Make up your mind, you GUN BAN HOPLOPHOBES!

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

Got any proof that over 3,000 people were killed by guns in the US in 6 mths?

And if so how many of those were ACCIDENTS?

Yes, all my earlier quotes about stats, more than 10,000 people each year die from gunshot wounds. So that is 5000 in 6 months. Accidents are actually part opf my arguement, and for that matter suicides as well. Take the gun away, the accident probably will nto happen (all the crap I said about innocent people dying)

Quote

That I don't agree with. Have any kind of proof? Most serial killers don't use guns. Most crimes of passion don't use guns.

i am not trying to solve the serial killer problem, it is relaitvely minor compared to the GUN problem.

Quote

Do you deserve to be mugged? If he was not breaking the law...then there would be no problem. When you break the law, you risk the repercusions. It's clear that jail time is not enough of a deterant.

no I do not deserve to be mugged, but you did not answer my question - does someone deserve to DIE (or be shot, suffer massive injuries, long term repercussions and probably permanent health issues) just becasue they mugged me? Sounds like Saudi Arabia where they cut your hands off for theft.....

Quote

I say if they guy breaking in has a gun...He is up to no good. If you want to take away the home owners right to carry and have a gun...Well now the intruder can be more aggressive without repercussions.

Take away the guns from the good guys and now the good guys become easier targets.

Yes but my question was why did he carry the gun for a burglary in the first place - we already know he is up to no good. Does the burglar deserve to DIE (or be shot, suffer massive injuries, long term repercussions and probably permanent health issues) just becasue he tried to steal my personal property?

Quote

Hey, I am FOR responsible ownership. I am FOR training, I am FOR gun safes. I don't like the idea of an untrained idiot with a gun. But I like the idea of a trained law abiding citizen with a gun.

I do too, but I do not see America, manufacturers, or the NRA trying to put that sort of legislation on the table. Lots about defending your 'right' to own a gun, but not much about making the gun owners more responsible. If you have to take a driving test to drive a car, why not a shooting and handling test to carry a gun? Sounds fair to me?

And again, I think that would help eliminate the 'unwanted guns'. people would have to be more serious about owning one, knowing that they have to train to use it. That would help reduce the accidental shootings that i have a problem with.

Quote

Plus the Constitution grants us the right to have weapons. Like it or not, it was the fore thought of our fore fathers to give us that right for many reasons.

An armed man is a free man. An unarmed man has no recourse other than what the powers that be GIVE him. And the powers that behave a tendency to TAKE rights.

And that was a valid argument 200 years ago, but does not apply today. I asked in an ealrier post:
"If you ask the average gun owner why he owns a gun - will they answer 'because I am afraid that the government will commit genocide?' " (or in your case, own a gun becuase I might need a revolutiojn someday)

Do you really believe that you will need to overthrow the government in your lifetime? Are you going to keep a loaded gun in youe glovebox or desk drawer for that? silly

Quote

It would suck, but I would blame the friend, not the gun. Just as I would not balme the car that killed my friend.

You want to blame the gun.

No, I would blame the fact that he had the gun, and unsafely stowed. i would support the legislation that says he cannot keep that gun laying aroudn the house for kids to pick up. It is probably already in place, but since he never had any real firearms training, and no one bothers to enforce the law, then it is useless.

And if i regulated the guns a little more closer, made it a pain in the ass for him to own a gun, he might not have bothered to get it in the first place.

Quote

Ok for the sake of argument lets say you didn't drink...I don't agree, but lets just say.

You are telling me that NO ONE was drinking? That is utter bull shit.

You did not say 'drinking', you said 'drunk'. We were not, and i resent that fact that you might think i would be that careless with a firearm, given that you know virtually nothing about my firearms training, other than what i told you AFTER you posted that.

Quote

As for my training...Well you know I have a large chunk of training via Uncle Sam. Why should I not be allowed a weapon? Have you ever even SEEN me with a weapon? I don't treat them like toys...You don't see me shooting at the DZ EVER. And you never see me with weapons and alcohol at the same time.

I never specifically mentioned YOUR training. You are probably highly trained and I would have less of an issue with you carrying a handgun all day long if you want because of that. The major point of my debate is 'unnecessary guns', 'too many people dying from guns', 'too many idiots with guns', therefore making it a 'gun problem' which again I think America is in denial about.

TK

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

- does someone deserve to DIE (or be shot, suffer massive injuries, long term repercussions and probably permanent health issues) just becasue they mugged me? Sounds like Saudi Arabia where they cut your hands off for theft.....

Maybe I'm strange, but I don't have a problem with that. Might make another person think twice about mugging me.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Yes, all my earlier quotes about stats, more than 10,000 people each year die from gunshot wounds. So that is 5000 in 6 months. Accidents are actually part opf my arguement, and for that matter suicides as well. Take the gun away, the accident probably will nto happen (all the crap I said about innocent people dying)

I would not put suicides in there. I know more people who have attempted suicide by pills than by gunshot. And of the gunshot deaths only 1 was a pistol. Hell, I know more no pull suicides than gunshot suicides.

A person who wants to commit suicide, just like a guy that wants to commit murder is going to do it....Gun or not.

Now accidents...I can see people getting pissed about gun accidents. But more kids die from drowning than gunshot wounds.

You want to save more lives? Ban pools.

Quote

i am not trying to solve the serial killer problem, it is relaitvely minor compared to the GUN problem.

What gun problem? You only care about ONE form of murder?

Quote

no I do not deserve to be mugged, but you did not answer my question - does someone deserve to DIE (or be shot, suffer massive injuries, long term repercussions and probably permanent health issues) just becasue they mugged me? Sounds like Saudi Arabia where they cut your hands off for theft.....

My opinion....When someone breaks the law they loose many rights. If I get mugged and I can do it. Expect me to draw and kill him.

It's not like Sudia Arabia in the fact that his death would be while he was IN THE ACT, and in the act of stopping it. Not a punishment carried out after the fact.

Quote

Yes but my question was why did he carry the gun for a burglary in the first place

So he can be in a position of power if he has an encounter...You seem to think that he will not carry a gun if he thinks the homeowner does not have one...I disagree. I think he will carry one either way if he is so inclined to want to be able to control the situation. All you want to do is remove the chance of the victim being able to defend himself.

Quote

Does the burglar deserve to DIE (or be shot, suffer massive injuries, long term repercussions and probably permanent health issues) just becasue he tried to steal my personal property?

If he is in my house and does not leave when he knows I am there...YES.

I don't cry for a criminal trying to break the law.

Quote

I do too, but I do not see America, manufacturers, or the NRA trying to put that sort of legislation on the table. Lots about defending your 'right' to own a gun, but not much about making the gun owners more responsible. If you have to take a driving test to drive a car, why not a shooting and handling test to carry a gun? Sounds fair to me?

I am ALL about tests to prove you can CARRY. But owning a gun is in the Constitution.

So to make it clear...To own a gun. Nothing. It is a right.

To carry a gun a detailed back ground check and realistic practical test.

Now as for what TYPES of guns. Well I don't think most law abiding Americans need a full auto machine gun. Semi auto is fine by me.

Pistols are fine also.

Quote

And again, I think that would help eliminate the 'unwanted guns'. people would have to be more serious about owning one, knowing that they have to train to use it. That would help reduce the accidental shootings that i have a problem with.

Again I am all for education....I don't think it should be manditory to own one...Only carry.

Quote

And that was a valid argument 200 years ago, but does not apply today. I asked in an ealrier post:
"If you ask the average gun owner why he owns a gun - will they answer 'because I am afraid that the government will commit genocide?' " (or in your case, own a gun becuase I might need a revolutiojn someday)

It's as valid today as it was 200 years ago. Even if it is not the most POPULAR reason...It is a valid one. And it is the reason that it is in the Constitution.

Quote

Do you really believe that you will need to overthrow the government in your lifetime? Are you going to keep a loaded gun in youe glovebox or desk drawer for that? silly

Nope, I don't think I will NEED to. Nor do I hope I would HAVE to. But it is one of the reasons it is in the Constitution. And if I give up my gun rights, now.....What will my children's children do if ever the day DOES come?

Also...I was talking to a guy yesturday. He lived down South when the hurricane hit and the National Guard was called out...It took three days for the NG to be able to start security. Durring that time many people had their belongings ransacked by looters. He didn't. You know why? Because he sat on his rubble of a house with a rifle. Others had to sit and watch while people looted their property...The looters went around his house.

There is a very real application for owning a gun.

Quote

No, I would blame the fact that he had the gun, and unsafely stowed. i would support the legislation that says he cannot keep that gun laying aroudn the house for kids to pick up. It is probably already in place, but since he never had any real firearms training, and no one bothers to enforce the law, then it is useless.

There is legislation, and it is enforced. I know a guy that his ex wife called the police on him. When the police showed up he had a loaded gun next to the sofa. He told the police and they unloaded it. He had his 11 year old in the house. The DA pressed charges on him for child endangerment.

What a load of crap. That kid has his own pistol (Under lock and key), reloads his own shells, and knows more about guns than some cops. He is not interested in guns at all. He HAS one, so when you show him one he says "Oh, nice" and continues to play playstation.

Just like if I walked up to you and showed you my new Stiletto 107.

That kid is safer than most adults....But the DA is being an ass.

Quote

You did not say 'drinking', you said 'drunk'. We were not, and i resent that fact that you might think i would be that careless with a firearm, given that you know virtually nothing about my firearms training, other than what i told you AFTER you posted that.

Oh, so "drinking" and shooting is OK then? That is a dangerous attitude you have, and it reflects poorly on your "training" if you think its OK to mix alcohol and guns.

So my knowledge of your training before you told me was:
1. I know you hunted when you lived in Canada.
2. I saw an event that you were a part of, on property that you were manager of, when people were shooting while drinking.

That is not saying much for your training, and I suggest that THOSE type of situations (that you let happen and participated in) are breeding grounds for the very accidents that you scream about.

You are right about a few things:
1. It is attitudes about guns that are the problem. (But also the Anti-gun crowds attitudes as well).
2. Education is needed for an owner to be responsible.
3. Children should not have unrestricted access to fire arms.
4. The current gun laws need to be enforced stronger (Within reason and with common sense).

However we disagree on:
1. Fire arms themselves are not the problem, and restrictions on them are not the answer.
2. You seem to think removing guns will reduce crime...I don't. And we both can find source after source that show our side....So in truth, no one KNOWS.

TK, you are a smart guy and on MANY topics I agree with you....Just not this one. It might be due to the fact I was rasied in the US and you were raised in Canada.

My family is not "gun crazy". But my Father did teach me to shoot, about gun saftey and he taught me about being a responsible person.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

Maybe I'm strange, but I don't have a problem with that. Might make another person think twice about mugging me.

Really? What about the guy you get into an arguement with at the shopping center line about cutting in line? He takes a shove at you.....is your life in danger? Do you shoot him?

Do you realize that he has a family, wife, kids and life of his own? Or is it just OK to shoot anyone that threatenes you in any way?
Is this REALLY the society that you want to live in?

sounds pretty anti-social to me.

TK

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Really? What about the guy you get into an arguement with at the shopping center line about cutting in line? He takes a shove at you.....is your life in danger? Do you shoot him?

Do you realize that he has a family, wife, kids and life of his own? Or is it just OK to shoot anyone that threatenes you in any way?
Is this REALLY the society that you want to live in?

sounds pretty anti-social to me.

Your arguments sound pretty ludicrous to me. This includes the idea that all handguns can somehow magically be removed from society, all the way down to this one; that everyone with a gun will shoot anyone who threatens them in any way.

On this last one: 36 states now issue concealed carry licenses to citizens. None of those states have encountered any increase in shootings, or any problems with their gun carry program, sufficient to consider removing it. Believe it or not, people who are licensed to carry concealed handguns are trustworthy, and don't go around shooting people at the slightest provocation.

You run a nice parachute center, but you're really off-base here on guns.

Does everyone with a parachute seriously injure themselves making hook turns? Do you ban parachutes at your DZ, in order to prevent a few people from injuring themselves making hook turns?

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Really? What about the guy you get into an arguement with at the shopping center line about cutting in line? He takes a shove at you.....is your life in danger? Do you shoot him?

You're trying to be inflamitory. There is a big difference between a guy who shoves you, and allows you to walk away from a fight, and someone who is endangering your life whilest trying to mug you. You're proposing doing nothing? Not resisting when someone mugs you?

I'd venture a guess that those that qualify for a CCW won't allow themselves to be provoked into an argument like you've used as an example.

Quote

Or is it just OK to shoot anyone that threatenes you in any way?

I will use what ever force or take whatever action I think needed to protect my life. It may mean something as simple as walking away.

Have you ever been mugged?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

I would not put suicides in there. I know more people who have attempted suicide by pills than by gunshot. And of the gunshot deaths only 1 was a pistol. Hell, I know more no pull suicides than gunshot suicides.

A person who wants to commit suicide, just like a guy that wants to commit murder is going to do it....Gun or not.

Now accidents...I can see people getting pissed about gun accidents. But more kids die from drowning than gunshot wounds.

You want to save more lives? Ban pools.

Try not to discredit the entire argument just because I mentioned suicides. It was/is only part of the 'gun problem'

Pools have other uses in society, like cars. Guns only have the purpose of killing - what they were designed for. That is the difference and why pools should not be banned.

But while on the topic, when pool tragedies happen, we have no trouble enacting new rules to make the pool safer. building fences, stationing lifeguards, insisting on minimum training and parental supervision while using the pool, requiring insurance to cover the cost of actions for the pool owners. And yes even closing the pool (equivalent of taking the pool away)

No such things exist or are even pursued by the gun lobby.

Quote

What gun problem? You only care about ONE form of murder?

Did I say that? I thought the thread was about GUNS. If you want to talk about other forms of murder, then you can start another thread about that.

Quote

My opinion....When someone breaks the law they loose many rights. If I get mugged and I can do it. Expect me to draw and kill him.

It's not like Sudia Arabia in the fact that his death would be while he was IN THE ACT, and in the act of stopping it. Not a punishment carried out after the fact.

Die even for minimum crimes? If you can justify killing someone for minor assault (a violent crime), then surely we can justify executing them for the same crime after the fact. Does the crime become less serious just because it was completed?

Not my idea of a cool society. Have you ever been in a fight, any sort of physical confrontation in your life? Did you deserve to die for it? Would you, with a bullet in your belly - say "OK, I deserved that."

Quote

So he can be in a position of power if he has an encounter...You seem to think that he will not carry a gun if he thinks the homeowner does not have one...I disagree. I think he will carry one either way if he is so inclined to want to be able to control the situation. All you want to do is remove the chance of the victim being able to defend himself.

Probably more a reflection of modern times. 30-40 years ago, I doubt that many burglars carried any weapons, they did not need to. Society now has more people and MANY more guns. Increasing the need for it. Violent movies in the 60's depicted street gang criminals with switch-blade knives. Now they are depicted with UZI's. Just a reflection of what society really is. More guns, more violence, more neat ways to die.

I still say if the burglar had reasonable certainty that no one had a gun in the house, he would be less inclined to carry one. He is not there to kill, he is there to steal. Lots of bank robbers do not carry guns, they have no intention of killing anyone, the motive is robbery afterall.

Quote

I am ALL about tests to prove you can CARRY. But owning a gun is in the Constitution.

So to make it clear...To own a gun. Nothing. It is a right.

To carry a gun a detailed back ground check and realistic practical test.

Makes my point very clearly - everyone screams about their rights. No one screams requesting that they be held responsible for their actions. It is a reflection of a greedy society, same in Canada. Everyone has rights, no one has responsibilities.
The gun trhing was an amendment, an afterthought. At the time, it seemed liek a good idea. Today, it might be more prudent to 'amend' it again, adding something about your right to own a gun, and your responsibility to be trained, and realize that it is a deadly weapon, not to be taken lightly. Then perhaps we could put some tough laws on people who are not 'responsible'

Quote

Also...I was talking to a guy yesturday. He lived down South when the hurricane hit and the National Guard was called out...It took three days for the NG to be able to start security. Durring that time many people had their belongings ransacked by looters. He didn't. You know why? Because he sat on his rubble of a house with a rifle. Others had to sit and watch while people looted their property...The looters went around his house.

There is a very real application for owning a gun.

I agree, and a very rare one. Do I keep a defibrilation unit in the house in case I have a heart attack - most people cannot affford one. But it is a good idea, does not necessarily justify owning one. But I COULD have a heart attack at any time.

Another solution might be to reduce the amount of gun shootings, partly by reducing the number of guns out there, use the money society saves in health care costs, lawsuits, crime prosecution, prisons, internment, parole boards and staffing police and such and funnel that money into the NG or whoever comes out to help you when your house blows down in a storm.

But right now, we are pouring all of our money into punishing, we are still selling 9000-10,000 handguns a day in the country, and wondering why we have no social services to speak of.

TK

[Ron 10]

Quote

Try not to discredit the entire argument just because I mentioned suicides. It was/is only part of the 'gun problem'

Who is discrediting it? I just said don't put suicide in there.

Quote

Pools have other uses in society, like cars. Guns only have the purpose of killing - what they were designed for. That is the difference and why pools should not be banned.

Really, Guns only have ONE purpose? Funny I have had guns for years, and NEVER KILLED ANYTHING. Guns are a lot of fun, and I have never had to kill anything to have fun.

Guns also protect....I HAVE been in a situation where I was getting harassed and had a knife pulled on me. Just pulling the gun was enough to make them run..notice I didn't kill him? He was running, so I didn't see the need. Without the gun...I might be dead.

If he came at me...I would have killed him.

Quote

But while on the topic, when pool tragedies happen, we have no trouble enacting new rules to make the pool safer. building fences, stationing lifeguards, insisting on minimum training and parental supervision while using the pool, requiring insurance to cover the cost of actions for the pool owners. And yes even closing the pool (equivalent of taking the pool away)

No such things exist or are even pursued by the gun lobby.

There are laws about gun locks, child welfare laws...Last I checked the NRA TELLS people to use gun locks and not hand loaded pistols to toddlers.

Quote

Did I say that? I thought the thread was about GUNS. If you want to talk about other forms of murder, then you can start another thread about that.

You said guns are dangerous and kill people....That makes it so I can point out that more people are killed by blunt force trama than gun shot.

Quote

Die even for minimum crimes? If you can justify killing someone for minor assault (a violent crime), then surely we can justify executing them for the same crime after the fact. Does the crime become less serious just because it was completed?

No, not SENTANCED TO DIE...But if you get killed in the ACT of COMMITING the crime thats different.

Its about protecting yourself. If a guy attacks me and I can, I will end the threat. If that means killing him...OK. If it means getting ready to kill him and he runs like hell even better. The best bet? don't be in a place to NEED the gun, but have it incase you do.

Quote

Not my idea of a cool society. Have you ever been in a fight, any sort of physical confrontation in your life? Did you deserve to die for it? Would you, with a bullet in your belly - say "OK, I deserved that."

Its one reason I don't start fights. Have I been in them? Yes. Did I try to avoid them as much as possible? Yes. And if shot I would most likely say "OW!!!! This sucks!"

Would I deserve it? Did I start it? Then, Yes. That does not mean I would like it...But fair is fair. And like I said its one reason I don't start fights, or go places where violence is likely.

Quote

Probably more a reflection of modern times. 30-40 years ago, I doubt that many burglars carried any weapons, they did not need to. Society now has more people and MANY more guns. Increasing the need for it.

Or it could be thats just the way the world goes...40 years ago you could not say "toilet" on TV and Husband and Wife had to sleep in seperate beds. Today you can say about anything, and we show nudity and sex scenes.

Quote

Violent movies in the 60's depicted street gang criminals with switch-blade knives. Now they are depicted with UZI's. Just a reflection of what society really is. More guns, more violence, more neat ways to die.

Don't forget Video games that encourage violence...There is more violence today than in the 60's.....We had guns in the 60's. Guns didn't cause the increase in violence...That happend naturally.

Quote

I still say if the burglar had reasonable certainty that no one had a gun in the house, he would be less inclined to carry one. He is not there to kill, he is there to steal. Lots of bank robbers do not carry guns, they have no intention of killing anyone, the motive is robbery afterall.

Maybe in the 60's. But today they carry cause they can. Its not the guns fault...It is society that changed.

Quote

Makes my point very clearly - everyone screams about their rights. No one screams requesting that they be held responsible for their actions. It is a reflection of a greedy society, same in Canada. Everyone has rights, no one has responsibilities.

Oh I agree...Today Liberals have made it so you don't have to take responsibility for your actions...For example they blame the gun instead of blaming the guy who pulled the trigger.

They blame society for teen pregnancy instead of blaming the teens.

They blame Bush for not having a job instead of getting one.

Quote

The gun trhing was an amendment, an afterthought. At the time, it seemed liek a good idea. Today, it might be more prudent to 'amend' it again, adding something about your right to own a gun, and your responsibility to be trained, and realize that it is a deadly weapon, not to be taken lightly. Then perhaps we could put some tough laws on people who are not 'responsible'

You don't need an Amendment to do that. You simply "crush the nuts" of anyone that is violent...but liberals will say we are to hard on the criminals, and that it's society's fault they went bad...ect.

Quote

I agree, and a very rare one. Do I keep a defibrilation unit in the house in case I have a heart attack - most people cannot affford one. But it is a good idea, does not necessarily justify owning one. But I COULD have a heart attack at any time.

Big difference between the two.
1. Most can afford a gun.
2. The level of training is different.
3. You can't use a defibrilation machine when you are having a hart attack. You can use a gun to defend your home.

Quote

Another solution might be to reduce the amount of gun shootings, partly by reducing the number of guns out there, use the money society saves in health care costs, lawsuits, crime prosecution, prisons, internment, parole boards and staffing police and such and funnel that money into the NG or whoever comes out to help you when your house blows down in a storm.

But right now, we are pouring all of our money into punishing, we are still selling 9000-10,000 handguns a day in the country, and wondering why we have no social services to speak of.

Another solution would be to sentance to death anyone that uses a gun to commit a crime. That way you don't have to fed them, or house them long. And they don't learn in prison how to be better crooks.

I think the real answer is somewhere in the middle.

Make it harder for just anyone to get a handgun without training, and "crush the nuts" of anyone that uses a gun in a crime.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Have you ever been in a fight, any sort of physical confrontation in your life?

Yes. NEVER as the aggresor. ONLY ever in defense.

Quote

Did you deserve to die for it? Would you, with a bullet in your belly - say "OK, I deserved that."

No for the above reasons, and no, only a complete asshat would think they deserved to be shot.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Pools have other uses in society, like cars. Guns only have the purpose of killing - what they were designed for. That is the difference and why pools should not be banned.

You've made this argument twice now and I've got to tell you, it doesn't make any more sense this time than it did the last time. Why does it matter the intended use of the pool or the car. Fact is that more people die from auto accidents and drownings than do from gun violence. Is it death you're trying to prevent, or just people owning guns?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Guns only have the purpose of killing - what they were designed for.

You said that you own a few guns. Does this make you a killer? Who is it that you plan on killing? Why haven't you used your guns for their intended purpose yet and shot someone?

Just because guns were invented "to kill" hundreds of years ago, does not mean that we are forever locked-in to doing only that same thing for which they were originally designed. Since that time, firearms have evolved to become many other things; such as for many forms of sport shooting and for lawful self defense. To continue to view them as having the sole purpose of killing is incredibly incorrect. We are not forever bound to use an object for the same reason for which it was originally invented. Nor would it be correct to forever refer to it in that manner.

For example, bows and arrows were originally invented for the purpose of killing, yet today archery is a popular sport unto itself, without any aspect of killing in the practice.

If guns are "designed to kill", they aren't doing a very good job of fulfilling their purpose. The BATF estimates there are 250 million guns in private ownership in America. And the FBI tells us there are about 7,000 firearms murders per year. When you compare those two statistics, you find out that only one out of every 35,000 guns is actually used to kill someone. Actually, even fewer than that, since some guns are used to kill more than one person. Thus, 99.997% of all guns are not used to commit murder. So for every murder that occurs, would it be your position that the other 34,999 guns which were *not* used to commit murder, are being misused or under-utilized? And why are all these people buying guns that they never use for their "intended purpose"?

Some of the "killing" done with guns is perfectly legitimate, such as for hunting and vermin control. Self defense is also a valuable and lawful purpose. So just because it's "killing", doesn't mean that it is bad, as you seem to imply.

Furthermore, there are numerous forms of sport shooting, at various types of targets, which don't kill anything at all - they're just fun. For you to ignore all these types of gun usages, shows a lack of intellectual frankness in your arguments.

Parachutes were designed to save the lives of airmen who bailed out of crippled aircraft in war. Does that mean that when we use them just for fun, that we are mis-using our parachutes, and that there is something wrong with having fun with them?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Probably more a reflection of modern times. 30-40 years ago, I doubt that many burglars carried any weapons, they did not need to. Society now has more people and MANY more guns. Increasing the need for it. Violent movies in the 60's depicted street gang criminals with switch-blade knives. Now they are depicted with UZI's. Just a reflection of what society really is. More guns, more violence, more neat ways to die.

I still say if the burglar had reasonable certainty that no one had a gun in the house, he would be less inclined to carry one. He is not there to kill, he is there to steal.

Numerous studies show that the large majority of burglars are not armed. Burglars spend most of their time carefully selecting their target to strike when the occupants are not home. Why? Because they fear being shot. Prison interviews prove this. Only 13% of U.S. burglaries are to occupied homes. Of those 13%, the majority of the time the burglar is unarmed. Therefore this concern of yours represents just a tiny fraction of total burglary situations. And even in those cases that match your scenario, the homeowner is still out nothing from owning a gun he can't get to immediately - he just becomes no different from an unarmed homeowner, which is what you seem to advocate.

In Britain, where there are no guns in homes, *56%* of all attempted burglaries are to occupied homes. Thus, Brits are *far* more likely to face a violent confrontation with a young, strong intruder - because the criminals are not deterred by the threat of armed homeowners. That's a good thing.

Source: Kleck, "Point Blank - Guns & Violence in America". UK data from a 1982 British crime survey by Mayhew. US data from Bureau ofJustice Statistics National crime survey for 1985.

And here in America, with more guns than ever in circulation, violent crime has gone down 12 years in a row. Imagine that. There is NO correlation between the number of guns in society, and crime rates. So your phrase "more guns, more crime", is incorrect. If fact, the opposite is true, as shown by this news story:

MORE GUNS, FEWER INCIDENTS

In a little-noticed report, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) ays gun-related deaths and woundings dropped 33 percent in the United States from 1993 to 1997. During the same period, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) reports that the number of firearms in circulation increased nearly 10 percent.

o The BJS estimates that gun deaths and woundings fell from 143,795 in 1993 to 96,636 in 1997

o The decline continued in 1998, the latest year for which figures are available.

o The number of firearms increased from 216.3 million in 1993 to 236.5 million in 1997, and the ATF estimates that there are 250 million now.

Gun control advocates say new laws, such as the 1994 Brady Law, have had some impact on the reduction in incidents by keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or potential criminals. But the BJS survey reports that gun-related incidents had already begun to drop when the Brady Law went into effect. And gun incidents increased in the aftermath of the Gun Control Law of 1968, the first to limit who could buy or possess firearms.

Source: "Gun Conundrum: More on Streets, Fewer Incidents," Wall Street Journal, December 11, 2000.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The gun trhing was an amendment, an afterthought. At the time, it seemed liek a good idea.

Geez, you don't seem to exhibit much respect for Constitutional Amendments. Included in those, the first 10, are the "Bill of Rights". They include the right to free speech, the right to be free from warrantless search and seizure, the right to not testify against ourselves, speedy trials, reasonable bail, and so on.

How many of those other "afterthought" Amendments would you like to throw out while you are revamping the Constitution to your liking?

Quote

Today, it might be more prudent to 'amend' it again, adding something about your right to own a gun, and your responsibility to be trained, and realize that it is a deadly weapon, not to be taken lightly. Then perhaps we could put some tough laws on people who are not 'responsible'

We already have tough laws which put people in jail when they are irresponsible with a gun, up to and including the death penalty. What more would you like to do to them?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Another solution might be to reduce the amount of gun shootings, partly by reducing the number of guns out there...

There are countries with no legal guns and few gun murders.
There are countries with no legal guns and lots of gun murders.
There are countries with lots of legal guns and few gun murders.
There are countries with lots of legal guns and lots of gun murders.

And yet you conclude that legal gun ownership is the determining factor in the gun murder rate?

The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as some do to try and "prove" their point, one sees that there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership levels and murder rate.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

Your arguments sound pretty ludicrous to me. This includes the idea that all handguns can somehow magically be removed from society, all the way down to this one; that everyone with a gun will shoot anyone who threatens them in any way.

On this last one: 36 states now issue concealed carry licenses to citizens. None of those states have encountered any increase in shootings, or any problems with their gun carry program, sufficient to consider removing it. Believe it or not, people who are licensed to carry concealed handguns are trustworthy, and don't go around shooting people at the slightest provocation.

My reply was in a response to someone who thinks it is Ok to kill someone who mugs you (and by that i meant a relatively minor assault intending to steal your wallet)- so in that context, it is not ludicrous, simply asking how far are you willing to take it?

And if carry permits are OK, then I am all for MANDATORY training for all gun owners, which I have already stated would be a good first step in the right direction.

I do not advocate 'magically removing all the guns out of society' given that there are 10,000 more every day sold, but it is an idealogy and it is valid.

We stopped completely allowing and manufacturing three-wheeled ATV's years ago because they were dangerous. Over time, the effect was seen and the world is a safer place because these ATV's are off the streets.

Obviously, you cannot remove everyone's guns unless something happens at the manufacturing end to stop the flow of new guns into society.

It has to be a complete package, but I also believe tht it has to start somewhere. closing your eyes and denying there is a problem is plain silly.

I think the guns nuts and extreme no-gun leftists can meet somewhere in the middle and that the USA would be better off for it.
TK

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

You're trying to be inflamitory. There is a big difference between a guy who shoves you, and allows you to walk away from a fight, and someone who is endangering your life whilest trying to mug you. You're proposing doing nothing? Not resisting when someone mugs you?

I'd venture a guess that those that qualify for a CCW won't allow themselves to be provoked into an argument like you've used as an example.

I did not and I am not proposing no resistance to a mugger. I am stating that the mugger does not deserve to die for a simple assault. It is extreme. It validates execution for relatively simple crimes and puts us int he ranks of an uncivilized society, much like many of the third world countries - yet we position ourselves so far above them - how hypocritical!

Simple assault should not be punishable by death.

Fine take whatever you need to protect your life - but your life is not necessarily in danger if the mugger does not have a gun? You are in danger of bruises and scratches and maybe a broken bone.

Why not carry a can of mace - it would have the same end result, stopping the mugger. But you are worried that the mugger MIGHT have a gun - my basic premise for the entire thread - everyone is so afraid that everyone else might have a gun, yet no one feels that there is a gun problem.

TK

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

My reply was in a response to someone who thinks it is Ok to kill someone who mugs you (and by that i meant a relatively minor assault intending to steal your wallet)- so in that context, it is not ludicrous, simply asking how far are you willing to take it?

When you are being mugged, you don't know how far the attacker is going to go, and how much damage you might receive from him. And you certainly shouldn't put your faith and your life in the hands of a criminal, and trust him to do the right thing. All it takes is one blow or one stab to maim or cripple you for life. If the mugger doesn't want to be shot in return, then he should find a legitimate line of work.

Quote

I do not advocate 'magically removing all the guns out of society' given that there are 10,000 more every day sold, but it is an idealogy and it is valid.

It's a fairy tale. The genie is out of the bottle, and cannot be put back. England has more controllable borders than the U.S., and despite their gun ban and confiscation, they can't stop the black market supply of guns coming into the country, or being made internally.

Your ideology is only as valid as any other fairy tale, like Little Bo Peep or Little Red Riding Hood. Which is; not much.

Quote

We stopped completely allowing and manufacturing three-wheeled ATV's years ago because they were dangerous. Over time, the effect was seen and the world is a safer place because these ATV's are off the streets.

What changes to gun design would you propose?

Quote

you cannot remove everyone's guns unless something happens at the manufacturing end to stop the flow of new guns into society.

So if you were king, you would issue an edict to shut down all gun manufacturing in America?

Quote

closing your eyes and denying there is a problem is plain silly.

I don't deny there is a problem. But I'm not willing to throw out my freedoms to solve it. There is a balance between freedom and crime. More of the former may lead to more of the latter. But restricting freedom is not something I take lightly. And it should only be done upon solid proof that the restriction will actually reduce crime. Numerous studies have shown gun control laws to be abject failures at reducing crime. Thus, I'm not willing to give up some of my freedom, for nothing.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

No, not SENTANCED TO DIE...But if you get killed in the ACT of COMMITING the crime thats different

I fail to see the difference - someone is dead. And in this case the perpetrator in both avenues.

Quote

Its one reason I don't start fights. Have I been in them? Yes. Did I try to avoid them as much as possible? Yes. And if shot I would most likely say "OW!!!! This sucks!"

But yet you would defend that person's right to shoot you since he felt HIS life was in danger.....

Quote

Oh I agree...Today Liberals have made it so you don't have to take responsibility for your actions...For example they blame the gun instead of blaming the guy who pulled the trigger.

They blame society for teen pregnancy instead of blaming the teens.

They blame Bush for not having a job instead of getting one.

I do not see that as a Liberal problem - the Replublicans are not doing anything to make anyone any more responsible for their actions either.

Quote

Make it harder for just anyone to get a handgun without training, and "crush the nuts" of anyone that uses a gun in a crime.

smartest thing you have said in the whole thread....
TK

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I did not and I am not proposing no resistance to a mugger. I am stating that the mugger does not deserve to die for a simple assault. It is extreme. It validates execution for relatively simple crimes and puts us int he ranks of an uncivilized society, much like many of the third world countries - yet we position ourselves so far above them - how hypocritical!

What is uncivilized is forcing the public to be defenseless against attacks by criminals. Criminals deserve to fear for their lives for attacking an innocent person.

You're making way too much of the implications of self-defense. It's just that: protecting yourself from an attack. It makes no statement about anything else, like execution for trivial crimes, our or standing in the rest of the world.

Look at what is *the* best method of avoiding injury in an attack, below - do you see what method is at the bottom of the list?

Attack, Injury and Crime Completion Rates in Robbery and Assault Incidents:


Rates of Injury by Victim's Method of Protection:


Robbery  Assault

Physical force ............................  51%      52% 

Tried to get help or frighten attacker ....  49%      40%

Knife .....................................  40%      30% 

Non-violent resistance/evasion ............  35%      26%

Threatened or reasoned with attacker ......  31%      25% 

Other measures ............................  27%      21% 

No self protection ........................  25%      27%

Other weapon ..............................  22%      25%

Gun .......................................  17%      12%


From:   Kleck G, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America", 

Table 4.4.

Source: Analysis of incident files of 1979-1985 National Crime Survey 

public use computer tapes (ICPSR,1987b).

Note:   Percentages do not total to 100% since any single criminal

incident can involve several different types of self-

protection methods.

[PhillyKev 0]

Your arguments are meritless.

A) I'm in favor of CCW and gun owner's rights.
B) I am opposed to the death penalty.

There's a huge difference between executing someone as punishment and killing someone in self defense to prevent bodily injury to yourself.

A) People have a right to defend themselves from unprovoked attack.
B) People do not have the right to initiate an altercation and then kill the person they accosted because they end up on the losing side of a fight.

Most, if not all, CCW holders understand this. Go poke around a gun forum sometime, and you'll see that there is an abundance of discussion on how to avoid needing a gun. Probably even more so than how to use one.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

You said that you own a few guns. Does this make you a killer? Who is it that you plan on killing? Why haven't you used your guns for their intended purpose yet and shot someone?

I never said all gun owners were killers. But I have stated and will state agin:

1. too many people are dying needlessly from guns
2. simple assualt, or burglary does not justify me killing someone for fear of my life
3. It would be good for society to liminate 'unwanted guns' and 'unused guns' since they serve no purpose except to possibly be used in a tragic accident.
4. training, and licensing should be mandatory, which would go a long way to reduce the number of guns (unwanted and unused) since people who were 'sitting on the fence' probably would not bother, while well-trained Glock-totin' individuals like Ron would be fine to carry one.
5. Society as a whole has a gun problem, whether it be social or physical number of guns, but reducing the number of guns would probably help.

We went after Saddam because he had weapons right? Disarm him right? did anyone stand up for his right to defend his country? I did not see any replubicans saying "It's just a society issue with Iraq - not a weapons problem" don't blame the WMD's, blame the guy who has them......

TK

[soilman 0]

Ron said

Quote

Also...I was talking to a guy yesturday. He lived down South when the hurricane hit and the National Guard was called out...It took three days for the NG to be able to start security. Durring that time many people had their belongings ransacked by looters. He didn't. You know why? Because he sat on his rubble of a house with a rifle. Others had to sit and watch while people looted their property...The looters went around his house.

There is a very real application for owning a gun.

tkhayes replied

Quote

I agree, and a very rare one.

I don't think it is so rare. Not at all. I used to grow canteloupes and watermelons in a suburban neigborhood which had a bit of a gang presence and a small to moderate crime rate. What kind of neigborhood? One where, every few months, I had to replace my mailbox, and so did many, if not most, of my neighbors.

While the mailbox was relatively easy to replace, my melons were not. I depended on my melons for life-sustaining calories, both in-season, and frozen during the winter. They were a main source of decent palatable fruit during the winter. Also, I don't think there was any other practical way to have melons grown in high-quality soil that was rich in high-quality, decomposing vegetable matter, and low in pesticides, and low in disease-transmitting, and heavy-metal-containing animal feces. Each season, I had several hundred melons growing in my back yard. Fencing was needed to keep dogs, owned by inconsiderate neigbors, from damaging them. The loss to rabbits (they eat the leaves and killed the young plants) was small. Smaller than the loss due to domestic dogs. But fencing the garden wasn't enough to keep out low-life humans. Neither was calling the police and explaining the problem, and explaining that I needed the melons for sustenance. I think that the police seemed to think that this was no big deal, and that I should simply apply for foodstamps, if my melons should eventually all be smashed.

At one point, humans started smashing melons at the rate of more than 1 a week.They would throw them against the side of the house. No, it wasn't monkeys. At this point, my sustenance, and life, was being threatened. I could easily have lost my whole crop to these lowlifes. If they were eating the melons, I might have been more understanding of their actions, like I was of the rabbits' actions, but their actions were intended to hurt me, not to provide themselves with something they needed to live.

One day a gang of about 15 youths appeared in the street and started yelling, and calling me names.

Normally, I think it is best not to give advance notice to criminals, about what kind of weapons you have to defend yourself. Why help them plan ahead, plan what to bring?

I think it is important to note that most criminals are lazy, lazy people. Unlike movie criminals, they don't usually have lots of people-harming skills, or work hard, or smart, to harm people or deprive people of things. They usually head straight toward those who they perceive as the easiest to pick on.

Simply walking out of my house while holding a firearm, caused them to instantly change from screaming, taunting, and name-calling dog-like animals, to rabbit-like animals running away at high speed. It also ended the melon-smashing problem.

I think this one appearance saved me several 100 canteloupes and a few dozen watermelons, over the course of a growing season, or two, and I think this kind of use for firearms happens much more often than you might think, tkhayes.

While I did not even need to point the firearm at anyone, I was prepared to fire it, fire it as much as law, public opinion, and my own sense of what is right and wrong, would permit me to fire it.

____________________________________
Animal husbandry may not be necessary. We can maintain soil quality, for plant husbandry, with green manures and cover crops.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

You said that you own a few guns. Does this make you a killer? Who is it that you plan on killing? Why haven't you used your guns for their intended purpose yet and shot someone?

I never said all gun owners were killers.

In message #107, you said; "Guns only have the purpose of killing - what they were designed for."

If that is their only purpose, then everyone who buys one must be out to kill someone or something.

Therefore, according to your theory, everyone who purchases a gun must possess the desire to kill someone. Since you have admitted that you own guns, then you must desire to kill someone. Who is it that you want to kill?

The other possibility is that your attribution about the purpose of guns is wrong. They are purchased by lots of people just for sport shooting - punching holes in paper targets, and knocking clay discs out of the sky. This would fit with your latest statement that "all gun owners are not killers".

Those two statements are a bit contradictory. You need to butch up and admit that the first one is wrong.

And it's hypcritical of you to advocate disarming others, while you yourself have a well-stocked safe full of firearms. If you truly believed what you were saying, that private possession of arms causes gun crime, then you should surrendur all of your firearms to the police. Put your guns where your mouth is!

[Kennedy 0]

There are so many criminological and sociological untruths and fallacies that I'm not going to spend the time picking them apart. I'm simply going to tell you that you are wrong.

Suicides don't count when counting violent crimes (against other people). If you count that, then you should count drugs and drinking in your violent crime total, as they are damaging oneself.

Removing guns would not remove the crime, and comparing other countries is invalid in this case.

Do you really believe anyone here thinks a man should be shot for cutting in line and then shoving you?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

1. too many people are dying needlessly from guns

We agree on this one. But the solution is not to take guns away from the people who aren't doing the killing. Punishing the innocent will not reduce murder.

Quote

2. simple assualt, or burglary does not justify me killing someone for fear of my life

You are free to choose your own options when faced with those crimes. However, the law in many states allows deadly force for those crimes, because you can't count on them only being "simple". No one can predict what a burglar's intentions are when he breaks into your house. You don't know if he wants just a VCR, or your life. You can put *your* life in the hands of a criminal if you want, but you have no right to demand that everyone else also do so.

Quote

3. It would be good for society to liminate 'unwanted guns' and 'unused guns' since they serve no purpose except to possibly be used in a tragic accident.

Anyone with an unwanted gun is free to turn it in to the police now. There are gun "buy-backs" conducted in many places giving these people an opportunity to get rid of any unwanted guns. If they want to do that of their own free will, that's fine. But once again, you have no right dictating to them what they should do.

As for "unused" guns, I wonder about your definition there. I have some valuable antique guns that are "unused". For some of them, ammunition isn't even available any more. Like an 1860 Spencer in .56 rimfire, and a Danish Rolling Block in 11 mm. You have no right telling others what they should do with their own personal property. If they want to dispose of their old guns, that's their business - not yours.

I have a feeling that you consider an "unused" gun to be one that is kept in the nightstand for self-defense. Just because someone doesn't take it out the range regularly and shoot it, doesn't mean that it is unneeded. It serves a function sitting there in the nighstand - it's on standby on the chance that it may be needed someday.

Are you advocating house-to-house confiscations? What about the 4th Amendment? Oh yeah, I forgot, you think those pesky Bill of Rights Amendments are just trivial "afterthoughts"...