Make up your mind, you GUN BAN HOPLOPHOBES!

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

Then you should be advocating a change in the law, instead of trying to ban handgun ownership. And I don't think you would have a prayer of getting a law passed that would make it illegal for a citizen to shoot an intruder in their own home.

The extreme nature of your view is highlighted by this comparison of legitimate self-defense to illegal racial lynchings.

Ahem, I think I did advocate a change in the laws and I never said to ban guns. See previous statements about my 'ideology'

i·de·ol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-l-j, d-)
n. pl. i·de·ol·o·gies
The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

Completely valid as I have stated before:

Someone called it a fantasy:
fan·ta·sy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fnt-s, -z)
n. pl. fan·ta·sies
The creative imagination; unrestrained fancy. See Synonyms at imagination.
Something, such as an invention, that is a creation of the fancy.
A capricious or fantastic idea; a conceit.

Fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements.
An example of such fiction.
An imagined event or sequence of mental images, such as a daydream, usually fulfilling a wish or psychological need.
An unrealistic or improbable supposition.
Music. See fantasia.
A coin issued especially by a questionable authority and not intended for use as currency.
Obsolete. A hallucination.

An example of a 'fantasy' might be expecting a large magnet to suck up all the guns in the country.
The ideology is valid

care to comment?

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Oh yeah, I forgot, you think those pesky Bill of Rights Amendments are just trivial "afterthoughts"...

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


I never said any such things.

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


Your statement is right there in message #107: "The gun trhing was an amendment, an afterthought."

You seem to have forgotten your own statements in this thread. Please try to keep up

Except that someone added the word 'trivial' which I did not use. I love it when people change my words, then try to use them against me. Please try to keep up yourself.

The Constitution that you so staunchly defend also allows provisions for separation of powers and the ability for states, cities, and counties to make their own decisions on many matters. Hence the gun ban in DC may very well be totally Constitutional as a 'local need'.

TK

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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?

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


Puh-lease, dude! Talk about your inane example!

For one thing, THE LAW DOES NOT RECOGNIZE YOUR RIGHT TO SHOOT SOMEONE UNLESS YOU (AND ANY REASONABLE PERSON IN YOUR SITUATION) REASONABLY FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE OR A DIRE THREAT TO YOUR SAFETY.

No one would be justified in SHOOTING someone in your example. Case closed.

Why don't you show us that there is a statistically significant occurrence of this little pet situation you describe before you advocate banning guns as a means to address what essentially is not even a recognized problem?

Puh-lease yourself..... it is a real-life example - let me expand.

Here are several scenarios to someone cutting in line (anywhere):

1. He says fuck you and you say fuck you

2. He says fuck you and you say fuck you AND he shoves you

3. He says fuck you and you say fuck you AND he shoves you AND you shove back and he hits you in the face

4. He says fuck you and you say fuck you AND he shoves you AND you shove back and he hits you in the face AND you go down and he kicks you while you are down

5. He says fuck you and you say fuck you AND he shoves you AND you shove back and he hits you in the face AND you go down and he kicks you while you are down AND you now see that he has a gun in his waist

6. He says fuck you and you say fuck you AND he shoves you AND you shove back and he hits you in the face AND you go down and he kicks you while you are down AND you now see that he has a gun in his waist AND he pulls the gun holding it over his head.

7. He says fuck you and you say fuck you AND he shoves you AND you shove back and he hits you in the face AND you go down and he kicks you while you are down AND you now see that he has a gun in his waist AND he pulls the gun holding it over his head AND he turns to the crowd behind him, yells "get back!" and fires a round into the air.

8. He says fuck you and you say fuck you AND he shoves you AND you shove back and he hits you in the face AND you go down and he kicks you while you are down AND you now see that he has a gun in his waist AND he pulls the gun and points it at you.

9. He says fuck you and you say fuck you AND he shoves you AND you shove back and he hits you in the face AND you go down and he kicks you while you are down AND you now see that he has a gun in his waist AND he pulls the gun and points it at you and fires.

10. He shoots you in the back of the head after the first 'fuck you'.

My point is that you and other gun-totin' citizens will react differently in each of those scenarios. Ask yourself in which scenario would you shoot. Now ask other people and watch the 'bell curve' take shape.

Up to scenario #6 and even possibly scenario #7, your life may not have been in danger, the guy may himself been acting in 'self-defense' and been trying to diffuse the situation using his legally owned firearm to do so.

Back to my other related comment about a normal man, legally carrying a gun that may have had a bad day.


Sure in 8, 9 or 10, I would justify my OWN reasons to shoot if I had a gun. But some people would shoot at 3, 4 or 5.

What would improve the number of people killed in such a scenario? Certainly the 'ideology' about no guns. But more likely the idea of mandatory training, along the lines of not just how to shoot, but when to use the gun and under what circumstances.

same example for car accidents, bar fights, other social confrontations that we have every day.

BUT, if he has a gun, and if you had one in that scenario, then both of you had it for one reason. To defend yourself and the possibility that you might have to kill someone with it. Supporting my reasoning that guns were designed to kill.

TK

PS. I did not appreciate the comments earlier about the NYPD being pigs. Sorry, I have not gotten back that far in the posts yet. I have a lot of appreciation for someone who is paid to take a bullet and stop crime for less money than I am making.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

If someone killed you with a handgun or with a tire iron, would you care about the difference?

No I would not, but I did state that I am 6 times more likely to be killed by a gun that other sharp object - NSC stats.
TK

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

We don't want to use it, but would rather use it than loose all options permanently.

Unfortunately that's not always the mentality....or even *frequently* in some necks of the woods. There are many, many people who would love to use it and justify their actions later. Better yet, they would love to use it against certain classes of people more than others....which opens up another can. That being said, I still would argue for people's rights to keep their guns (without registration). Crimes that are committed with those guns should be prosecuted, whether it be the good-ol' redneck boy who shoots without thinking or the real criminal.

linz

Prove your cite, please. Just because certain people have problems with impulse control and projection of their phobias onto others does not necessarily mean it is true.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

You're contradicting your self here. You're trying to imply that assaults with a gun wouldn't have happened without a gun. But defenses with a gun, would have happened without a gun.

There is no such contradiction. The stats are what they are. Sure more murder would happen with other objects if there were no guns, but I believe that 'fewer' means 'fewer' and 'none' means 'none'. The rates of firearm murder would undoubtedly drop.

Are you advocating that the murder rate would stay the same in the USA with no guns? Murder rates are higher in the USA than other 'unarmed countries' That was stated earlier in the posts. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap
We are #24, but none of the countries we like to compare ourselves to in the gun debate (like, the UK, Canada, Japan, etc) are anywhere near our murder rate)

TK

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Were you not paying attention? He said "NEW YORK CITY, WASHINGTON D.C., CALIFORNIA" and so on. It has been tried here in the US, and it has gone according to (gun banners') plan

Were YOU not paying attention? - you can still get a gun in all those cities and places..... as stated earlier. It is just more difficult.

Except DC, where it is banned - but it seems that it is being challenged (your rights under the laws that you so staunchly defend) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,71750,00.html

I expect that DC has a different reason for wanting that - ie. Nations' capital vs. just trying to reduce crime. Just like no-fly zones and such. Still paranoid I think but WHATEVER.....

I tried to find some stats about 'accidental death' by firearms, but the NSC and other sites mostly use state-level numbers, so my work is not yet done.

I expect that while the murder rate in DC may be high (as it is in other cities), I expect that the accidental shooting rate is very low compared to similar cities.

TK

TK - you may want to go back and re-read the posts. He isn't saying that NO weapons are available in those places, he is saying that weapons were CONFISCATED after the legal owners registered those weapons. Re: Sullivan laws

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

No I would not, but I did state that I am 6 times more likely to be killed by a gun that other sharp object - NSC stats.

And would you be 6 times less likely to be killed if guns didn't exist? Or would you just be killed another way?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

We are #24, but none of the countries we like to compare ourselves to in the gun debate (like, the UK, Canada, Japan, etc) are anywhere near our murder rate)

And oddly enough, Canada has more guns per capita than the US. So please explain the correlation between murder rates and gun proliferation.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Sure in 8, 9 or 10, I would justify my OWN reasons to shoot if I had a gun. But some people would shoot at 3, 4 or 5.

And in all cases you would be wrong and held responsible for it. You cannot legally shoot someone if you participate in escalating a dispute to the point that it comes to that whether you started it or not.

If someone flips you off in traffic, you flip them off yourself, they come at you with a bat and you shoot them, you're wrong and will be held accountable. It doesn't matter who starts it, what matters is whether you willingly participated in an altercation or made every attempt to avoid it.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

And would you be 6 times less likely to be killed if guns didn't exist? Or would you just be killed another way?

I already answered that. Fewer, means fewer. I highly doubt that the odds of being murdered would stay the same - do YOU really believe that it would?

Can you support that with anything other than a gut feel? According to NSC, 11 people died in 2000 on 3 wheeled ATV's, whereas hundreds died in previous years when they were legal. So I do actually have some indication that removing the 'tool' will reduce the percentage. Not by six-fold, but certainly reduced.
TK

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I will re-state that the gun has a purpose of killing - I said it before and I will say it again - http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.silcom.com/%257Evikman/isles/scriptorium/firearm/handgonn.html where they refer to its usage in battle, and http://www.fnhusa.com/contents/tw_57x28system.htm where they discuss piercing body armor and soft tissue, and http://www.civil-defence.org/english/history/history.html where they discuss the history in terms of military and warfare, whith only half of one sentence mentioning 'sport'.

Actually no, they are designed to efficiently propel a bullet downrange. They have been USED to kill - big difference.

Quote

The gun is used relatively little compared to the uses of the other products that you state, so the stats are skewed quite a bit.

So the death of the child that drowns in that 5 gallon bucket counts less than the death of the child that was killed in a drive by shooting?

Quote

Not sure where you got those numbers, but they are 10 years old. More current data is at NSC's website http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm
and if you search you can find 2000 and 1999 as well.

I hadn't seen this site before, thank you for the info. I tend to go by the Unified Crime Report data, myself.

Quote

I am more 6 times more likely to be assaulted and killed by a gun that other sharp object. That supports your need for a gun, sure, But it also supports an argument to try and ban all guns. Not that I am advocating that.

That is more a symptom of today's society - 30 years ago the probabilities would most likely have been reversed.

Quote

Logic is flawed to say that a gun was 'required' to defend myself in that situation. again, I bring up the taser, pepper spray and a dog - many other non-lethal forms of defending yourself.

I would not say "needed" - but I would submit that a pistol makes a much stronger deterrent than waving a can of pepper spray at them. I've been sprayed before - been the aggressor in training exercises for MP's and the like. Sure, it hurts, but I was still functional and more than capable of dealing damage had it been for real. Taser can be defeated by a heavy shirt, in a lot of instances.

Another infobit that I read somewhere - I'll see if I can find the cite later. Roughly 25% of gunshot victims die of their wounds - roughly 60% of stabbing victims die before the ambulance even makes it to the hospital.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

And oddly enough, Canada has more guns per capita than the US. So please explain the correlation between murder rates and gun proliferation.

Back that up please.... I read that the USA has 250,000,000 firearms. almost one per capita.

I read that Canada has between 7 and 11 million, about 1 to every 3-4 capita. http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/GunsinCanada.htm

At least I try to put up my sources.

TK

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

And in all cases you would be wrong and held responsible for it. You cannot legally shoot someone if you participate in escalating a dispute to the point that it comes to that whether you started it or not.

The only thing done in all the scenarios by the 'victim' was 'fuck off and 'a shove'. I do not think that in 8-9-10 that I would be charged with ANYTHING. The assault started with a shove, then a punch, and nothing was done on my part beyond that to 'participate'

The situation is valid.

Quote

If someone flips you off in traffic, you flip them off yourself, they come at you with a bat and you shoot them, you're wrong and will be held accountable. It doesn't matter who starts it, what matters is whether you willingly participated in an altercation or made every attempt to avoid it.

No, but if they take a swing at me..... Wait, do I really need to write down the 10 escalating scenarios for the 'traffic scenario with a baseball bat' to make my point? I can if you wish, but it is getting to be a waste of my time.

In the scenarios I stated, it seems arguable that I 'participated' in the escalating scenario at all.

TK

[PhillyKev 0]

I'm sorry, I mis-spoke. They don't have more guns per capita. But they don't have drastically less. And no where near the difference in homicide rates.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

In the scenarios I stated, it seems arguable that I 'participated' in the escalating scenario at all.

Actually, it's not. And that's something that most CCW holders understand. When you are carrying a weapon you have a GREATER responsibility to avoid and withdraw from confrontation.

Quote

I do not think that in 8-9-10 that I would be charged with ANYTHING.

You're wrong. You would.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

Actually no, they are designed to efficiently propel a bullet downrange. They have been USED to kill - big difference.

I quoted 3 sources that back my definition, please quote some sources that back yours as to why guns were designed and developed in the first place.

Quote

So the death of the child that drowns in that 5 gallon bucket counts less than the death of the child that was killed in a drive by shooting?

I never said any such thing

Quote

That is more a symptom of today's society - 30 years ago the probabilities would most likely have been reversed.

I agree, and the fact that there are too many guns is at least part of that problem, hence the debate that we are having.

Quote

I would not say "needed" - but I would submit that a pistol makes a much stronger deterrent than waving a can of pepper spray at them. I've been sprayed before - been the aggressor in training exercises for MP's and the like. Sure, it hurts, but I was still functional and more than capable of dealing damage had it been for real. Taser can be defeated by a heavy shirt, in a lot of instances

I agree, but I also know that guns have been used unnecessarily in too many cases as well. While it may be the 'ultimate self defense weapon' and preferred for most people, innocent dead people have rights as well. Dead is dead, right or wrong, and unnecessary force is generally frowned upon by the same society that promotes gun ownership.

But we do not appear to be doing anything about it insofar as guns go.

Funny that someone mentioned the Eddie Eagle program from the NRA as a good solution. I have been in the USA for 9 years now and have never heard of this program, even though I am news-hungry, seek out what is going on and consider myself to be active in the community. When I see the NRA speaking on TV, I never see such programs brought to the forefront.

So again, i wonder why the NRA, if they want to meet their goals, do not promote some sort of mandatory training for gun owners as an everyday part of American gun-ownership.

Looked all over the NRA website for their burget - could not find it. I wonder if they spend more on lobbying rights than promoting safety programs.

TK

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

I'm sorry, I mis-spoke. They don't have more guns per capita. But they don't have drastically less. And no where near the difference in homicide rates.
____

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

this is getting pretty funny, thanks for helping me make my point.

murder rates: Canada has 0.01/1000 people, USA is 0.04/1000 people, i just showed the stats that show Canada has approxiamtely 1/4 of the guns per capita that the USA has.

Can I rest my case now on that point?
TK

[Ron 10]

Quote

Funny that someone mentioned the Eddie Eagle program from the NRA as a good solution. I have been in the USA for 9 years now and have never heard of this program, even though I am news-hungry, seek out what is going on and consider myself to be active in the community. When I see the NRA speaking on TV, I never see such programs brought to the forefront.

A person who is not in the USPA is not going to hear about the ISP.

I am IN the AOPA and I don't know of all the AOPA programs.

I know about the Eddie Eagle program even though I am not in the NRA..But I my Dad knows all about it since he has a gun and also has a grandson.

Quote

Looked all over the NRA website for their burget - could not find it. I wonder if they spend more on lobbying rights than promoting safety programs.

What about the USPA?

And if the NRA didn't spend so much on Lobby efforts...They would not need them since guns would be outlawed.

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

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

murder rates: Canada has 0.01/1000 people, USA is 0.04/1000 people, i just showed the stats that show Canada has approxiamtely 1/4 of the guns per capita that the USA has.

Can I rest my case now on that point?

Not unless you're going to contend that there are a bunch of murders in the US where the murderer is carrying several guns and murdering different people with them.

Canada has anywhere between 1/2 to an equal amount of gun OWNERSHIP per capita as the US depending on the source you look at.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

Not unless you're going to contend that there are a bunch of murders in the US where the murderer is carrying several guns and murdering different people with them.

Canada has anywhere between 1/2 to an equal amount of gun OWNERSHIP per capita as the US depending on the source you look at.

You make a statement and I provide numbers to defend my position, You nay-say that, then say you made a mistake. I again provide more numbers to to back my position and the answer to the question that you asked in the first place.

Now you change the question - sounds like evasion of the issue to me. Dodge, change, deflect and change the issue - did you work for GWB sometime? (sorry had to get that in there.....)

I have spent an incredible amount of time researching this and providing pretty accurate numbers to support my claims.

I am tired, and made my case, if you want to change the question everytime I answer it, then I guess this could go forever.

I will sleep tonight knowing that I made a good case here.

At least Ron and I came to some common ground on the issue some 100 posts ago. Cannot please everyone I guess.

TK

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I am tired, and made my case, if you want to change the question everytime I answer it, then I guess this could go forever.

Actually, I didn't ask you anything. You presented statistics and I pointed out how they are corollary but not causative. Then you posted more statistic again that are corollary, not causative. You're right. That could go on forever.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Were YOU not paying attention? - you can still get a gun in all those cities and places..... as stated earlier. It is just more difficult.

Maybe you need help following your arguments.

Jeffrey stated that registration has led to confiscation, even here in the US. You doubted him. He was, in fact, correct. He did not state that you cannot get a gun in those states.

California required registration of certain rifles, promising not to require people give them up later. Guess what? CA later outlawed those rifles, requiring people turn them in or become instant felons.

New York City did the same thing will all long guns.

How can you claim it is not confiscation?

Quote

I expect that DC has a different reason for wanting that - ie. Nations' capital vs. just trying to reduce crime.

So all men are created equal, except those living in our nation's capital?

Quote

I expect that while the murder rate in DC may be high (as it is in other cities), I expect that the accidental shooting rate is very low compared to similar cities.

It might interest you that DC and Chicago compete each year for the title of murder capital of the US. DC is one of the more dangerous cities in the country. Both cities have some of the most strict gun control laws in the US.

Quote

I tried to find some stats about 'accidental death' by firearms, but the NSC and other sites mostly use state-level numbers, so my work is not yet done.

http://www.packing.org/misc/LeadingCausesDeath_US.html

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

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

As I have stated earlier, the bucket has other uses - and it has never (OK maybe not never, but seldom, if ever) used as a murder weapon or a suicide. It does cause accidental deaths, but it is also used plenty more for it's intended use than a gun is for its intended use (self defense). More people die in car accidents, because more man-hours are spent in cars driving, than are spent with guns in self defense.

That depends on how you determine hours of gun use. If you were to count all the hours where a gun is in the home for self defense (24/7), and the hours that people carry guns (18 hours a day for many), your numbers would change. And remember, even if you restrict the number as tightly as possible, to uses only, there are still 2.5 million defensive guns uses each year. So guns have a place in accidental deaths, "but it is also used plenty more for it's intended use."

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

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

And using your 'facts about Washington', other large cities that allow people to carry guns, should have drastically lower crime rates since the criminals all know that everyone out there could be carrying, right? But they do not in fact.

Criminals, even if you are carrying, will simply target someone else. Few crimes are random I think - most are opportunity and are sought out.

Professional burglars do not break into my house because I have dogs. They will take the neighbor's house because they do not (and for many other reasons as well)

Do you have evidence for this claim?

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

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

So I doubt that we can accurately compare one country to another and blanket say that it does not work.

Quote

We also know that we have more firearms than similar countries. Simple comparison, simple results

So which is it? Can we make comparisons to other countries or not?

(I say no, but I am curious about your apparent double standard)

Quote

I have stated an ideology that "If there were no handguns, then no one could be killed by a handgun"

And if there were no cars, then no once could be killed by a car.

And if there were no bears, then no once could be killed by a bear.

and....

What difference does the tool make? Why attack the tool used when we should be attacking the cause of the crime?

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