PDA

View Full Version : Busting the Myth: Firearms make us safe


wantafanta
20-08-09, 22:04
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tvsquad.com/media/2005/08/mythbusters-poster.jpg

Myth: Firearms makes us safe.
Myth Status: BUSTED

First some statistics:
It's very plain that there is a correlation between firearms ownership and
death from firearms. Put another way - More guns = more death.

States with the Five Highest Gun Death Rates
Rank / Household Gun Ownership / Gun Death Rate per 100,000

1 Louisiana 45.6 percent 19.58
2 Alabama 57.2 percent 16.99
3 (tie) Alaska 60.6 percent 16.38
3 (tie) Mississippi 54.3 percent 16.38
5 Nevada 31.5 percent 16.25


States with the Five Lowest Gun Death Rates

Rank Household Gun Ownership Gun Death Rate per 100,000
50 Hawaii 9.7 percent 2.58
49 Massachusetts 12.8 percent 3.28
48 Rhode Island 13.3 percent 4.43
47 Connecticut 16.2 percent 4.95
46 New York 18.1 percent 5.20


As you can see from that data that follow, firearms claim a
staggering toll that even eclipses the death rate of the current
Iraq war 7-fold (every year!). Firearms deaths amount to the equivalent of
refighting the entire Korean war every 15 months. Or the Vietnam
war every two years.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

2006 Firearms deaths total 30,896
2006 unintentional firearms deaths 642
2006 suicides by firearms 16,883
2006 teenage firearms deaths 3001
2006 firearms deaths South 13,826
2006 firearms deaths N/E 3,537
2006 drownings 4279
2006 Residential fire 2,704
2006 death by falling 21,647
Korean War 36,940
Iraq War 4,643

http://harvardmagazine.com/2004/09/death-by-the-barrel.html

Statistically, the United States is not a particularly violent society. Although gun proponents like to compare this country with hot spots like Colombia, Mexico, and Estonia (making America appear a truly peaceable kingdom), a more relevant comparison is against other high-income, industrialized nations. The percentage of the U.S. population victimized in 2000 by crimes like assault, car theft, burglary, robbery, and sexual incidents is about average for 17 industrialized countries, and lower on many indices than Canada, Australia, or New Zealand.

"The only thing that jumps out is lethal violence," Hemenway says. Violence, pace H. Rap Brown, is not "as American as cherry pie," but American violence does tend to end in death. The reason, plain and simple, is guns. We own more guns per capita than any other high-income country—maybe even more than one gun for every man, woman, and child in the country. A 1994 survey numbered the U.S. gun supply at more than 200 million in a population then numbered at 262 million, and currently about 35 percent of American households have guns. (These figures count only civilian guns; Switzerland, for example, has plenty of military weapons per capita.)

Though assault weapons have attracted lots of publicity from Hollywood and Washington, and NRA stands for National Rifle Association, these facts mask the reality of the gun problem, which centers on pistols. "Handguns are the crime guns," Hemenway says. "They are the ones you can conceal, the guns you take to go rob somebody. You don’t mug people at rifle-point."

And America is awash in handguns. Canada, for example, has almost as many guns per capita as the United States, but Americans own far more pistols. "Where do Canadian criminals, and Mexican criminals, get their handguns?" asks Hemenway. "From the United States." Gang members in Boston and New York get their handguns from other states with permissive gun laws; the firearms flow freely across state borders. Interstate 95, which runs from Florida to New England, even has a nickname among gun-runners: "the Iron Pipeline."

Hemenway has collected stories of self-defense gun use by simply asking those who pulled guns what happened. A typical story might be: "We were in the park drinking. Drinking led to arguing. We ran to our cars and got our guns." Or: "I was sitting on my porch. A neighbor came up and we got into a fight. He threw a beer at me. I went inside and got my gun." Hemenway has sent verbatim accounts of such incidents to criminal-court judges, asking if the "self-defense" gun use described was legal. "Most of the time," he says, "the answer was no."

Ask criminals why they carried a gun while robbing the convenience store and frequently the answer is, "So I could get the money and not have to hurt anyone." But as Hemenway explains, "Then something happens. Maybe somebody unexpectedly walks in, or the storeowner draws a gun. Your heart is racing. Next thing you know, somebody is dead."

Most murderers are not hired killers. Instead, killings happen during fights between rival gangs or angry spouses, or even from road rage, and leave deep regret in their wake. "How often might you appropriately use a gun in self-defense?" Hemenway asks rhetorically. "Answer: zero to once in a lifetime. How about inappropriately—because you were tired, afraid, or drunk in a confrontational situation? There are lots and lots of chances. When your anger takes over, it’s nice not to have guns lying around."

In the United States, suicide rates are high in states with an abundance of guns—southern and western mountain states, for example—and lower in places like New Jersey, New England, or Hawaii, where guns are relatively scarce. Nine case-control studies have shown that guns in the house are a risk factor for suicide. Firearms turn the agonizing into the irreversible.

People say, ‘Teach kids not to pull the trigger,’ but kids will do it," Hemenway says. In a 2001 study, for example, small groups of boys from 8 to 12 years old spent 15 minutes in a room where a handgun was hidden in a drawer. More than two-thirds discovered the gun, more than half the groups handled it, and in more than a third of the groups someone pulled the trigger—despite the fact that more than 90 percent of the boys in the latter groups had received gun-safety instruction.

Tihocan9
20-08-09, 22:40
I believe people are at fault here not the firearms. If people were more responsible and safe with firearms and only used them in dire need of defense then we wouldn't have this problem. But I do support gun ownership rights.

Mad Tony
20-08-09, 22:44
You can't just prove that guns don't help to make people safe as if it were fact. It's a hotly debated issue and it really does depend on who you speak to and where you go.

"Penn & Teller Bull****" covered gun control on one of the shows. I'm not gonna post a link to the video because of the obvious profanity but it's not hard to find on the internet. ;)

miss.haggard
20-08-09, 22:44
Havent you tried this thread in the past?

Edit - Most people know my stance on gun control but I must point this out. Out of your top 5 states, how many allow hunting? How many keep firearms to keep farms safe? Now how many out of your bottom 5? I dont think theres much hunting going on in HI, but thats just my opinion.

Nannonxyay
20-08-09, 22:49
Guns are bad, m'kay. And if you use guns, you're bad, m'kay.

I'm very on the fence about this whole gun business. I think people need to get a permit to own a gun, and need a police check to see that they're really going to only use it for protection. I think people shooting somebody just for being on their property without intention of harming them is stupid though. I would only ever use a gun if my life was in danger. If someone was stealing my stuff, and did not threaten to harm me, then I'd just step out of the way and let them go, then call the police. I'd rather them get away with it then live with the concious that I killed someone who had no intentions to kill me.

Unfournately though, people use guns for horrible things so I can understand why they would be illegal.

takamotosan
20-08-09, 22:53
I'm all for having permits, but the U.S. still has the 2nd Amendment.

Mad Tony
20-08-09, 22:58
Unfournately though, people use guns for horrible things so I can understand why they would be illegal.The worst part is that banning guns only stops law abiding citizens who will use them for self-defense from getting them. I remember watching a show about gun control once and they interviewed an ex-gang member and he said that the banning of guns doesn't stop him from getting them at all, it just stops people from being able to defend themselves against him. He also said that he never robbed houses where he knew the owners had guns. Figures.

miss.haggard
20-08-09, 23:01
The worst part is that banning guns only stops law abiding citizens who will use them for self-defense from getting them. I remember watching a show about gun control once and they interviewed an ex-gang member and he said that the banning of guns doesn't stop him from getting them at all, it just stops people from being able to defend themselves against him. He also said that he never robbed houses where he knew the owners had guns. Figures.

Exactly. What is the law abiding shop owner to do when they are getting robbed at gun point by a crazy gangsta home slice? Go kung-fu? Take the bullet? Or be able to defend himself?

just croft
20-08-09, 23:07
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Those who use firearms for negative purposes sure get them illegaly anyway so why bother with these articles?

Ward Dragon
20-08-09, 23:35
LET'S ALL SURRENDER OUR WEAPONS -- YOU FIRST!
by Ann Coulter
April 8, 2009

The rash of recent shooting incidents has led people who wouldn't know an AK-47 from a paintball gun to issue demands for more restrictions on guns. To be sure, it's hard to find any factor in these shootings that could be responsible -- other than the gun.

So far, this year's public multiple shootings were committed by:

-- Richard Poplawski, 23, product of a broken family, expelled from high school and dishonorably discharged from the Marines, who killed three policemen in Pittsburgh.

-- Former crack addict Jiverly Wong, 41, who told co-workers "America sucks" yet somehow was not offered a job as a speechwriter for Barack Obama. Wong blockaded his victims in a civic center in Binghamton, N.Y., and shot as many people as he could, before killing himself.

-- Robert Stewart, 45, a three-time divorcee and high school dropout with "violent tendencies" -- according to one of his ex-wives -- who shot up the nursing home in Carthage, N.C., where his newly estranged wife worked.

-- Lovelle Mixon, 26, a paroled felon, struggling to get his life back on track by pimping, who shot four cops in Oakland, Calif. -- before eventually being shot himself.

-- Twenty-eight-year-old Michael McLendon, child of divorce, living with his mother and boycotting family funerals because he hated his relatives, who killed 10 of those relatives and their neighbors in Samson, Ala.

It might make more sense to outlaw men than guns. Or divorce. Or crack. Or to prohibit felons from having guns. Except we already outlaw crack and felons owning guns and yet still, somehow, Wong got crack and Mixon got a gun.

After being pulled over for a routine traffic violation, Lovelle Mixon did exactly what they teach in driver's ed by immediately shooting four cops. Mixon's supporters held a posthumous rally in his honor, claiming he shot the cops only in "self-defense," which I take it includes the cop Mixon shot while the officer was lying on the ground.

I guess Mixon also raped that 12-year-old girl in "self-defense." Clearly, the pimping industry has lost a good man. I wish I'd known him. I tip my green velvet fedora with the dollar signs all over it to him. Why do the good ones always die young? Pimps, I mean.

Liberals tolerate rallies on behalf of cop-killers, but they prohibit law-abiding citizens working at community centers in Binghamton, N.Y., from being armed to defend themselves from disturbed, crack-addicted America-haters like Jiverly Wong.

It's something in liberals' DNA: They think they can pass a law eliminating guns and nuclear weapons, but teenagers having sex is completely beyond our control.

The demand for more gun control in response to any crime involving a gun is exactly like Obama's response to North Korea's openly belligerent act of launching a long-range missile this week: Obama leapt to action by calling for worldwide nuclear disarmament.

If the SAT test were used to determine how stupid a liberal is, one question would be: "The best defense against lawless rogues who possess _______ is for law-abiding individuals to surrender their own _______________."

Correct answer: Guns. We would also have accepted nuclear weapons.

Obama explained that "the United States has a moral responsibility" to lead disarmament efforts because America is "the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon."

So don't go feeling all morally superior to a country whose business model consists of exporting heroin, nuclear bombs and counterfeit U.S. dollars, and of importing Swedish prostitutes, you yahoo Americans with your little flag lapel pins.

On the other hand, the Japanese haven't acted up much in the last, say, 64 years ...

Fortunately, our sailors didn't wait around for Obama to save them when Somali pirates boarded their ship this week. Stop right now or I'll ask the U.N. to remind the "international community" that "the U.S. is not at war with Somali pirates."

Gun-toting Americans are clearly more self-sufficient than the sissy Europeans. This is great news for everyone except Barney Frank, who's always secretly wondered what it would be like to be taken by a Somali pirate.

Police -- whom I gather liberals intend to continue having guns -- and intrepid U.N. resolution drafters can't be everywhere, all the time.

If a single civilian in that Binghamton community center had been armed, instead of 14 dead, there might have only been one or two -- including the shooter. In the end, the cops didn't stop Wong. His killing spree ended only when he decided to stop, and he killed himself.

"The shooter will eventually run out of ammo" strategy may not be the best one for stopping deranged multiple murderers.

But it's highly unlikely that any community center in the entire state would be safe from a disturbed former crack-addict like Wong because New York's restrictive gun laws require a citizen to prove he has a need for a gun to obtain a concealed carry permit.

Instead of having Planned Parenthood distribute condoms in schools, they ought to get the NRA to pass out revolvers. It would save more lives.

COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=307

iamlaracroft
20-08-09, 23:41
The defense that "law abiding" citizens should be able to have guns is inherently faulty.

Everyone is a law-abiding citizen until they break the law. You cannot separate those who will break the law from those who won't. No one is afforded the unique quality of prescience. Statistics will show you that no one is exempt from breaking the law-- upper class, lower class, white, black, women, men, children, teens, rich, poor--doesn't matter. You cannot make blanket generalities and give labels like "law abiding" when the gender, race, age, regional location and criminal history of the next person to murder someone with a gun is unknowable.
Any person breaking the law at any given moment was previously (as in just a moment ago) a law-abiding citizen. Where is that line drawn?
Everyone who breaks the law was once a law-abiding citizen.

By the "law abiding" standard, I should have a gun.
I've ever been arrested, never had a ticket, not for speeding or parking or running red lights, nothing. I am the definition of a law-abiding citizen.
But who's to say I'm not going to go shoot up a near by school? Or whip out my gun and teach that ******* who just cut me off a lesson?
Or go blow my brains out?

No one.
Faulty logic.

Mad Tony
20-08-09, 23:50
Criminals will always find ways of getting guns, and pretty much all the time it's through illegal methods. So by outlawing guns you're simply stopping people who would only use them for self defense from getting them. The whole point of gun control is to reduce murders but what's the point when it doesn't stop criminals from getting hold of illegal firearms and killing people?

Lemmie
21-08-09, 00:12
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=307

Quoting Ann Coulter does nothing to convince me of the benefits of allowing people to own guns. Reading that just made me irritated, because as far as I can see Ann Coulter approaches issues from a standpoint of ignorance and outright hostility.

miss.haggard
21-08-09, 00:15
The defense that "law abiding" citizens should be able to have guns is inherently faulty.

Everyone is a law-abiding citizen until they break the law. You cannot separate those who will break the law from those who won't. No one is afforded the unique quality of prescience. Statistics will show you that no one is exempt from breaking the law-- upper class, lower class, white, black, women, men, children, teens, rich, poor--doesn't matter. You cannot make blanket generalities and give labels like "law abiding" when the gender, race, age, regional location and criminal history of the next person to murder someone with a gun is unknowable.
Any person breaking the law at any given moment was previously (as in just a moment ago) a law-abiding citizen. Where is that line drawn?
Everyone who breaks the law was once a law-abiding citizen.

By the "law abiding" standard, I should have a gun.
I've ever been arrested, never had a ticket, not for speeding or parking or running red lights, nothing. I am the definition of a law-abiding citizen.
But who's to say I'm not going to go shoot up a near by school? Or whip out my gun and teach that ******* who just cut me off a lesson?
Or go blow my brains out?

No one.
Faulty logic.

Well thats why we dont just hand guns out willy nilly! There are rules that must be followed of course.

Ward Dragon
21-08-09, 00:17
Quoting Ann Coulter does nothing to convince me of the benefits of allowing people to own guns. Reading that just made me irritated, because as far as I can see Ann Coulter approaches issues from a standpoint of ignorance and outright hostility.

I was trying to make the point that quoting articles doesn't prove a point to people who didn't already agree in the first place :p

Lemmie
21-08-09, 00:18
I was trying to make the point that quoting articles doesn't prove a point to people who didn't already agree in the first place :p

Oh right. Well you certainly made that point I guess. :D

Ward Dragon
21-08-09, 00:20
Oh right. Well you certainly made that point I guess. :D

Good then :D I spent an inordinate amount of energy trying to explain how statistics can lie the last time this article was posted (or something similar to it anyway) so this time I decided to take a different approach.

takamotosan
21-08-09, 00:22
I was trying to make the point that quoting articles doesn't prove a point to people who didn't already agree in the first place :p

I support her stance, but not for the same reasons. Ann Coulter is bat-**** crazy, but I agree with her point about that only 1 or 2 people would have died in the Wong incident had everyone had a gun, rather than 14. I thought she was spot-on in that regard. Otherwise, she was being abrasive for the sake of being abrasive cuz she's Ann Coulter and she just doesn't give a **** ;)

Ward Dragon
21-08-09, 00:25
I support her stance, but not for the same reasons. Ann Coulter is bat-**** crazy, but I agree with her point about that only 1 or 2 people would have died in the Wong incident had everyone had a gun, rather than 14. I thought she was spot-on in that regard. Otherwise, she was being abrasive for the sake of being abrasive cuz she's Ann Coulter and she just doesn't give a **** ;)

Yeah, I'm in favor of owning guns myself. Ann Coulter is more of an entertainment source than a source of knowledge, though :p

Edit: I mean, she's not trying to be an intellectual. She's trying to ruffle as many feathers as possible and sell her books with all of the publicity she gets from shock value.

Lemmie
21-08-09, 00:26
Yeah, I'm in favor of owning guns myself. Ann Coulter is more of an entertainment source than a source of knowledge, though :p

I'm finding it interesting how my hackles immediately went up when I saw you quoting Ann Coulter. I'm on the opposite side of the issue, but I think I made a gigantic assumption when I saw that quote.

I certainly don't find her entertaining though.

Ward Dragon
21-08-09, 00:28
I'm finding it interesting how my hackles immediately went up when I saw you quoting Ann Coulter. I'm on the opposite side of the issue, but I think I made a gigantic assumption when I saw that quote.

I certainly don't find her entertaining though.

I edited at the same time you posted :p I meant she's an entertainer, not an intellectual. She makes money off of ****ing people off and getting a reaction from the media.

takamotosan
21-08-09, 00:29
Yeah, I'm in favor of owning guns myself. Ann Coulter is more of an entertainment source than a source of knowledge, though :p

Edit: I mean, she's not trying to be an intellectual. She's trying to ruffle as many feathers as possible and sell her books with all of the publicity she gets from shock value.

Oh, absolutely. Though I do love hearing her view on things. It's always presented in the most offensive way possible, which is often-times funny as hell.

Ward Dragon
21-08-09, 00:40
Oh, absolutely. Though I do love hearing her view on things. It's always presented in the most offensive way possible, which is often-times funny as hell.

True. I think it's important for society to have a few really outspoken nonviolent people from all across the spectrum. Helps keep things in perspective :p

EmeraldFields
21-08-09, 00:47
True. I think it's important for society to have a few really outspoken nonviolent people from all across the spectrum. Helps keep things in perspective :p

Bill Maher FTW!:D

Melonie Tomb Raider
21-08-09, 00:48
I'm sure the numerous people who protected themselves with their guns would disagree. ;)
i
I love guns, have them in my household, and will have one of my very own when I move out. I'm very grateful that I have the privilege of defending myself in my country. :)

I love the simple saying: "Guns don't kill, people do."

takamotosan
21-08-09, 01:00
True. I think it's important for society to have a few really outspoken nonviolent people from all across the spectrum. Helps keep things in perspective :p

This:

Bill Maher FTW!:D

:p

I want to put them in a room together with a tv camera to film it :mis:

BATTLE ROYALE.

Ward Dragon
21-08-09, 01:02
This:



:p

I want to put them in a room together with a tv camera to film it :mis:

BATTLE ROYALE.

Oh, I would so pay to see that! Oh wait, that's what they want! :eek: :vlol: :D

wantafanta
21-08-09, 01:03
The defense that "law abiding" citizens should be able to have guns is inherently faulty.

Everyone is a law-abiding citizen until they break the law. You cannot separate those who will break the law from those who won't.

Spot on! Exactly.

Havent you tried this thread in the past?

... Out of your top 5 states, how many allow hunting? How many keep firearms to keep farms safe? Now how many out of your bottom 5? I dont think theres much hunting going on in HI, but thats just my opinion.

I believe I have posted about guns before - though not in the light of statistics. Whether or not a state allows hunting is irrelevant. The presence of a gun in the home is the operative variable. More guns = more firearms death - reason for gun ownership notwithstanding.

The worst part is that banning guns only stops law abiding citizens who will use them for self-defense from getting them. I remember watching a show about gun control once and they interviewed an ex-gang member and he said that the banning of guns doesn't stop him from getting them at all, it just stops people from being able to defend themselves against him. He also said that he never robbed houses where he knew the owners had guns. Figures.

An effective ban on guns in the US has never been tried. True, some municipalities have outlawed guns here and there. But they are then imported from localities where there is no ban. I.E. the "Iron Corridor" which channels guns from the southern states to the north. As the article states, the actual use of a firearm legally for "self defense" - is a very rare occasion.

I should like to note, that the non criminal deaths should be alarming in themselves. 16,000 suicides? 1,000 accidental shootings? I am sure that if we did refight the Vietnam war in the US every 2 years, the citizenry would be on the edge of a revolt. Why the same statistics resulting from from firearms on a house to house basis does not alarm the populace is a dirty shame.

I think we have become an nation of zombies who are not moved by violence. We see how a school gets shot up and 15 kids are gone, and two days we just throw up our hands and do nothing. If a law abiding citizen suddenly snaps and goes after his ex-girlfriend in her office building and 5 people are killed, it's just taken for granted.

As for gun control, I would much rather be lost in London or Tokyo after dark than in Chicago.

Ward Dragon
21-08-09, 01:07
Whether or not a state allows hunting is irrelevant. The presence of a gun in the home is the operative variable. More guns = more firearms death - reason for gun ownership notwithstanding.

Even according to your own article, rifles are very rarely used in gun crimes. Hunting is usually done with rifles. Therefore a high gun ownership in a hunting state might not mean the same thing as a high gun ownership in a non-hunting state.

I should like to note, that the non criminal deaths should be alarming in themselves. 16,000 suicides?

What's disturbing about that is the lack of effective mental health treatment for people who feel suicidal.

EmeraldFields
21-08-09, 01:08
:p

I want to put them in a room together with a tv camera to film it :mis:

BATTLE ROYALE.

LOL! Ann has been on his show many times.:p

takamotosan
21-08-09, 01:09
I should like to note, that the non criminal deaths should be alarming in themselves. 16,000 suicides? 1,000 accidental shootings? I am sure that if we did refight the Vietnam war in the US every 2 years, the citizenry would be on the edge of a revolt. Why the same statistics resulting from from firearms on a house to house basis does not alarm the populace is a dirty shame.


All we need to do to fix that is to get rid of Dick Cheney :p

miss.haggard
21-08-09, 01:31
^ LOL!

16,000 suicides? All with guns? If they didnt have a gun, and were dedicated to doing it, they would find other means.

Off topic - I was watching MANswers the other night and the most depressing music, that resulted in suicides was not heavy metal, or rap, ... it was country! They said the places with the most country radio stations also had the highest suicide rates. Just a little tid-bit!

I believe I have posted about guns before - though not in the light of statistics. Whether or not a state allows hunting is irrelevant. The presence of a gun in the home is the operative variable. More guns = more firearms death - reason for gun ownership notwithstanding.

Oh, I would have sworn on my chances of getting ice cream tonight that you have done a statistic type thread like this before... my bad I suppose.

Rileigh
21-08-09, 01:44
I am strongly opposed to gun ownership. Saying you have a gun for defensive purposes is like saying you are downing pints to be sociable.
Nevermind responsible owners and all that crap, it's a seriously flawed system.

Ward Dragon
21-08-09, 01:48
Oh, I would have sworn on my chances of getting ice cream tonight that you have done a statistic type thread like this before... my bad I suppose.

I could have too. It was actually about Capital Punishment (http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showthread.php?t=155384), but had the same format.

Dennis's Mom
21-08-09, 01:52
I am the definition of a law-abiding citizen.
But who's to say I'm not going to go shoot up a near by school? Or whip out my gun and teach that ******* who just cut me off a lesson?
Or go blow my brains out?
Faulty logic. [/I]

But this is faulty logic as well. The same things that keep you from shooting up a nearby school, or using a gun in an act of road rage are the same things that keep you from poisoning your neighbor's dog that barks all night, or launching your cell phone at the woman who called out your children for misbehavior, or keying your ex-boyfriend's car, or running over your ex-boyfriend (cheating SOB he is), or even closing your garage door and starting your car engine.

Sanity, common sense, self control. Owning a gun does not rob you of these things. It's not a cause and effect relationship.

Also, to point simply to guns vs. population is not enough. Look at the first five states. All are economically challenged and have other social issues that contribute. Of the second five only New York would seem to have a large economically disadvantaged population, and then only in a very limited area. It's no secret that economically depressed areas have more crime than areas of affluence.

Rileigh
21-08-09, 01:59
Sanity, common sense, self control. Owning a gun does not rob you of these things. It's not a cause and effect relationship.



Again, faulty logic, because anyone can start of sane, and in control and things can happen.. whatever those things may be.. and suddenly they are not the kind of person you would give a gun to, but it's too late for that.

And sure, if they really want to go out for some psychotic revenge, then they probably could find a way to do that, but a gun is like "here's a quick and easy foolproof way to get the job done, go knock yourself out, then if you want to, shoot yourself too"

Ward Dragon
21-08-09, 02:08
A person could do a hell of a lot more damage with a car than they could with a gun. Recently a woman got high, drove down the wrong lane of a highway and killed a bunch of people including her own kids who were in the back seat. That doesn't justify taking cars away from everybody. There should be reasonable restrictions in place for gun ownership, but it shouldn't be outlawed.

I actually wouldn't mind if they made it like getting a driver's license -- first you pass a written test on gun safety, then you get a permit to practice shooting guns, and then when you pass a shooting test you get a license to go hunting or carry a gun. I think that would work fairly well to ensure that the people carrying guns are aware of safety protocols and have the skill to not hit an innocent victim if they ever did need to shoot an attacker in a self-defense situation.

Melonie Tomb Raider
21-08-09, 02:10
I should like to note, that the non criminal deaths should be alarming in themselves. 16,000 suicides?

I suppose rope should be illegal as well, then.

EmeraldFields
21-08-09, 02:13
I actually wouldn't mind if they made it like getting a driver's license -- first you pass a written test on gun safety, then you get a permit to practice shooting guns, and then when you pass a shooting test you get a license to go hunting or carry a gun. I think that would work fairly well to ensure that the people carrying guns are aware of safety protocols and have the skill to not hit an innocent victim if they ever did need to shoot an attacker in a self-defense situation.

I bow to you, oh wise dragon.http://i29.************/34q4jus.gifhttp://i29.************/34q4jus.gifhttp://i29.************/34q4jus.gif

Rileigh
21-08-09, 02:16
^^ that would make more sense.

As for the thing about cars however, that is ridiculous comparing cars to guns. Sure, cars can kill. So can a tin of paint. So can a firework. But the difference is they were not made for that purpose. They were not made to kill, they were not made to injure.

iamlaracroft
21-08-09, 02:21
But a gun has no other purpose except to significantly wound or kill. It's intrinsic design is aimed (:p) at disabling, inflicting pain, and causing life-threatening injury.
Yes, a vehicle is a moving 5,000 pound weapon, and all the things wrong with that can be discussed in a separate thread all its own, but at least it has a purpose other than being a weapon.

Ward Dragon
21-08-09, 02:21
Target shooting is a sport. Guns have plenty of purpose aside from killing people.

miss.haggard
21-08-09, 02:22
I actually wouldn't mind if they made it like getting a driver's license -- first you pass a written test on gun safety, then you get a permit to practice shooting guns, and then when you pass a shooting test you get a license to go hunting or carry a gun. I think that would work fairly well to ensure that the people carrying guns are aware of safety protocols and have the skill to not hit an innocent victim if they ever did need to shoot an attacker in a self-defense situation.

BOOM! Right there. Throw a background check in there and were golden. Or shall I say... gun metal grey :p Ok that was lame.

EDIT - Along with target shooting is the simple gun collecting. Historic guns are always a fascination. Bro has a M1 Garand used in WW2, I think that is very cool to own a piece of history.

Melonie Tomb Raider
21-08-09, 02:25
Target shooting is a sport. Guns have plenty of purpose aside from killing people.

Exactly. :tmb:

iamlaracroft
21-08-09, 02:26
Hmm, which came first...gun powder target practice and the art of collecting retired war weaponry, or the need to disable an enemy with a force so awesome, it can kill nearly instantly?

"Target practice" is not a design feature.

takamotosan
21-08-09, 02:27
WWLCD?

:whi:

miss.haggard
21-08-09, 02:28
How about the need to defend ones self against an enemy that means to harm a family?

irjudd
21-08-09, 02:30
I suppose rope should be illegal as well, then.
Yes, it should be.

Also, vegetables should be illegal, since you can make oil from them which can be used for deep frying, and lots of deep fried foods can kill you too.

miss.haggard
21-08-09, 02:31
Mew... potatoes dont kill, they only want to love :)

EmeraldFields
21-08-09, 02:32
Yes, it should be.

Also, vegetables should be illegal, since you can make oil from them which can be used for deep frying, and lots of deep fried foods can kill you too.

Canola oil FTW!:p

iamlaracroft
21-08-09, 02:32
I actually wouldn't mind if they made it like getting a driver's license -- first you pass a written test on gun safety, then you get a permit to practice shooting guns, and then when you pass a shooting test you get a license to go hunting or carry a gun. I think that would work fairly well to ensure that the people carrying guns are aware of safety protocols and have the skill to not hit an innocent victim if they ever did need to shoot an attacker in a self-defense situation.

BOOM! Right there. Throw a background check in there and were golden. Or shall I say... gun metal grey :p Ok that was lame.

EDIT - Along with target shooting is the simple gun collecting. Historic guns are always a fascination. Bro has a M1 Garand used in WW2, I think that is very cool to own a piece of history.

Written tests and liscences and background checks still do nothing to prevent any sane person from breaking the law.
These efforts are futile.
We all know how easy it is to get a liscense. The written portion is a breeze (well it was for me, but if you fail, you get several more chances) and same goes for the driving portion.

Melonie Tomb Raider
21-08-09, 02:33
How about the need to defend ones self against an enemy that means to harm a family?

Right on, sister. :tmb:

Yes, it should be.

Also, vegetables should be illegal, since you can make oil from them which can be used for deep frying, and lots of deep fried foods can kill you too.

LOL!!! :vlol: :vlol:

Ward Dragon
21-08-09, 02:35
Written tests and liscences and background checks still do nothing to prevent any sane person from breaking the law.
These efforts are futile.

So let's just throw everyone in prison now and be done with it. That really is what it comes down to, isn't it? Whether one believes that people are rational beings capable of free choice or one believes that people are mindless animals that need to be dominated and controlled by the government.

takamotosan
21-08-09, 02:35
Written tests and liscences and background checks still do nothing to prevent any sane person from breaking the law.
These efforts are futile.
We all know how easy it is to get a liscense. The written portion is a breeze (well it was for me, but if you fail, you get several more chances) and same goes for the driving portion.

Outlawing guns won't stop the crazies from getting firepower. And if they're outlawed, good boys and girls can't get them, and therefore won't be able to defend themselves when said crazies shoot up public places.

Melonie Tomb Raider
21-08-09, 02:36
So let's just throw everyone in prison now and be done with it. That really is what it comes down to, isn't it? Whether one believes that people are rational beings capable of free choice or one believes that people are mindless animals that need to be dominated and controlled by the government.

You're on a roll tonight. :tmb:

miss.haggard
21-08-09, 02:36
Written tests and liscences and background checks still do nothing to prevent any sane person from breaking the law.
These efforts are futile.
We all know how easy it is to get a liscense. The written portion is a breeze (well it was for me, but if you fail, you get several more chances) and same goes for the driving portion.

It is the person breaking the law. Not the gun. Once again, a wise man once wrote on a t-shirt "Guns dont kill people, I kill people" :)

ThatNorskChick
21-08-09, 02:37
Outlawing guns won't stop the crazies from getting firepower. And if they're outlawed, good boys and girls can't get them, and therefore won't be able to defend themselves when said crazies shoot up public places.

Exactly what I was about to say. :tmb:

EmeraldFields
21-08-09, 02:39
You're on a role tonight. :tmb:

Is it "role" or "roll"?:p

Exactly what I was about to say. :tmb:

Amanda is getting political!:eek:

NOOOOOOOO!

Rileigh
21-08-09, 02:43
How about thinking of it from the perspective of a child growing up with parents sane enough to be legally in possession of a fire arm, mental enough to flip at the slightest thing wrong and throw everything out of perspective and lose control.

I planned an escape route, I was so terrified that something would anger my mother enough should would have a knife and find herself in my room. After something that happened when I was 7 I realised I wan't safe in my room, so I planned my route, becuase I was smaller than her, I could get out my window and down the drainpipe before she would know what was happening.
If we had a gun in the house, I'd have been too scared to stay.

Don't get me wrong, I love my mum, but when I was younger, she was a bit mental.

So what about that. You might be perfectly sane, law abiding citizens. But not everyone is.

No more of this "it's not the gun, it's the person" crap.

iamlaracroft
21-08-09, 02:43
Exactly. :tmb:

Right on, sister. :tmb:



You're on a role tonight. :tmb:

Hey Mel, how 'bout something else other than a thumbs-up smiley? Just for the sake of variety and what-not?

So let's just throw everyone in prison now and be done with it. That really is what it comes down to, isn't it? Whether one believes that people are rational beings capable of free choice or one believes that people are mindless animals that need to be dominated and controlled by the government.

a bit melodramatic, but okay.
I definitely believe people are rational beings capable of free choice--they just happen to live in Canada and the majority of Europe.

Outlawing guns won't stop the crazies from getting firepower. And if they're outlawed, good boys and girls can't get them, and therefore won't be able to defend themselves when said crazies shoot up public places.

Honestly, have you ever heard of a story where a "sane, law abiding citizen" successfully shot down a "crazy" and prevented him/her from assassinating innocent victims in a public place? How often do you hear of that? If the whole point of having guns was to protect against these hypothetical "what-if" type situations, then why do so many people get killed by mass murderers?

takamotosan
21-08-09, 02:47
Denying an entire society of their constitutional right because of the dangerous few doesn't make sense to me.
I think guns should only be banned if NO ONE ON EARTH can have one, meaning they must all be destroyed.
But that cannot be, because people can always make more.

miss.haggard
21-08-09, 02:48
How about thinking of it from the perspective of a child growing up with parents sane enough to be legally in possession of a fire arm, mental enough to flip at the slightest thing wrong and throw everything out of perspective and lose control.

I planned an escape route, I was so terrified that something would anger my mother enough should would have a knife and find herself in my room. After something that happened when I was 7 I realised I wan't safe in my room, so I planned my route, becuase I was smaller than her, I could get out my window and down the drainpipe before she would know what was happening.
If we had a gun in the house, I'd have been too scared to stay.

How about we look at it from the perspective of a 10 year old girl stopped at a red light in Detroit, with her parents in the car, a few gangsters come up and start pulling on door handles, sitting on the hood. And a dad who unholsters his gun, with no intention of shooting unless needed, to scare them off. What would have happened if we didnt have that gun? They may have car jacked us, or alot worse things.

Hey Mel, how 'bout something else other than a thumbs-up smiley? Just for the sake of variety and what-not?

Damn, not need to get catty.

Rileigh
21-08-09, 02:48
Why would you want a gun if not to shoot it??

ThatNorskChick
21-08-09, 02:49
Amanda is getting political!:eek:

NOOOOOOOO!

Yes, beware of my !!OPINIONZ!! *fire/sparkles*

I have an even better idea though. Build a giant gun magnet to suck up all the guns on the planet, destroy them, and we'll all fight with swords again. Can I get a hell yeah?

Mr.Burns
21-08-09, 02:50
Don't own a gun if you aren't prepare to kill. In today's society, if someone breaks into your home and attacks you, if you shoot them and they survive, they can and will sue you and in many cases: win.

That's about all you'll get out of me on this topic. :wve:

CerebralAssassin
21-08-09, 02:50
"You need a gun to feel/be safe"






















seriously...why do some people buy into this lame crap?!:p

gun ownership creates more problems than it solves.

the lack of a gun never put me in any immediate danger.

conversely,if I HAD a gun during some low times in my life,I'd be long dead.(and no,I'm not suicidal).

QED.

takamotosan
21-08-09, 02:51
Why would you want a gun if not to shoot it??

If I can't have a gun, I don't want anyone else to be able to pull one on me either. That includes the police and the military.
Disarming one group of people while leaving one armed is a recipe for disaster


Yes, beware of my !!OPINIONZ!! *fire/sparkles*

I have an even better idea though. Build a giant gun magnet to suck up all the guns on the planet, destroy them, and we'll all fight with swords again. Can I get a hell yeah?

I'm dyin here :vlol:

...

:mis: I'm going to hell.

miss.haggard
21-08-09, 02:51
Why would you want a gun if not to shoot it??

Sometimes just the appearance can be enough. I plan on buying a gun here soon, to shoot, at targets, inanimate targets... and the occasional human killing robot that may someday knock on my door... :mis:

irjudd
21-08-09, 02:52
Sometimes just the appearance can be enough. I plan on buying a gun here soon, to shoot, at targets, inanimate targets... and the occasional human killing robot that may someday knock on my door... :mis:
:eek:

"Have you seen this boy?"


*ker-pow!*

miss.haggard
21-08-09, 02:53
:eek:

"Have you seen this boy?"


*ker-pow!*

Yeah, I was about to say, dont come a knockin... if youre wearing a robot suit... use the door bell, robots dont use door bells, fact.

Rileigh
21-08-09, 02:54
How about we look at it from the perspective of a 10 year old girl stopped at a red light in Detroit, with her parents in the car, a few gangsters come up and start pulling on door handles, sitting on the hood. And a dad who unholsters his gun, with no intention of shooting unless needed, to scare them off. What would have happened if we didnt have that gun? They may have car jacked us, or alot worse things.


Let's not play these games. My mate lost his dad's car to a couple of jackers with knives. So, it wasn't a gun, but it'd be extremely hard to outlaw knives, especially when any pointed intrument would suffice. But still, we had nothing to defend ourselves with, and we got lucky, because the idiots didn't wear masks or anything and the police knew them.
Still, you're trying to justify carrying a weapon. It's different over here. So even though I saw a guy hold a knife in my mates face, I'm not about to arm myself for "safeties sake".
What's to stop the jerks doing the crimes to tackle that weapon from you?? If the manage, then you're in real trouble, aren't you, becuase they're not decent people and you just threatened them.

Sometimes just the appearance can be enough.

What if it wasn't. Would you be prepared to shoot someone?

miss.haggard
21-08-09, 02:59
Let's not play these games. My mate lost his dad's car to a couple of jackers with knives. So, it wasn't a gun, but it'd be extremely hard to outlaw knives, especially when any pointed intrument would suffice. But still, we had nothing to defend ourselves with, and we got lucky, because the idiots didn't wear masks or anything and the police knew them.
Still, you're trying to justify carrying a weapon. It's different over here. So even though I saw a guy hold a knife in my mates face, I'm not about to arm myself for "safeties sake".
What's to stop the jerks doing the crimes to tackle that weapon from you?? If the manage, then you're in real trouble, aren't you, becuase they're not decent people and you just threatened them.

Whoa, whos playing games, this is TRF mate, serious stuff goes down here. I can justify carrying a weapon, if those boys had a knife hidden and my dad did not flash his weapon, they may have broken in and done whatever. The ever present "What if?" question plagued me for a really long time after this happened, growing up in a town of 2,000 people, youre not used to seeing thugs everyday, especially sitting on the hood of your car, and pulling the handle.

I always comes down to what the individual person thinks is necessary. you dont feel the need to arm yourself. And thats great, Im glad that you dont. But I do, Im 5'5' 130 lbs and cant only do so much damage when the day comes to protect myself or my family. I feel the need to arm myself because I live in a bigger town now, I see what is going on behind closed doors, and I dont like it, I dont feel safe.

Melonie Tomb Raider
21-08-09, 03:02
What if it wasn't. Would you be prepared to shoot someone?

If someone broke into my house in the middle of the night, I'd shoot them unless I knew who they were or if they were a kid or something. Doesn't matter if they look like bad guys or not, someone's definitely got bad intentions if they break into your house. The look has nothing to do with it.

Hey Mel, how 'bout something else other than a thumbs-up smiley? Just for the sake of variety and what-not?

I've posted several opinions, thank you. No need to get catty. :)

Rileigh
21-08-09, 03:06
Ha, you're still taller than me. I don't feel safe. We've got some dodgy places near us. And some dodgy people. Also, being armed probably means a night in the nick or something. So here, the law abiding citizen cannot carry a weapon, but I don't think that many people, given the choice, would choose to carry a knife, or gun, with them. It just doesn't happen, so people don't. Too many things can go wrong. Ya know. What if you get scared and so you want to feel safer by showing off that you're armed, or "protected" or whatever, and that makes them mad. Remembering they're the ones off the rails and not seeing any wrong in whatever crime they are committing.

miss.haggard
21-08-09, 03:07
This has already gotten deleted twice, lets give it another go.

"What if it wasn't. Would you be prepared to shoot someone? " In the situation I listed, I was 10, so who knows. In my dads shoes, if it came down to the worst possible senario, thug has gun, pointing at family, hostile intentions, of course. But I will not speak for my dad.

If its my house, my family, my future children, and a thug breaks in, with hostile intent to kill me, my family, or my kids, of course. One hundred million times over I would shoot him, and yes kill him if it happens that way, and if I went to jail, well its my own damn fault, but atleast a thug is 6 feet under, not my child.

Melonie Tomb Raider
21-08-09, 03:08
I'm personally not a fan of people carrying guns around wherever they go, that's a bit excessive, but having them in their own home is fine.

If its my house, my family, my future children, and a thug breaks in, with hostile intent to kill me, my family, or my kids, of course. One hundred million times over I would shoot him, and yes kill him if it happens that way, and if I went to jail, well its my own damn fault, but atleast a thug is 6 feet under, not my child.

You wouldn't go to jail though, not if someone forced entry in your house and made you feel threatened. Now if it was the paper boy knocking on your door, that's a different story of course. :p But if someone broke into your house and you shot him, there's no way you'd go to jail, even if you found out he didn't have bad intentions (like say it was a drunk guy or something).

In which case I still wouldn't blame you. I'd have no hesitation to shoot someone that broke in my house and threatened me.

Rileigh
21-08-09, 03:10
Yes, but what if someone broke into steal your TV or something. Sure, it's not right, but do they really deserve to be shot for it?? I mean, what if there was some nastier person who made them do it? It's not entirely that persons fault. That person may be dreaming of being far, far away from your home.

Melonie Tomb Raider
21-08-09, 03:13
Yes, but what if someone broke into steal your TV or something. Sure, it's not right, but do they really deserve to be shot for it?? I mean, what if there was some nastier person who made them do it? It's not entirely that persons fault. That person may be dreaming of being far, far away from your home.

If someone broke in my house and I felt threatened, I'd still shoot him. But if I for some reason was absolutely certain he was just trying to steal my tv, I'd still aim my gun at him and call the police so they could take care of it.

But if I did kill hm before I knew he was just trying to steal a tv, I can't say it would have been the wrong thing to do. Someone breaking in another person's house potentially threatens their lives, s if they get shot, it's their own fault. They know the risk.

miss.haggard
21-08-09, 03:15
Ok, guy breaks in, I grab gun, he grabs TV, I yell drop it I have a gun - now he can do one of 2 things, drop it and run, or try to fight. If he tries to fight, I have the shot, I will try to injure him, of course. But I dont think anybody is stupid enough to fight over a 32 inch Vizio. :p And good luck to him getting it off the wall and out of the studs. :D And if he ran, well I will call the cops, and go to the neighbors.

But I understand what you are saying, and I see your point. Its why you should always approach those kind of "scary" situations with "is there hostile intent?"

Fish.
21-08-09, 03:16
I'm getting tired of hearing all this "guns are bad" mumbo-jumbo. It's not the guns, it's the people who use them. It's up to us to decide when to use it, not the government to limit use of them.

I personally do think that guns are too easy to get, that's why there are so many murders. I think if you want to get a gun you should be subject to a background check. But that's just my opinion.

Rileigh
21-08-09, 03:20
But I understand what you are saying, and I see your point. Its why you should always approach those kind of "scary" situations with "is there hostile intent?"

Obviously you don't disregard it, but it's more a "is there a way this can end without hurt", even if it's letting them have what they want....possessions wise...

miss.haggard
21-08-09, 03:24
^ Exactly, hell, if he can get the TV off the wall, he can keep the damn thing, thats a feat right there.

Bed time now, thanks for an exciting debate TRFers!

iamlaracroft
21-08-09, 03:29
If someone broke into my house in the middle of the night, I'd shoot them unless I knew who they were or if they were a kid or something. Doesn't matter if they look like bad guys or not, someone's definitely got bad intentions if they break into your house. The look has nothing to do with it.



I've posted several opinions, thank you. No need to get catty. :)

Wow, you even copied miss haggard verbatim! Just curious, if I'd been a guy, would you still have said "catty"? I wasn't being "catty", it was a genuine question. I'm curious as to why you agree in this instance--which part of the person's post that you quoted spoke to you? E l a b o r a t e. Seeing post after post of thumbs-up smileys is ineffective, really, especially when you're capable of much more stimulating discussion.
In effect, I want to engage with you--the very opposite of being 'catty'.

I'm getting tired of hearing all this "guns are bad" mumbo-jumbo. It's not the guns, it's the people who use them. It's up to us to decide when to use it, not the government to limit use of them.

I personally do think that guns are too easy to get, that's why there are so many murders. I think if you want to get a gun you should be subject to a background check. But that's just my opinion.

You are subject to a background check. People still use guns inappropriately. People are still shot to death everyday. Background checks are not Future Predictors.


As for the 'break in' scenario, I wonder: How many of you honestly would be able bodied and focused enough to shoot a gun judiciously and without alarm after having being woken from a deep sleep?
It may just be me, but I happen to sleep in the dark. And when I wake up, I can't see quite as good as when I've been awake for several hours--and I don't wear glasses or contacts or any such thing like that--I've got 20/20 vision.
To those of you who are so ready and willing to spring out of bed from a deep sleep and cock your (I assume) already loaded gun, do the 'target practices' you so laud include lights-out-pitch-dark-jump-out-of-bed-despite-lagging-mental-faculties-and-eye-boolgers training?

Melonie Tomb Raider
21-08-09, 03:31
Using the term, "No need to get catty" is common, it's the first thing that popped in my head. Apparently Miss Haggard and I thought of the same thing. You're kind of being nitpicky and attacking me personally when it has nothing to do with the thread, and I don't think that's very nice. I like you, let's not get personal, please. :)

I use thumbs up smileys because I'm an encouraging person by nature. If someone says something I agree with, I like to encourage them and let them know I support their statements. I don't see any harm in it, I've done the same with some of your posts as well.

But to answer your question, I may not have called a guy catty, I'm not sure. Depends on the person, I just thought it fit the scenario. :p

The main thing is that I don't want to argue with you and I definitely don't want this to get personal. I'd rather talk about the topic at hand than go off an a tangent about an emoticon. I'm sorry if it offended you, but I was merely encouraging the posters' I agreed with.

Mr.Burns
21-08-09, 03:31
Everyone behaving themselves? Need anything? Drinks? Snacks? No? Okay. Just checking to make sure everyone's getting along nicely. :)

miss.haggard
21-08-09, 03:32
One more thing I must throw in here before things get too... catty ... is that people have grown up in different environments, different places, under different rules, so obviously people are going to have differing opinions. I would like to come back to this thread in the morning and hopefully see some debating, not arguing. Because you all have the capabilites to keep it civil.

*hugs a more hugs*

EmeraldFields
21-08-09, 03:33
Cats get such a bed rep.:(

irjudd
21-08-09, 03:34
Everyone behaving themselves? Need anything? Drinks? Snacks? No? Okay. Just checking to make sure everyone's getting along nicely. :)Beef jerky.

Rileigh
21-08-09, 03:35
One more thing I must throw in here before things get too... catty ... is that people have grown up in different environments, different places, under different rules, so obviously people are going to have differing opinions. I would like to come back to this thread in the morning and hopefully see some debating, not arguing. Because you all have the capabilites to keep it civil.

*hugs a more hugs*

Coming to conclusions and compromises....or simply agreeing to differ.

miss.haggard
21-08-09, 03:37
Agreeing to differ I suppose is acceptable, I just see alot of people not realizing that people are different. Now stop pulling me back into the convo, bed is calling still... I think...

Melonie Tomb Raider
21-08-09, 03:38
Everyone behaving themselves? Need anything? Drinks? Snacks? No? Okay. Just checking to make sure everyone's getting along nicely. :)

Everything is fine. :) I think we have a potential argument, but it's under control. I don't want to argue with anyone, most especially since I like everyone in this thread. :D :hug:

Mr.Burns
21-08-09, 03:40
I like you too Mel :hug: But I just want to make sure no one needs anything (aside from judders jerky *hands judders a bag of pemmican beef jerky*). :)

Rileigh
21-08-09, 03:41
Agreeing to differ I suppose is acceptable, I just see alot of people not realizing that people are different. Now stop pulling me back into the convo, bed is calling still... I think...

Well la-de-da.

Sleep well. :hug:

Everything is fine. :) I think we have a potential argument, but it's under control. I don't want to argue with anyone, most especially since I like everyone in this thread. :D :hug:

You're potential argument is giving me a headache. Is that the "lack of own opinion" argument? It's silly.

I like you too Mel :hug: But I just want to make sure no one needs anything (aside from judders jerky *hands judders a bag of pemmican beef jerky*). :)

Paracetamol, if you'd be so kind.

Melonie Tomb Raider
21-08-09, 03:45
I like you too Mel :hug: But I just want to make sure no one needs anything (aside from judders jerky *hands judders a bag of pemmican beef jerky*). :)

:hug: Beef jerky sounds great, btw :p


You're potential argument is giving me a headache. Is that the "lack of own opinion" argument? It's silly.


I posted my own opinions and I also agreed with others. Just because some people share the same opinion as I do doesn't mean I don't have one. I'm sorry if it annoys you, but again, I'd rather stay on topic than defend myself in a personal argument.

If you're interested in learning more about my own personal opinions, I'd be happy to share them. Just please don't attack me personally, this thread isn't about me. :)

scoopy_loopy
21-08-09, 03:46
:vlol:

Some of the replies in this thread are just precious. Enough egos are rubbing together in here to warm the planet. :D

Rileigh
21-08-09, 03:49
(yeah, offtopic) What the hell is beef jerky? Sounds awful!

That first bit made no sense to me.

But, what I would like to know is, does it scare you?
I mean, if I lived in a place where my neighbour could own a gun, but also the person down the street, and idiots down a street from there, I don't think I'd ever sleep.

:vlol:

Some of the replies in this thread are just precious. Enough egos are rubbing together in here to warm the planet. :D

Wish they'd start here, it's bloody freezing.

iamlaracroft
21-08-09, 03:50
Right, it isn't about anyone...and I'm curious as to why we're still talking about anyone at all, several posts later...

So, gun lovers! No one going to take a stab at what I posted in my previous reply? :D


As for the 'break in' scenario, I wonder: How many of you honestly would be able bodied and focused enough to shoot a gun judiciously and without alarm after having being woken from a deep sleep?
It may just be me, but I happen to sleep in the dark. And when I wake up, I can't see quite as good as when I've been awake for several hours--and I don't wear glasses or contacts or any such thing like that--I've got 20/20 vision.
To those of you who are so ready and willing to spring out of bed from a deep sleep and cock your (I assume) already loaded gun, do the 'target practices' you so laud include lights-out-pitch-dark-jump-out-of-bed-despite-lagging-mental-faculties-and-eye-boolgers training?

CerebralAssassin
21-08-09, 03:50
who here have massive egos? o_0?

takamotosan
21-08-09, 03:51
(yeah, offtopic) What the hell is beef jerky? Sounds awful!

That first bit made no sense to me.

But, what I would like to know is, does it scare you?
I mean, if I lived in a place where my neighbour could own a gun, but also the person down the street, and idiots down a street from there, I don't think I'd ever sleep.



Wish they'd start here, it's bloody freezing.

Beef jerky is dried and salted beef strips.

But do you think the military should have guns? I'd lose sleep knowing they can have guns while I cannot. It's scary.

Rileigh
21-08-09, 03:51
Guns lovers?? Now that's different. I love guns, just not the right to own a gun.

Beef jerky is dried and salted beef strips.

But do you think the military should have guns? I'd lose sleep knowing they can have guns while I cannot. It's scary.

Depends where you live, right.
But yeah, because how else do they fight a war?? Besides they have to train for how long? And your countries military is supposed to be there to protect your country. Not the same as some random person living down the street who could turn out to be crazy.

And ick, beef jerkey sound yack

Mr.Burns
21-08-09, 03:52
who here have massive egos? o_0?

You sure as hell don't, Locutus. :p

Melonie Tomb Raider
21-08-09, 03:57
But, what I would like to know is, does it scare you?
I mean, if I lived in a place where my neighbour could own a gun, but also the person down the street, and idiots down a street from there, I don't think I'd ever sleep.


I have guns in my house and I'm pretty sure most of my neighbors do as well. It doesn't scare me at all.

I lived on a military base most of my life where it was common to see soldiers walking around with M16s. Guns don't scare me, people do.

BTW, beef jerky is dried beef with seasoning. I love it. :D


So, gun lovers! No one going to take a stab at what I posted in my previous reply? :D

To answer your question, I'm pretty alert when I wake up, especially to someone who just broke in my house. Fight or flight mode would kick in.

Of course I won't be 100% as alert as I was before, but alert enough to defend myself from an intruder, yes.

CerebralAssassin
21-08-09, 03:58
You sure as hell don't, Locutus. :p

:(:p

Rileigh
21-08-09, 04:03
I have guns in my house and I'm pretty sure most of my neighbors do as well. It doesn't scare me at all.

I lived on a military base most of my life where it was common to see soldiers walking around with M16s. Guns don't scare me, people do.



I practically grew up at the royal armories, and it's not guns that scare me. I mean, I've fired a gun. But it was on a special ranger. And I didn't own it. I wasn't about to take it home with me. I'd be fine if I knew the gun was not going to anywhere near a person I didn't know or trust.

To answer your question, I'm pretty alert when I wake up, especially to someone who just broke in my house. Fight or flight mode would kick in.

Of course I won't be 100% as alert as I was before, but alert enough to defend myself from an intruder, yes.

That's true. Adrenaline rush can wake you right up.

takamotosan
21-08-09, 04:17
Depends where you live, right.
But yeah, because how else do they fight a war?? Besides they have to train for how long? And your countries military is supposed to be there to protect your country. Not the same as some random person living down the street who could turn out to be crazy.


Alright. Then what about the police? They're awfully trigger happy.
"But they're there to protect you!"
Not all of them. I've heard plenty of stories of police brutality lately. I feel safer knowing people are able to defend themselves from rogue po-po.

knightgames
21-08-09, 04:25
I'm all for having permits, but the U.S. still has the 2nd Amendment.

And when the 2nd Ammendment was written the populace was still using flint rifles and muskets. :ton:


I'm for the use of pistols for home/business protection. I think using rifles for hunting is fine. Semi or automatic guns? NOPE.

I myself wouldn't want the responsability of owning a weapon.

Big Matt
21-08-09, 04:28
Man, this arguement again? This thread keeps being reincarnated with a different title each time. It's the undead thread -- one of several I guess.

Well, here's what I wrote last time I posted on this subject:

Where firearms are concerned, I have no problems with people owning them, for whatever reason -- personal protection, personal enjoyment that comes from shooting them (yes it is fun, even for most people who refuse to own them), peace of mind or, just to admire the sheer artistry and craftsmanship that went into making the things. I think deadly force, whether it be implemented with a firearm, a carpenter's hammer or, a person's bare hands should only be considered in extreme instances. I don't believe in taking someone's life because they are stealing your car stereo or cleaning out your retirement fund. As distasteful as I find it, I do believe that killing an attacker is justified and sometimes necessary to preserve life and protect the innocent from enduring great harm.

When it comes to we Americans and our guns there is really one main reason given by our founding fathers and politicians of the time for adding the "Right to keep and bear arms" clause to our constitution. It's both alluded to by our Bill Of Rights itself and is given outright as the reason by the dudes that put it in there. The reason they give for the citizenry having the right to own and use "arms" or weapons is so that the government doesn't become more powerful than the citizens who created and own it. This sounds very wise to me, especially in this day and age. When you give a mere fraction of a percentage of the population the amount of power that modern politicians have (near unlimited financing, heavily armed military, almost as heavily armed police force, unbelievable levels of technological capability, nukes at the press of button, chemical and biological weapons) the employers or "citizens" who gave these few employees all this potential to do catastrophic amounts of damage, had better have some way of taking responsibility for their creation and keeping these individuals in check.

There is a very good reason that America is the most heavily armed society in the history of the world. What we have done here in this country is create the most powerful and devastating economic and military force to ever exist. All of you people, domestic and otherwise, who despise the fact that we mere citizens have the right to own weapons and armament should be relieved that we are willing to put up with the potential for elevated violence and armed criminals in order to take responsibility for our creation and keep this one last check in place. Unfailingly, time and again, history has shown that when a nation becomes powerful, and doesn't have a citizenry capable of reigning in the few who have control of that power, there is a very good chance that those few will decide to project that power and use it unscrupulously.

As horrible as the thought is, I'm willing to live with the potential of having a few loonies here and there acquire a gun and maybe kill someone or even several people if it means having, at least a snowball's chance in the hot place, at shutting down a few other loonies that might someday be handed the deploy button for a bunch of nukes and use it to kill millions. Besides, guns or not, apparently it's just as easy in this day and age for a few wackos to get their hands on an airplane or two, a truck full of fertilizer, or a little bit of poison and kill thousands. Personally those things worry me more than some nutcase with a gun. However reluctant I would be to do so, I do have the means to deal with the lone raving screwball waving a handgun or a semiautomatic rifle.

Anyway, in the personal protection department, there have been three separate occasions in the past years time that I was glad to have a firearm handy. I am very thankful that the use of those firearms was avoidable but, if it hadn't been, at least I would have stood a chance at still being around for those who depend on me. To me, and I'm sure to them as well, that is well worth the potential tragedies that can come from widespread firearms ownership.

Melonie Tomb Raider
21-08-09, 04:32
That's true. Adrenaline rush can wake you right up.

Well the rush wouldn't wake you up, but it would help you after you woke up. :)

I'm a light sleeper, I wake up if someone walks in my room. Even if I didn't, then I guess I'd be dead, but that has nothing to do with guns.

Guns are to protect you when you are awake and see the intruder. ;)

takamotosan
21-08-09, 04:37
And when the 2nd Ammendment was written the populace was still using flint rifles and muskets. :ton:


I'm for the use of pistols for home/business protection. I think using rifles for hunting is fine. Semi or automatic guns? NOPE.

I myself wouldn't want the responsability of owning a weapon.

With that logic, the entire Constitution is irrelevant.

Big Matt
21-08-09, 04:43
With that logic, the entire Constitution is irrelevant.

Indeed.

takamotosan
21-08-09, 05:02
Indeed.

That's frightening.

Big Matt
21-08-09, 05:10
That's frightening.

I was merely agreeing with your assessment of knightgames brand of logic, not with his logic. The constitution is every bit as relevant today as it was when it was drafted.

takamotosan
21-08-09, 05:17
I was merely agreeing with your assessment of knightgames brand of logic, not with his logic. The constitution is every bit as relevant today as it was when it was drafted.

Ah. Ok :)

EDIT: Pardon my lack of reading your previous post. I'm definitely with you on this one :tmb:

Big Matt
21-08-09, 05:23
Ah. Ok :)

EDIT: Pardon my lack of reading your previous post. I'm definitely with you on this one :tmb:

No problem. It's late.

knightgames
21-08-09, 07:01
Psssssssst. It was sarcasm.

Goose
21-08-09, 07:39
Alright. Then what about the police? They're awfully trigger happy.
"But they're there to protect you!"
Not all of them. I've heard plenty of stories of police brutality lately. I feel safer knowing people are able to defend themselves from rogue po-po.

This is where police brutality and shootings originate, people owning guns with that attitute, 'defending against rogue cops'.

Rileigh
21-08-09, 09:37
Alright. Then what about the police? They're awfully trigger happy.
"But they're there to protect you!"
Not all of them. I've heard plenty of stories of police brutality lately. I feel safer knowing people are able to defend themselves from rogue po-po.

I don't really know what to say. Some coppers are a bit...brutal?? If that is the right word. BUT whereas some of my friends who are anti-war, ALF and some other things I can't remembed (and also loud mouthed and arrogant and happy to use bad language and insult coppers (and some who are not my mates I know to have made a more physically threatening approach to the police)) Well, in my experiance, it is those people who complain about police brutality. This one girl said she'd had to go to hospital because a policeman had broken her cheekbone....the side of the story she didn't tell was that he had done it in self defence. I've been to some of the demonstrations and I've never had the problem of police brutality, even though I have seen in happen, and I reckon their actions could have been justified...up to an extent. But as was mentioned before, what do you do when you feel your safety, and possibly the safety of those around, is threatened.

Besides, police brutality is such a huge minoriy of coppers.
I don't how it is where you live, but coppers, even dodgy ones, won't do anything if you don't provoke them.

XD Which is all summed up with this, basically

This is where police brutality and shootings originate, people owning guns with that attitute, 'defending against rogue cops'.

Mad Tony
21-08-09, 10:31
Bill Maher FTW!:DOh God no. He's an ultra-leftists hothead. I do admire the way he treats the 9/11 conspiracies though, so he gets my respect there but that's about it. :p

An effective ban on guns in the US has never been tried. True, some municipalities have outlawed guns here and there. But they are then imported from localities where there is no ban. I.E. the "Iron Corridor" which channels guns from the southern states to the north. As the article states, the actual use of a firearm legally for "self defense" - is a very rare occasion.

I should like to note, that the non criminal deaths should be alarming in themselves. 16,000 suicides? 1,000 accidental shootings? I am sure that if we did refight the Vietnam war in the US every 2 years, the citizenry would be on the edge of a revolt. Why the same statistics resulting from from firearms on a house to house basis does not alarm the populace is a dirty shame.

I think we have become an nation of zombies who are not moved by violence. We see how a school gets shot up and 15 kids are gone, and two days we just throw up our hands and do nothing. If a law abiding citizen suddenly snaps and goes after his ex-girlfriend in her office building and 5 people are killed, it's just taken for granted.

As for gun control, I would much rather be lost in London or Tokyo after dark than in Chicago.How do you know guns are rarely used for self defense? Likelihood is that somebody using a gun to say, scare off a robber isn't really newsworthy thus you don't hear about it.

You seem to assume that if you outlaw guns, all of those deaths will disappear - that's not true at all. Over here guns are pretty much outright banned with the exception of some shotguns which you have to obtain a license to buy. Yet guns are still used in murders and bank robberies over here. Why? Because the criminals get them illegally. In most cases though, knives are used instead of guns. I don't know about you, but if somebody was gonna kill me I'd rather them shoot me than stab me. You see, all you're doing is changing the way somebody gets killed, not whether they get killed or not.

Well, I don't know what it's like in Tokyo but I do know that you'd probably have just as much chance of getting murdered in London as you would in Chicago, the only difference is that a knife would be used instead of a gun.

takamotosan
21-08-09, 15:42
I think banning things is communism.
I'm done bantering. I think we're all just gonna have to agree to disagree.

Bye y'all :wve:

Melonie Tomb Raider
21-08-09, 16:02
This is where police brutality and shootings originate, people owning guns with that attitute, 'defending against rogue cops'.

Oh Lord, that's a good point.

I think it's ridiculous for people to buy guns because they think they may have to, "fight against the government!"

That is absolutely ridiculous, I hate conspiracies and the whole, "the government is out to get us!" attitude. :vlol:

Having that said, I don't want the government to control society like a commune, but I don't think we should be shooting each other, either. :p

Mad Tony
21-08-09, 16:05
It's good to have guns as backup against government tyranny, but by that I mean just to safeguard against a future Nazi-like government. It's extremely unlikely, but that's what second amendment is there for. I've always laughed at these survivalist types who think the US government is gonna start rounding up people and gassing them at any moment. :vlol:

interstellardave
21-08-09, 16:16
The point about government oppression is that no-one ever thinks it will cross the line into kicking-in-your-door-and-putting-the-boot-to-your-face, until AFTER it happens.

The lesson is that, however unlikely it may seem now, it has happened over and over and over and over again throughout history. The one tried-and-true solution to a government that does cross the line into tyranny is armed revolution. If the populace isn't armed then you've got an even longer and harder fight on your hands.

OH, BTW: We already have rogue quasi-paramilitary police units kicking in peoples' doors and terrorizing them here in the US. These people are sometimes not criminals... or maybe only have marijuana possession on their records... but it makes people feel a lot better to believe they are "wackos" who deserve what they get. The real truth in those cases is swept under the rug if at all possible.

BTW: Including suicides in those statistics ruins the whole thing, IMO. People feel safer against armed intruders when they have a gun... suicides are obviously self-inflicted, so they shouldn't be included... you can see it accounts for half of all gun deaths! I'd be interested to see those studies done w/o suicides... I'd wager the gun-control states would then fare worse because actual gun-crime would be higher than in states where home-owners had guns.

Cochrane
21-08-09, 19:18
I'm not going to get into this argument full-time, because I have too much work for university to do, and it has never brought any really interesting discussion in my opinion. There are just a few points I'd like to point out:



I do not think that the Second Amendment gives the population the right to rebel against the government. It's language certainly only agrees to the right to arms for the purpose of a militia. While there are a lot of definitions for what a militia can be, almost all agree that it serves the state, people and government, instead of being a check/balance against the government.

In legal proceedings, such as the recent District of Columbia v. Heller, the second amendment is interpreted in the history of the right to keep and bear arms in Britain in the eighteenth century. This right was even granted (although with limitations) to people who were assumed to be natural enemies of the government and the inhabitants of Great Britain, i.e. catholics. If the second amendment really only codifies what was common practice in England (like the other amendments that form the Bill of Rights), then it is certainly unreasonable to assume that it is meant to give citizens the right to armed rebellion. It's not like the english king would have any interest in giving citizens (including, in particular, catholics) that right. If the framers of the constitution had wanted to grant this right, they certainly would have used language other than "… shall not be infringed".



The other point is: Why the hell wouldn't I include suicides in the statistics? It's death caused by guns, deaths that would not have happened (or at least not this way) if guns had not been present. I'm a big fan of railroads, but I would never pretend that people killing themselves by throwing themselves in front of trains are not a significant problem caused by trains. They are, and measures to prevent that are important (as far as they are practical). Why not apply the same to guns?

Goose
21-08-09, 19:26
Oh Lord, that's a good point.

I think it's ridiculous for people to buy guns because they think they may have to, "fight against the government!"

That is absolutely ridiculous, I hate conspiracies and the whole, "the government is out to get us!" attitude. :vlol:

Having that said, I don't want the government to control society like a commune, but I don't think we should be shooting each other, either. :p

Exactly, how can it even be a concept though, if, in the 1 in 1000 (probably more) chance you were to meet a 'rouge cop', how exactly would pulling a gun on him help the situation, chances are you'd end up in a body bag, and he'd get a pat on the back for taking another crazy person off the streets.

Same with that whole New Orleans vs the National Guard thing people spoke about, are there seriously some civilians in America who believe they can win against a section of soldiers in a fire fight?

Ward Dragon
21-08-09, 19:31
I do not think that the Second Amendment gives the population the right to rebel against the government. It's language certainly only agrees to the right to arms for the purpose of a militia. While there are a lot of definitions for what a militia can be, almost all agree that it serves the state, people and government, instead of being a check/balance against the government.

In the Declaration of Independence it makes it pretty clear that people are supposed to overthrow the government if it infringes upon too many rights. The same people who wrote that document also wrote the second amendment.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.



The other point is: Why the hell wouldn't I include suicides in the statistics? It's death caused by guns, deaths that would not have happened (or at least not this way) if guns had not been present. I'm a big fan of railroads, but I would never pretend that people killing themselves by throwing themselves in front of trains are not a significant problem caused by trains. They are, and measures to prevent that are important (as far as they are practical). Why not apply the same to guns?

If you include suicides then the statistics don't show the number of murders with guns. Furthermore, I think these statistics are useless because they only show the deathrate with guns. There should also be a statistic for deathrate without guns for comparison, and then that should be broken down into separate murder and suicide categories.

Edit: For example, I just used the link in the first post to find out that there were 16,417 non-firearm related suicides in the same year.

stereopathic
21-08-09, 19:34
the declaration of independence explains why we rejected british law. it doesn't say we can carry guns to keep the government in check.

Ward Dragon
21-08-09, 19:36
the declaration of independence explains why we rejected british law. it doesn't say we can carry guns to keep the government in check.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

That is a general statement. It does not specifically apply to the British government.

Goose
21-08-09, 19:40
That is a general statement. It does not specifically apply to the British government.

Considering the British were no longer governing when it was written especially.

Cochrane
21-08-09, 19:46
In the Declaration of Independence it makes it pretty clear that people are supposed to overthrow the government if it infringes upon too many rights. The same people who wrote that document also wrote the second amendment.
Maybe, but this right is not included in the second amendment. If anything, you can interpret the texts so that you are allowed to use the guns you already own legally to overthrow the government. You can also argue that owning guns for self-defense is a right implicitly granted by the second amendment (which is not written that way, but makes sense if you see the historical interpretation of the second amendment), and that defending yourself against an oppressive government is self-defense. Still, the specific right to own guns for the express purpose of armed rebellion is not included in the US constitution.

The recent Supreme Court Case I talked about mentions that a militia in the meaning of the second amendment would be an assembly of able people with the weapons they already posess for other lawful purposes. I think it is reasonable to think of armed rebellion as something similar.

Apart from that, there is the issue of trying to overthrow the US government with legally owned firearms, which seems a risky proposition at best… However, that's of little consequence here.

If you include suicides then the statistics don't show the number of murders with guns. Furthermore, I think these statistics are useless because they only show the deathrate with guns. There should also be a statistic for deathrate without guns for comparison, and then that should be broken down into separate murder and suicide categories.
More detailed statistics are always great, and I hope very much that FiveThirtyEight.com (http://fivethirtyeight.com) does an analysis on that topic some day, as this is a very complex issue. However, suicides are one form of gun-related death, and for some comparisons, that can be valuable.

stereopathic
21-08-09, 19:49
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

That is a general statement. It does not specifically apply to the British government.

i fail to see how the DoI contains the hidden meaning of the second amendment. the two documents serve completely different purposes. it's true the constitution was written with fresh memories of the recent revolution, but a law, especially a constitutional one, is self-contained. you can't cite a different source to explain what the law says.

goose, we were a consensual part of the british empire until that document was forwarded along to them.

Cochrane
21-08-09, 19:56
i fail to see how the DoI contains the hidden meaning of the second amendment. the two documents serve completely different purposes. it's true the constitution was written with fresh memories of the recent revolution, but a law, especially a constitutional one, is self-contained. you can't cite a different source to explain what the law says.

On the contrary, for this one you have to. The second amendment talks about a "right to keep and bear arms", which "shall not be infringed". What is this right? Why do people have the right, what do they have that right for, what arms are meant*? American legal practice says and has said for centuries that the constitution is to be taken so that it made sense when it was written. Hence, the people in the 18th century probably knew what the right to keep and bear arms was, and also what a well-regulated militia meant. So if we want to know what this law means today, we absolutely have to look at what the terms it uses meant back then, and that means citing different sources.

*) I'm working really hard to avoid making a joke about this being a right to not be amputated.

Ward Dragon
21-08-09, 19:57
Apart from that, there is the issue of trying to overthrow the US government with legally owned firearms, which seems a risky proposition at best… However, that's of little consequence here.

I don't expect that there will be another armed revolution (or attempted revolution) in the US. Two are quite enough already. However, I think that the simple vague possibility that such a thing could occur if absolutely necessary will keep the government from pushing limits too far and causing such a thing to happen. The first thing a government always does when trying to take away rights is to take away the right to bear arms because it makes it much less likely that people will be able to object to the restriction of rights that will come later. So as long as the right to bear arms still exists, the government will be more reluctant to take away other rights as well.

More detailed statistics are always great, and I hope very much that FiveThirtyEight.com (http://fivethirtyeight.com) does an analysis on that topic some day, as this is a very complex issue. However, suicides are one form of gun-related death, and for some comparisons, that can be valuable.

I think there should be a difference between the suicide and murder rates with guns simply because I know whether or not I'll kill myself but I don't know whether or not someone will murder me, so I'm much more interested in knowing the likelihood of getting murdered. That would be much more likely to influence my stance on the issue than the suicide rate.

stereopathic
21-08-09, 20:08
On the contrary, for this one you have to. The second amendment talks about a "right to keep and bear arms", which "shall not be infringed". What is this right? Why do people have the right, what do they have that right for, what arms are meant*? American legal practice says and has said for centuries that the constitution is to be taken so that it made sense when it was written. Hence, the people in the 18th century probably knew what the right to keep and bear arms was, and also what a well-regulated militia meant. So if we want to know what this law means today, we absolutely have to look at what the terms it uses meant back then, and that means citing different sources.

*) I'm working really hard to avoid making a joke about this being a right to not be amputated.

yes, i agree you have to take the words written in context, but you can't just assume the second amendment gives the right to armed rebellion just because a different document is centered upon it.

i'm short on time. i have other thoughts but i need to get moving. enjoy the discussion, y'all! :)

Cochrane
21-08-09, 20:18
I don't expect that there will be another armed revolution (or attempted revolution) in the US. Two are quite enough already. However, I think that the simple vague possibility that such a thing could occur if absolutely necessary will keep the government from pushing limits too far and causing such a thing to happen. The first thing a government always does when trying to take away rights is to take away the right to bear arms because it makes it much less likely that people will be able to object to the restriction of rights that will come later. So as long as the right to bear arms still exists, the government will be more reluctant to take away other rights as well.
I dare say it failed, and failed horribly, at that. See for example the many strikes in the second half of the 19th century (such as the the Railroad Strike of 1877, Great Southwest Railroad Strike of 1886, the Homestead Strike of 1892 or the Pullman Strike of 1894) which were quelled by the use of either state or federal force, even though the workers had the right to keep and bear arms. Even in 1933, the Bonus Army (consisting of, of all people, retired soldiers) was removed by force. History shows that the government fears the public opinion much more than it ever feared the guns of the citizens.

Now, for the other claims, I'd like to see some examples. The last time that rights were taken away in a large scale in the US was in the wake of 9/11 with the Patriot act. While that did a lot of evil, I am not aware of it making it significanlty more difficult to keep and bear arms. More importantly, the right to keep and bear arms is very unique to the US, and most other western democracies lack it. Still, none of them seem that less free than the US to me.

I think there should be a difference between the suicide and murder rates with guns simply because I know whether or not I'll kill myself but I don't know whether or not someone will murder me, so I'm much more interested in knowing the likelihood of getting murdered. That would be much more likely to influence my stance on the issue than the suicide rate.
I'd say that it is very possible (although I don't have any data to prove it) that people with ready access to guns may be more likely to actually kill themselves. It is certainly the fastet and easiest way to do so.

Ward Dragon
21-08-09, 20:27
Now, for the other claims, I'd like to see some examples.

It's something I've observed with US politicians. The ones who want to restrict free speech and take away my choices are the same ones saying I shouldn't have any guns.

I'd say that it is very possible (although I don't have any data to prove it) that people with ready access to guns may be more likely to actually kill themselves. It is certainly the fastet and easiest way to do so.

Well, I used the link in the first post to find out that in the same year there were also around 16,000 suicides which did not involve firearms, so roughly half the suicides used guns. If someone really wants to commit suicide, then they'll do it whether they have access to a gun or not.

Cochrane
21-08-09, 20:43
It's something I've observed with US politicians. The ones who want to restrict free speech and take away my choices are the same ones saying I shouldn't have any guns.
Again, this seems rather vague. I'm not aware of any american politican running with the message "I will take away your choices and restrict free speech!" recently, so I'm guessing there are specific issues you refer to, which you interpret that way. I guess I'm becoming a little annoying here, though.

Generally, I think a politician who favors more liberal politics, like, say, health care (is that one of the choices you refer to?) also favors reducing the right to guns, not because he fears the people, but because he is more likely to think that it is just not a good idea. Many people in this forum (me included) do not think that the right to keep and bear arms is a good idea and would rather see it abolished, but that does not mean that any of us (well, except me :D) want to take your other rights away then, and don't because you have guns.

Well, I used the link in the first post to find out that in the same year there were also around 16,000 suicides which did not involve firearms, so roughly half the suicides used guns. If someone really wants to commit suicide, then they'll do it whether they have access to a gun or not. That's likely. Still, it is a gun-related death, and it is a piece of the puzzle. To get back to my original railroad analogy: Those who jump in front of a train would find other means as well if railroads were outlawed. Still, measures to protect against people doing that (where they are practical) are a good idea.

As another example, a dam near where I live has nets to keep people from falling down (on the valley side, not the water side). Now, the only way for people to get in those nets in the first place is by a) being very stupid or b) suicidial, with option b prevailing. If this dam did not exist, they would probably find another way to kill themselves (or get drowned in the floods that this dam is meant to prevent, but that's another issue entirely). However, making suicide there more difficult actually decreases the amount of suicides, because people who jumped only to find themselves captured tend to think again about whether jumping is really a good idea.

It is not the same as a murder with a gun. I won't deny that. But as I said, it is a part of the puzzle.

EmeraldFields
21-08-09, 20:43
Oh God no. He's an ultra-leftists hothead. I do admire the way he treats the 9/11 conspiracies though, so he gets my respect there but that's about it. :p

LOL! That's the same way I feel about Ann Coulter! Although I think she's hilarious.

Same thing with Glen Beck. I watch his show just for entertainment.:D

Mad Tony
21-08-09, 20:48
LOL! That's the same way I feel about Ann Coulter! Although I think she's hilarious.

Same thing with Glen Beck. I watch his show just for entertainment.:DYeah, I'm not much of a fan of Ann Coulter although she does have some good points at times.

Catracoth
21-08-09, 20:48
Do you really need a second rate television show to tell you firearms aren't safe?

Ward Dragon
21-08-09, 21:07
Again, this seems rather vague. I'm not aware of any american politican running with the message "I will take away your choices and restrict free speech!" recently, so I'm guessing there are specific issues you refer to, which you interpret that way. I guess I'm becoming a little annoying here, though.

You're certainly not annoying :) I'm just being lazy because I'm posting in between studying for a chemistry test :p

Generally, I think a politician who favors more liberal politics, like, say, health care (is that one of the choices you refer to?) also favors reducing the right to guns, not because he fears the people, but because he is more likely to think that it is just not a good idea. Many people in this forum (me included) do not think that the right to keep and bear arms is a good idea and would rather see it abolished, but that does not mean that any of us (well, except me :D) want to take your other rights away then, and don't because you have guns.

Yeah, health care is one of the choices I was referring to, but not the only one. My statement certainly doesn't apply to all politicians, but it is the overwhelming impression I get whenever I hear someone like Nancy Pelosi speaking. Considering that she's third in line to become president if anything ever happened to the first two, that really worries me. Obama had better take good care of himself because as much as I don't like him, I like him a hell of a lot more than Pelosi :p

Also, you want to take away my rights? Fine then, I'll take away your model trains :pi:

It is not the same as a murder with a gun. I won't deny that. But as I said, it is a part of the puzzle.

Yeah, it's definitely part of the puzzle and I don't want to sweep it under the rug. I definitely think steps should be taken to discourage people from suicide. All I was saying is that I think it confuses the issue to lump together murder and suicide rates into one category without any indication of what they are separately. The steps that need to be taken to prevent murders are not the same steps that need to be taken to prevent suicides. And in either case, it is useful to see what the overall rates are, not just with guns. If there are underlying issues (poverty, drugs, etc.) then simply banning guns will not solve the problem. Better to treat the source and help people overcome poverty or whatever other problems would drive them to crime or suicide.

Do you really need a second rate television show to tell you firearms aren't safe?

I don't think the contents of the first post have anything to do with the Mythbusters show since none of the links have to do with it. I think the person just used their image as an attention-grabber.

Mad Tony
21-08-09, 21:14
I don't think the contents of the first post have anything to do with the Mythbusters show since none of the links have to do with it. I think the person just used their image as an attention-grabber.Yeah, Mythbusters look into things that can actually be disproven, not opinions.

wantafanta
22-08-09, 00:52
I suppose rope should be illegal as well, then.

This is what the pro-gun crowd always comes up with - a comparison to a useful household article that serves many productive functions - to a gun, a weapon designed to destroy. If you read the article excerpt I posted, you would know that the probability of committing suicide with a gun is far greater than with any other means. Almost a 90% certainty of fatality. There are no second chances with a gun.


Yeah, Mythbusters look into things that can actually be disproven, not opinions.

Actually, I have proven that the ownership of guns is related to a higher mortality rate. It's right there in the numbers. The very ownership of a firearm puts you at greater risk than if you did not have one in the house. It is far more likely to be used inappropriately than in a legal self defense situation.

A lot of visitors here resent my use of statistics and numbers. Nevertheless, I stand by them.

Another thing I have learned is that there is nearly a biological affinity to an inanimate object among gun owners. Their gun is like a member of the family. The topic inflames and infuriates some people, which is very bizarre.

Case in point: I saw a segment on TV about a man who lived in the south. He heard a noise late one night coming from his hall closet and he opened fire with his Magnum. His teenage daughter had sneaked out and tried to sneak back into the house unnoticed. She was gone forever, thanks to her trigger happy father. Now get this. He had tears in his eyes as he descibed the event. But when asked if he would get rid of his gun, he answered "no." Truly absurd.

I saw another story about a Japanese exchange student who was looking for a Halloween party. He was lost and approached a house to ask for directions. The onwer came out and ordered him to stop advancing up the driveway. The student did not speak English well and continued walking up the driveway. The owner shot the unarmed student in his tracks. When the case went to trial, the homeowner was acquitted of mansalughter! The student's family in Japan was weeping with sorrow. Welcome to America, student-san!

miss.haggard
22-08-09, 01:03
I dont want to get pulled back into this thread, but Ive said it before and Ill say it again, its all about the person who owns the gun. I think children should be educated about guns from a very early age, so they understand that they are dangerous, but see that they arent the cause - people are. I know my kids will be.

Mad Tony
22-08-09, 01:29
Actually, I have proven that the ownership of guns is related to a higher mortality rate. It's right there in the numbers. The very ownership of a firearm puts you at greater risk than if you did not have one in the house. It is far more likely to be used inappropriately than in a legal self defense situation.

A lot of visitors here resent my use of statistics and numbers. Nevertheless, I stand by them.But there's more to it than statistics, so you haven't really "proved" anything. Besides, if an armed robber comes into your home you're far safer armed than unarmed.

Your statistics and numbers really don't prove much. As Benjamin Disraeli rightly said, there's three kinds of lies - lies, damned lies and statistics.

Case in point: I saw a segment on TV about a man who lived in the south. He heard a noise late one night coming from his hall closet and he opened fire with his Magnum. His teenage daughter had sneaked out and tried to sneak back into the house unnoticed. She was gone forever, thanks to her trigger happy father. Now get this. He had tears in his eyes as he descibed the event. But when asked if he would get rid of his gun, he answered "no." Truly absurd.So? He was stupid? Does that mean guns should be taken away from everyone because of this one stupid man?

I saw another story about a Japanese exchange student who was looking for a Halloween party. He was lost and approached a house to ask for directions. The onwer came out and ordered him to stop advancing up the driveway. The student did not speak English well and continued walking up the driveway. The owner shot the unarmed student in his tracks. When the case went to trial, the homeowner was acquitted of mansalughter! The student's family in Japan was weeping with sorrow. Welcome to America, student-san!What exactly are you trying to prove? There are plenty of stories of guns saving lives too.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Information/XcInfoBase.asp?CatID=43

Goose
22-08-09, 06:09
goose, we were a consensual part of the british empire until that document was forwarded along to them.

Was the future of America under the rule of another government other then its own?

you would know that the probability of committing suicide with a gun is far greater than with any other means. Almost a 90% certainty of fatality. There are no second chances with a gun.


As opposed to jumping off a building thats 10 stories up, or jumping infront of an express train going 100mph having 80% success rate lol.

Someone who wants to kill themselves will do it, its got nothing to do with 'a cry for help', its an actual desire to die.

Azerutan
22-08-09, 09:05
So? He was stupid? Does that mean guns should be taken away from everyone because of this one stupid man?[/URL]

No, because of HUNDREDS stupid men ;)

Mad Tony
22-08-09, 09:11
No, because of HUNDREDS stupid men ;)So? Hundreds of stupid men out of how many tens of millions of gun owners in the US?

Azerutan
22-08-09, 09:21
So? Hundreds of stupid men out of how many tens of millions of gun owners in the US?
As long as millions of guns owners are happy, some hundreds and hundreds of people who are killed by irresponsible are irrelevant I guess :)

So glad in my country and most part in Europe doesn't allow anyone to buy a gun without a specific permission... I can't put my finger on anyone, specially someone I don't know and has a gun on his favour. But again, I won't argue this here :) I find it hilarious that people try to potray guns use as "protectors" of a society, when guns are purely used to shoot, to hit and to kill, ultimately - it creates violence no matter what argument you can make up, that's simply the bottom line in their use. What I also learn over the years is that people who defend "gun ownership" are very vocal about this and REFUSE to let their gun over this, so to say, pseudo-humanistic opinions: it's pure selfshiness.

Again, I do respect your opinion, but I will never agree with that :)
I hope you some day can actually be saved by gun, even though for that you will probably have to kill or harm another human being.

Mad Tony
22-08-09, 09:32
As long as millions of guns owners are happy, some hundreds and hundreds of people who are killed by irresponsible are irrelevant I guess :)

So glad in my country and most part in Europe doesn't allow anyone to buy a gun without a specific permission... I can't put my finger on anyone, specially someone I don't know and has a gun on his favour. But again, I won't argue this here :) I find it hilarious that people try to potray guns use as "protectors" of a society, when guns are purely used to shoot, to hit and to kill, ultimately - it creates violence no matter what argument you can make up, that's simply the bottom line in their use. What I also learn over the years is that people who defend "gun ownership" are very vocal about this and REFUSE to let their gun over this, so to say, pseudo-humanistic opinions: it's pure selfshiness.

Again, I do respect your opinion, but I will never agree with that :)
I hope you some day can actually be saved by gun, even though for that you will probably have to kill or harm another human being.:rolleyes:

What about the stupid people who deliberately drive their cars recklessly and run over people? Should we ban cars now too?

But guns also help to save people's lives and diffuse situations where it's possible that multiple people would be killed. You just don't hear about it on the news because in some cases it's just somebody using a gun to say, scare away a criminal, which isn't really newsworthy.

Well to be honest I hope I never get in a situation where I'm gonna have to be saved by anything.

calico25
22-08-09, 09:46
same thread, different month. I am all for gun ownership. I am a gun owner but do feel that the laws are a bit weak here in the states. It is far to easy to purchase a firearm here. I would like to think that I am a responsible gun owner who practices safety and emotional control and that is why I would be privileged enough to have earned the right to own my firearms. Instead, I found myself a little disappointed when I asked if there was a waiting period when I first looked into purchasing a pistol only to be basically laughed at for asking such a dumb question at a local gun store. I was encouraged to take a concealed hand gun course so I would just to flash my license next time I wanted to buy a gun (like getting carded for booze or cigs) instead of spending 20 minutes to fill out the joke of a background check form. Now this policy may be all well and good for people who are responsible, but as an overall policy, it is just stupid. I would like to see mandatory safety courses as well as yearly renewals of those safety courses to be licensed...not to mention full mental record background checks and medical checks.

Now,I am also one of the few who has actually had to resort to having to arm myself with a firearm when my home was broken into (I actually posted about it here 2 years ago when it happened). I was out numbered 3 to 1 by the intruders, and luckily for me they were just my neighbor's teen kids looking for booze. The sight of the gun put them on the floor immediately. I would hate to have been outnumbered 3 to 1 by intruders meaning to do me harm and clean out my house without a gun to defend myself.

Cochrane
22-08-09, 09:53
I'm kind of tempted to reply to Mad Tony (among others here), but I don't have the time to write a thoughtful argument because I need to study for my mathematical logic exam and it wouldn't change anybody's opinion anyway.

You're certainly not annoying :) I'm just being lazy because I'm posting in between studying for a chemistry test :p
Ah, that's a feeling I know well…

Yeah, health care is one of the choices I was referring to, but not the only one. My statement certainly doesn't apply to all politicians, but it is the overwhelming impression I get whenever I hear someone like Nancy Pelosi speaking. Considering that she's third in line to become president if anything ever happened to the first two, that really worries me. Obama had better take good care of himself because as much as I don't like him, I like him a hell of a lot more than Pelosi :p
I don't actually recall any instance in the US where the vice president, as acting president, died, so I would not be all that worried. My knowledge of american politics isn't all that great, though, and I have no idea what Pelosi stands for, so I can basically just repeat what I said above: What if she is against gun ownership not as a step to take away your rights, but simply because she thinks it is a good idea? If you will, you could quote the old saying "Never assume malice when it could be incompetence". :D

Also, you want to take away my rights? Fine then, I'll take away your model trains :pi:
Okay, now that's a serious threat. :eek:

Yeah, it's definitely part of the puzzle and I don't want to sweep it under the rug. I definitely think steps should be taken to discourage people from suicide. All I was saying is that I think it confuses the issue to lump together murder and suicide rates into one category without any indication of what they are separately. The steps that need to be taken to prevent murders are not the same steps that need to be taken to prevent suicides. And in either case, it is useful to see what the overall rates are, not just with guns. If there are underlying issues (poverty, drugs, etc.) then simply banning guns will not solve the problem. Better to treat the source and help people overcome poverty or whatever other problems would drive them to crime or suicide.
OK, I can't think of any disagreement to that right now. :D

iamlaracroft
24-08-09, 07:04
I'm surprised that anyone would say they know for sure whether or not they would kill themselves.
Do you think those who have committed suicide knew ten years prior that they were going to end their lives? a month prior? a week?
I'm not clairvoyant. I have no idea how I'll feel tomorrow. A lot can happen in a day. And with an economy like ours, I'm sure a lot of people are walking a fine line between sanity and desperation.

Those who keep repeating the same force-fed conservative NRA bull**** that "those who really want to kill themselves will find other means" is really crass and ill educated. There are plenty of people who contemplate ending their own lives but would only do so if they had access to a gun.
A gun is the quickest, fastest, most pain-free ticket to death. When done correctly, it is instant.
And the excuse "well, then he/she didn't really want to die" is almost akin to the "no true scotsman" fallacy. The desire to kill one's self cannot be measured by how determined they are to pursue a means to the end. If someone wants to no longer live and decides that hanging themselves or slitting their wrists or ODing would be too painful or too drawn out, but doesn't have access to a gun, that doesn't mean they are any less suicidal.

Having easy access to a gun most certainly raises the risk of an impassioned emotional, reactionary and inappropriate use of one. When you're drunk, ****ed off, doped up, betrayed or beside yourself with grief, you aren't thinking logically or clearly. You will react before thinking rationally. That's why so many random objects have been used to bludgeon, stab, beat or maim (and sometimes kill)--objects like kitchen knives, baseball bats, broken bottles, telephone chord, wire, pillows, etc.
"Blind with rage" is a phrase attributed to many persons who have shot a loved one.
And that is why having access to guns is so dangerous to us all, because innocent bystanders can be caught in the crossfires of in-the-moment rage and anger.

And lest we forget, this claim to safety via protection by guns can come at a cost that affects so many people--not just the person you shoot. We're talking about human lives, here. That person may have a mother, a father, brothers, sisters, grandparents, uncles, aunts, girlfriends, husbands, wives, boyfriends, children, etc.

Ward Dragon
25-08-09, 06:08
I have no idea how I'll feel tomorrow.

Well that explains a lot.

Melonie Tomb Raider
25-08-09, 06:11
Guns and suicide aren't even worth linking, if you ask me. It's not like guns make people kill themselves. They'd do it anyway with poison or rope.

TRLegendLuver
25-08-09, 08:17
Guns and suicide aren't even worth linking, if you ask me. It's not like guns make people kill themselves. They'd do it anyway with poison or rope.

That is so true.

You take my guns and rights away, you might as well as burn the rest of the bill of rights. Because you break one, you break all. Simple as that. This is a stupid thread, no offense.

Cochrane
25-08-09, 08:19
You take my guns and rights away, you might as well as burn the rest of the bill of rights. Because you break one, you break all. Simple as that. This is a stupid thread, no offense.

No, not really (to all of this post). Most other western democracies have no such right, and they are still perfectly free countries.

TRLegendLuver
25-08-09, 08:23
Whatever. I find it dumb that people want to take our self-defense away. If you were at home and a robber breaks into your house like it happened at mine and you didn't have a gun (fortunately I did), he can make you do anything he wants. Rape you, robb you, try to kill others, anything, and he can do all of it to you too. But fortunately I had a gun and I was able to protect myself. You cannot and I repeat cannot take away my guns, because you'll have to pry it from my hands. And like I said, this is a stupid thread.

Cochrane
25-08-09, 09:00
Whatever. I find it dumb that people want to take our self-defense away. If you were at home and a robber breaks into your house like it happened at mine and you didn't have a gun (fortunately I did), he can make you do anything he wants. Rape you, robb you, try to kill others, anything, and he can do all of it to you too. But fortunately I had a gun and I was able to protect myself. You cannot and I repeat cannot take away my guns, because you'll have to pry it from my hands. And like I said, this is a stupid thread.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, but why is this thread stupid? Because people have different opinions?

Mad Tony
25-08-09, 09:02
No, not really (to all of this post). Most other western democracies have no such right, and they are still perfectly free countries.So? In the US constitution the right to keep and bear arms is one of many vital amendments. In my eyes taking away the second amendment is just as bad as taking away the first.

TRLegendLuver
25-08-09, 09:04
No its a stupid thread because people get angry over this kind of stuff, like I do, and all it is, is to start arguements and debates over who's right and who's wrong, that's why I think is kind of ridiculous. But like you said we have different opinions. Yeah, we have those, but we also have some members (I'm not referring to you, if you think I am) that will take it badly, and that can cause problems and down right rudeness and as a result banning of the person(s). But whatever floats your boat.

Cochrane
25-08-09, 09:23
So? In the US constitution the right to keep and bear arms is one of many vital amendments. In my eyes taking away the second amendment is just as bad as taking away the first.
But you live in the UK, where you don't have rights equivalent to the second amendment. Do you think that this infringes any rights you have equivalent to those in the first amendment?

No its a stupid thread because people get angry over this kind of stuff, like I do, and all it is, is to start arguements and debates over who's right and who's wrong, that's why I think is kind of ridiculous. But like you said we have different opinions. Yeah, we have those, but we also have some members (I'm not referring to you, if you think I am) that will take it badly, and that can cause problems and down right rudeness and as a result banning of the person(s). But whatever floats your boat.
Ah, OK, that's actually a good point! Yes, many people (including me) get too worked up over something like that.

Mad Tony
25-08-09, 09:26
But you live in the UK, where you don't have rights equivalent to the second amendment. Do you think that this infringes any rights you have equivalent to those in the first amendment?No, because we don't have a constitution here with similar provisions as the second amendment.

Cochrane
25-08-09, 09:28
No, because we don't have a constitution here with similar provisions as the second amendment.

But then why do the US need this right, but the UK don't? Just because it has always been there?

Mad Tony
25-08-09, 09:33
But then why do the US need this right, but the UK don't? Just because it has always been there?Well I do think we need this right but as it happens we don't have it. When it comes to guns, our politicians follow knee-jerk reactions, not logic and common sense. But yes, it's included in the US constition so I don't see any more reason for it to be removed than any of the other amendments.

Cochrane
25-08-09, 09:46
Well I do think we need this right but as it happens we don't have it. When it comes to guns, our politicians follow knee-jerk reactions, not logic and common sense. But yes, it's included in the US constition so I don't see any more reason for it to be removed than any of the other amendments.

Ah, OK, I think I understand it now. You think such a right is a good idea, and while it is not something that reduces freedom for the UK, removing any right at constitutional rank would be an issue of freedom for the US, right?

Mad Tony
25-08-09, 14:12
Exactly.

Melonie Tomb Raider
25-08-09, 14:17
Whatever. I find it dumb that people want to take our self-defense away. If you were at home and a robber breaks into your house like it happened at mine and you didn't have a gun (fortunately I did), he can make you do anything he wants. Rape you, robb you, try to kill others, anything, and he can do all of it to you too. But fortunately I had a gun and I was able to protect myself. You cannot and I repeat cannot take away my guns, because you'll have to pry it from my hands. And like I said, this is a stupid thread.

Oh wow. :eek: Must have been a scary situation, but fortunately you had the gun to protect yourself. :)

America was founded as a free country with rights, and those rights should remain as they are . You mess with our rights, then you mess with our freedom.