tkhayes

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

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

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

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.

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? 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

I actually did not say that, nor do I advocate it, but it is still an ideology. Actually some dropzones do ban hook turns, and we most certainly have gone out of our way to CHANGE the sport with more training and knowledge and minimum requirements to do hook turns. Do we have a 'parachute problem' in skydiving? Yes, and I think people will agree, because we have so many fatalieis related to that. Do we have a 'gun problem' in the USA? Yes we do for the same reason. I am all for it - TK

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'. 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. 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 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. But the well-respected survey that says Americans use guns 2.4 Million times a year to defend themselves has also been widely criticized http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm with many flaws in the way and manner in which the data was collected. Burglar breaks into my house, I confront them and they run - I defended myself. Burglar breaks into my house, I pick up my gun and they run, now I defended myself from a life-threatening situation using my gun - therfore I need to keep one. 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. TK

I asked earlier, but did not receive the definition of 'violent crime'. I am sure that it varies from country to country, as do the way that the stats are collected and measured. So I doubt that we can accurately compare one country to another and blanket say that it does not work. One thing that we do know for sure is that more people die in the USA due to the use of firearms. We also know that we have more firearms than similar countries. Simple comparison, simple results Fewer guns, fewer gun deaths. No guns, no gun deaths Before you get all bent - I am not and have not advocated a gun ban in any of my posts. I have stated an ideology that "If there were no handguns, then no onecould be killed by a handgun" TK

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) TK

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I am saying - just like I would not expect a skydiver who had not jumped in 10 years to be able to properly react to an emergency. Nor would I expect a pilot do recover from or react to an in-air emergency after 10 years of no flight. The skydiver could jump yes, the pilot could fly, yes. The driver could drive, yes. But react properly in an emergency? I doubt it very much. Training has been my argument from the beginning of this thread - perhaps you missed that, so I will state it again. Could they shoot a gun? Yes, easily. Could they shoot it properly in a crisis sitation? I doubt - we are afterall talking about a dire, life threatening emergency right? Self defense is YOUR arguement, not mine. I am all for more training for police as well, and I NEVER suggested we take their guns away, nor that they do not need them. I am talking about average joe american who currently has the right to buy that gun, stick in their nightstand drawer and leave it there for 10 years. TK

Actually not apples and oranges at all. Not only did I talk about product safety recalls, I also mentioned NEW REGS, which seem to regularly go into place for other products, but not for guns. (seatbelt legislation, banned products, minimum standards for swimming pools and such) 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. Don't get me wrong, i am all for improvements with cars and driving as well. And buckets and swimming pools too. Actually I suggested twice that the NRA should be doing that if they are so adept at it. Is such legislation being lobbied by the NRA at this time? No. That is part of the hypocracy that I see with the organization. Their true intents are not what they would like us to believe they are. I do too - but my point was - if a better tool came along - one that does not cause death, would you be willing to trade in your gun for that? Would you be willing to amend the constitution to reflect such a change? Taser was just a suggestion.... I realize they are not perfect. Maybe if we all had tasers - more of the 'criminals' that we need to defend ourselves from would be wearing heavy leather coats in case they got hit. In Florida - that would make them easier to identify and therefore more information to 'assess' the risk to my life, my family and my property. TK

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

The Diallo debate is a whole other thread and I would hope that it would not expand here in this debate, but Kallend's point is very valid. The police said that reaching for his wallet, their lives were in danger. I wonder if they asked him for ID at his door when they knocked - probably why he went for his wallet. You and others have the right to 'remove the threat' when confronted with one. The officers threat was probably removed after the first couple rounds when he fell down. Shots fired after re-assessing the threat are arguably an 'execution'. 41 rounds, 19 hits, some of them in the bottom of his feet. You quote the legal definition of the word 'execution' when the context in which Kallend used it is a common use of the word everyday to describe an unnecessary death/murder (i.e a mob hit would be described as an execution, but does not fit your legal description either). The definition one way or the other does not actually change the arguement or the point that he is making. Murder would have been a better description. Sadly, they were acquitted. In your 'wallet, walllet, wallet' scenario, you still may very well have been shot, simply because they thought your wallet was something else. The point is still made and you have helped to make it. It appears that at least some part of society thinks that it is OK to shoot me with a knife, a wallet, a cell phone, or some other unidentified object in my hand, AS LONG AS they feel their life is in danger. When in fact their/your life is NOT IN FACT in any danger, and the fact that you do not know that at that time, simply makes you ignorant of that fact, but not justified in taking someone's life for it. (in my opinion) You suggested in the 'other' thread that perhaps we should change the laws - I am all for it - part of what I said time and time again - make people responsible for the action of shooting someone, even in self defense. If you shoot someone coming at you with a gun/knife, then fine. If you shoot someone coming at you with a cell phone (or reaching for a wallet), then you go to jail. Sounds pretty fair and accountable to me. I think I will write my congressman today. But in our current society, we do not see that happening, we mostly call them 'unfortunate accidents' TK

read my post #31, GWB lied and has caused the deaths of thousands of people. There is a difference. Some of the film is somewhat misleading - I am sure that some of it is not true. I am just as sure that a lot of it IS in fact, true. ALL of what GWB said about WMD's and the reasons to go to war is a complete lie.

And I did not agree either, and a large part of the country did not agree. However, I am sure that millions of people were in favor of the war after Colin Powell presented his WMD case in fron tof the world at the UN, and even I was partly convinced that WMD's exist, and while still not for a war, I at least could better understand the need for it. Now we know that all of that was a lie. Fabrications and false information. A statement that everyone agreed is SO wrong - I expect if his presentation was more along the truth about WMD's, that there would have been little or no support for the war. I do not appreciate being lied to by my government, even if I cannot vote. hmmm, I think that WAS the case Michael Moore was trying to make - Carlyle, Halliburton, the Saudi's, all the wealthy businessmen that need/want more power, more money, more of whatever it is that they want. Do they support the war? You bet they do. Complex conspiracy? Maybe not that complex at all. TK

you seem to continuing to take what people say and twist it into something else - but at least you asked it as a question. No one in this thread suggested that guns be taken away from cops because they make a mistake. but 'one is too many' is a worthwhile ideology when dealing with unnecessary death. As far as technology goes for bathtub drownings, what you suggest we implement would cost a fortune. But someday, and maybe soon, some bright kid comes up with a $0.25 technology solution. And then it would not be 'ridiculous' as you put it. So when you say someone sounds ridiculous, you pretty much try to discredit the entire arguement, when I can easily see simple solutions in the near future to help prevent bathtub drownings. We put microprocessors in toasters so they do not catch fire. 30 years ago that same solution was cost prohibitive and would have been ridiculous. But in fact the idea itself was not ridiculous. Maybe some people are just being narrow minded - how about that? TK

which kinda ties into my comments and thoughts about gun problems - and the problems with society that it is OK to shoot him if he 'threatened' them. All he probably had to do was to perhaps not speak good english - then misunderstand what they were tellling him to do, wave the knife a couple times trying to explain what HE is trying to do (in his native tongue) and get his ass shot off. Absolutely no reason to have guns drawn in this incident. And good example of how paranoid i think America is about things like that. We blame the cops, but could easily see some of my local neighbors doing exactly the same thing with someone in a field next to their homes. TK TK

Well, i always thought that GWB should be brought up on such charges - perhaps why he does nto want to testify in front of 9/11 commissions, and if he does, asks for it not to be sworn? Never said it was right or ethical - did say it is a matter of free speech that happens all the time. If MM is so wrong, then we have a civil court system that will resolve that right? TK

I find it hilarious that everyone thinks Michael Moore 'lied' in this case. He twisted it - not cool, but not really a lie. The headline was an actual headline from the paper - albeit from an inside letter, and the date was off by two weeks, which appears to have little relevance to the whole story or context in which it was used. So he took a headline and made it into a 'banner' to be used elsewhere. The information was real, not faked, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html GWB took fake information and tried to make it real. TK For fun, search Google on Michael Moore Lies - 573,000 hits George Bush Lies - 968,000 hits I though tthat was funny

wow - that's pretty harsh, afterall we DO have free speech and even if I am lying, I am allowed to speak and if I can sway votes, then so be it. TV Evangellists, politicians and worse do it all the time to further ther own agendas. GWB has lied to us, either intentionally or not about the WMD's, the war, and he is MOST CERTAINLY using it to sway votes. Does that make him a shitbag too? Personally I think so, and to a much greater degree, given that Michael Moore has not caused the death of anyone, but GWB has caused the deaths of thousands. Which is a big part of his arguement as well. He has a soapbox and he can use it. GWB has been using his at my expense for 3+ years now. I will GLADLY pay to listen to Michael Moore TK

I am having sooooo much fun with this - but it is Saturday and I have to work - so later TK BTW, I am right

If you hit him with the taser first, you would not need to woorry about the gun would you?

I will not admit it, no such thing. I think it better lies in between the two - prevention and cure. Obviously if we could prevent, then we would, and we do (smoking, diet, etc) When it happens, we have the cures. We need to put effort into both. Guns kill people (OK, PEOPLE kill people with guns) so we have punishment for that. But if we can prevent the crime in the first (or not even 'crime', but just 'gun related death'), then we have some obligation to do that as well. Using that line of thought, you might suggest we fight cancer with more cancer. And again, I do not believe that GUNS are here to stay. Or need to be. There are societies that do not have them - Japan, Papau tribes in New Guinea, and others. You attack my idealogy, but I stick to it. TK 400 years ago, we KNEW the world was flat. An idealogy set out to prove that wrong, and they succeeded - do not underestimate the power of good ideas. A world with little or no crime (probably because we actually take care of people so they do not need to rob and steal), little or no hunger, because we can easil;y grow all the food we need, and a world mostly free of disease, because we spent time on prevention AND cure. TK

We got rid of lawn darts didn't we? All of them - no where to be found. We also got rid of 3 wheeled ATV's, maybe there are still a few around, but eventually they will all be gone. 'Academic' just means that it is a possibility without expecting immediate results. I do not expect immediate results, but it is still an admirable goal and a given direction in which to move. - and I do not appreciate the comment being referred to as 'jerk-off' fair enopugh for most of it, some programs are in place - and many more ar eneeded. The NRA shoudl be leading the way - I do not believe that they are - sorry but I disagree on that. They simply state rights and do little to lobby legislation that might help to PREVENT crime in the first place. Laws that punish criminals are needed to , but they address the issue AFTER the crime has been committed. I did not specify on the hells of the tragedy. How about a month later - a year later - would you still congratulate that same person when they purchase yet ANOTHER gun sometime down the road - or would you say "what the fuck is that person doing with a gun?" Fair enough - first time ever in my life someone compared 'redneck' to 'nigger' and told me that they have the same effect. Could start a separate thread on whether or not it is offensive to anyone if you like. I use 'nigger' in my posts, but generally only as a sarcastic comment pointing out flaws in government and southern culture. Sarcasm is difficult at best to get across in print. But it is still sarcasm TK

I did not address it because I addressed it in earlier posts with my own stats. Any many of the countries you mentioned are apples and oranges with the USA - we are different, with serious social and violence problems - which by the way also need to be addressed as part of the 'gun problem'. We are supposed to be btter than thos eplaces - but we are not accorsing to you? Does that make you proud? Does that make you want to keep the status quo? Or try to improve the situiation and really BE the best? If I want to be a pilot - Ihave training 'forced upon me' but I do not get into a constitutional debate about it. If I want to skydive, or drive a transport truck, or become an FBI agent or join the military. Pretty obvious that if you make it voluntary, no one will volunteer for it, or very few. You disagree that we would be better off if everyone who carried a gun was highly trained in the use of the gun? Do you also disagree that if everyone driving a car was highly trained in the use of that car that we might avoid more car accidents? Oh yes, I forgot - to get my drivers license, I was also 'forced' to do some training - sheesh - how dare they! from the posts I entered above - search on accidental shootings and child or boy or girl and find some for yourself. I'll take the tire iron, if I decide not to fight, I will run instead. no one will die needlessly, but I cannot outrun his gun, plus I will probably have to protect the other people in my car as well. maybe the guy was having a bad day - ever give the finger to someone while driving? I have - everyone is entitled to have a bad day, I should not have to worry about whether the guy has a gun. Yeah - alll those news stories I posted saved LOTS of lives Somewhat yes, and when I go to Europe, or Canada, I breathe a sign of relief 'cause I do not need the fear nor the preparedness. I can spend my time thinking about more important things in life, like feeding hungry kids, educating the world, not spending my time 'preparing' TK