that will have guns are the ones that wouldn't follow the law in the first place. Can someone explain how this is an incorrect statement? I didnt think so. Another point that was brought up was paranoia(I dont know if it was this thread or not). I want to point out that in a situation where you are faced with a loaded gun, all the laws of the land are out the window. You will revert back to the most basic law: instinct, fight or flight. Now, I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. Would you drive without putting on your seatbelt?The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #136 January 23, 2004 Quote[ Accidental firearms fatalities declined to an all-time low of 700 in 1999, according to the National Safety Council, Injury Facts Report.... Well, that's OK then. No-one will miss just a handful like that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #137 January 23, 2004 QuoteWell, that's OK then. No-one will miss just a handful like that. Of course 700 accidental deaths is horrible. But the point is that there are numerous other non-essential activities that people participate in that kill more people. Why the focus on guns except for a bias based on nothing but emotion with no statistical reason to focus efforts in that direction? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #138 January 23, 2004 QuoteWell, that's OK then. No-one will miss just a handful like that. The usual snide remark from the sideline, lacking in any useful content. In the U.S., the principal types of accidental deaths in 1994 were: Motor vehicles ........... 43,000 Falls .................... 13,300 Poison ................... 8,000 Fire ..................... 4,200 Drowning ................. 4,000 Choking .................. 3,000 Guns ..................... 1,500 Suffocation (gases) ...... 700 All other * .............. 14,500 ------ Total: 92,200 * "All other" includes medical complications, machinery, air and water transport accidents, and freezing. (National Safety Council, "Accident Facts", http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/af1998.htm) Guns are responsible for just 1.6% of all accidental deaths. If we should ban guns to prevent 1,500 accidental deaths, then we should also ban cars, buildings and ladders over five feet tall, poisonous substances, matches and flammable liquids, pools and bath tubs, and lastly, gluttony. That would save 75,000 lives per year! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #139 January 23, 2004 QuoteSomething that I have started to realize... I agree with your statement, and I just wanted to let you know that it was a very nice piece of writing, that reflected some thought. Thanks for the contribution! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #140 January 25, 2004 Gun News: The highly respected research firm Zogby International has conducted the first installment of its 2004 Zogby Values Poll, surveying 1,200 voters nationwide on issues that included firearms and hunting. Question: “Currently, 36 states have laws that allow residents to qualify for a permit to carry a firearm to protect themselves if they pass a background check, if they participate in firearms training and pay a fee to cover administrative costs. Do you feel this is a good law or a bad law?” Americans now feel this is a good law by a 79% to 18% margin. Support for right-to-carry is very strong across all precincts with better than 70% of those polled in virtually every demographic in favor of the law. Question: “Which of the following two statements regarding gun control comes closer to your own opinion? Statement A: There needs to be new and tougher gun control legislation to help in the fight against gun crime; Statement B: There are enough laws on the books. What is needed is better enforcement of current laws regarding gun control.” Voters nationwide believed by a 66% to 31% margin that there are enough laws on the books and what is needed is better enforcement of current laws. Question: “Do you agree or disagree the NRA is right to fight gun control legislation on both the federal and state levels?” Sixty-four percent of voters nationwide sided with the NRA in saying that the organization was right to fight gun control bills with 31% in disagreement. Question: "Do you agree or disagree that American firearm manufacturers who sell a legal product that is not defective should be allowed to be sued if a criminal uses their products in a crime?" Current members of the military and their families opposed this idea by a margin of 83% to 16%. Veterans disagreed with the idea by a lesser margin of 79% to 19%. Non-military respondents disagreed with the idea by an even smaller 68% to 30% margin. 68% of liberals and 70% of moderates disagree that gun manufacturers should be sued when a criminal uses their product in a crime. Question: "Which of the following statements comes closer to your opinion? Statement A: Killing wild animals for food or sport is an American tradition and an essential part of wildlife management. Statement B: Hunting is a cruel sport and should be outlawed." Ninety-two percent of gun owners and 73% of non-gun owners said hunting is a tradition and is essential to wildlife management. Five percent of gun owners and 20% of non-gun owners said that hunting is a cruel sport. Question: "Some states in America are being overrun with growing populations of deer, bear, or wolves. When this happens, which of the following do you feel is the best option to take? 1) The state should lengthen hunting seasons; 2) Non-lethal methods of control should be used; 3) People should learn to live with wildlife." By an overwhelming margin, 61% of voters in the survey felt that lengthening the hunting season was the best option compared to 18% who said non-lethal methods of control were better. Sixteen percent said that people should learn to live with wildlife. Source: http://www.olearyreport.com/ "O’Leary, Zogby, SMU’s Tower Center Zogby American Values Survey I - 2004" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #141 January 25, 2004 On the whole I support a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but reading the stuff you post makes me think more and more that some gun enthusiasts should never be allowed near a lethal weapon, or even scissors. The questions in that survey are clearly loaded.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #142 January 25, 2004 QuoteThe questions in that survey are clearly loaded. No, the topics are loaded, the questions seemed pretty straight forward to me. Do you have a better way to phrase the quesitons that would unload them?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gmanpilot 0 #143 January 25, 2004 Those questions are jacked up. Example: What state in America is being overrun with wolves?........none. I don't want anyone telling me whether or not I can own or carry a gun, but I would prefer that this O'leary or Zogby fella not argue my case._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #144 January 25, 2004 QuoteThose questions are jacked up. Example: What state in America is being overrun with wolves?........none. Tell that to ranchers, outfitters, farmers, and the like out in west this side of the Rockies. They're the only significant predator with no management system whatsoever in place. And I believe the question involved deer and another animal as well.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
