Why the NRA is wrong (so many gun deaths in the U.S.)

[stonecutter]

Hey guys,

This may be going over old ground, if so, mods please delete. So much ink has been spilled over why so many guns are spilling so much blood in the U.S. compared to other countries (notably Switzerland, where everyone has an automatic in their home as part of their militia duties).
A short while ago I read in the papers about how a Texas fast-food restaurant employee was shot to death by a customer who was irate about having been denied extra packages of hot sauce taco seasoning. The customer was carrying, of course, and when the retard was provoked, BOOM was the response.
When I took my firearms safety course here in Canada before I could legally own any fun, the instructor told us that part of the reason guns and ammo had to be locked away in separate places was because, and I quote: "if you get into a hot-headed situation where you might be tempted to use a firearm to resolve the dispute, if the firearms and ammunition are stored seperately and have locks on them, then by the time you unlock the vault for the rifle, then go all the way to the garage to get the bullets, when you come back and are finally ready to use the firearm in anger, chances are the peak of the anger will have passed and you will reason that there are better ways to deal with the situation than killing someone." This has always stuck with me. When I read about that shooting in Texas, I wondered if the reason there is such a disproportionate number of gun deaths in the States is because of the ready access to firearms at all times by so many people? Seems like a given, but I have finally understood why exactly. Indeed, as the NRA says, people kill people; but don't give them the means to do so right off the bat without having a chance to cool down first.

Fire away (pun sorta intended).

[vinny_121_ND]

Americans are just more stressed out individuals. They eat more junk food, exercise less, impatient at traffic jams, sleep about 4 to 6 hours a day and demand things instantly.

I think your strategy of separating out bullets and guns is a fine idea, but there's always that stressed out individual who feels the strict need to protect himself/herself, and also the ego, and feelings.

[pascalywood]

Thats a very touchy thread mate. I find it troubling that some people wont even try to stay calm in a frustrating situation. Instead they prefer to use their guns and shoot the guy ****-chenney style

[schwarz]

Or when the crackhead breaks into your house and you have to go all the way to the garage to get the ammo.......and well you get the idea:roll:


Ever think it just might be the persons fault.

[schwarz]

Thats a very touchy thread mate. I find it troubling that some people wont even try to stay calm in a frustrating situation. Instead they prefer to use their guns and shoot the guy ****-chenney style


Oh yea makes sense, because he shot him on purpose.:slap:

[pascalywood]

Oh yea makes sense, because he shot him on purpose.:slap:


the **** cheney part was a joke mate. calm down p-)

[D-gin]

Oh yea makes sense, because he shot him on purpose.:slap:
Of course he did, The guy was a Lawyer. p-)

[schwarz]

the **** cheney part was a joke mate. calm down p-)


as a cucumber mate.:hug:

[LaoSexMachine]

Hey guys,

This may be going over old ground, if so, mods please delete. So much ink has been spilled over why so many guns are spilling so much blood in the U.S. compared to other countries (notably Switzerland, where everyone has an automatic in their home as part of their militia duties).
A short while ago I read in the papers about how a Texas fast-food restaurant employee was shot to death by a customer who was irate about having been denied extra packages of hot sauce taco seasoning. The customer was carrying, of course, and when the retard was provoked, BOOM was the response.
When I took my firearms safety course here in Canada before I could legally own any fun, the instructor told us that part of the reason guns and ammo had to be locked away in separate places was because, and I quote: "if you get into a hot-headed situation where you might be tempted to use a firearm to resolve the dispute, if the firearms and ammunition are stored seperately and have locks on them, then by the time you unlock the vault for the rifle, then go all the way to the garage to get the bullets, when you come back and are finally ready to use the firearm in anger, chances are the peak of the anger will have passed and you will reason that there are better ways to deal with the situation than killing someone." This has always stuck with me. When I read about that shooting in Texas, I wondered if the reason there is such a disproportionate number of gun deaths in the States is because of the ready access to firearms at all times by so many people? Seems like a given, but I have finally understood why exactly. Indeed, as the NRA says, people kill people; but don't give them the means to do so right off the bat without having a chance to cool down first.

Fire away (pun sorta intended).

I own many guns, have been in many "hot headed" situations, never wanted to shoot or kill anyone. If a gun wasn't use it would be something else. Gun is a tool just like a knife, monkey wrench, baseball bat, and any inanimate object. Left alone in a safe a gun is as deadly as a paper weight. People kill. So don't take personal responsibility away from the individual and blame an object for someone who can't control thier anger.

[JJC]

When some homie shoots another brotha for wearing the wrong "colors" in his turf or some dope head shoots his dealer for cheating him it's tragic waste of life. But the change has to come with communities and societies not guns. U.S. has to have more guns in homes than compared to other countries and considering the numbers of weapons in citizen hands it should be like Iraq then, but it's not. You take away the guns, the means doesn't go away cause you have knives left, the preferred item used in U.K. for violent attacks etc...

[stonecutter]

. So don't take personal responsibility away from the individual and blame an object for someone who can't control thier anger.

Right. But my point is there are so many dumba$$ses out there who can't control their anger. You can, but not the guy who shot the Taco Bell employee because he wouldn't give him an extra few packs of hot sauce.
By not blaming the "object", as you say, the result is the U.S. gun death rate, versus the rest of the world's gun death rate.

[pascalywood]

Right. But my point is there are so many dumba$$ses out there who can't control their anger. You can, but not the guy who shot the Taco Bell employee because he wouldn't give him an extra few packs of hot sauce.
By not blaming the "object", as you say, the result is the U.S. gun death rate, versus the rest of the world's gun death rate.


A scientist made a documentary about it. His name is Moore. Michael Moore p-)

[schwarz]

Right. But my point is there are so many dumba$$ses out there who can't control their anger. You can, but not the guy who shot the Taco Bell employee because he wouldn't give him an extra few packs of hot sauce.
By not blaming the "object", as you say, the result is the U.S. gun death rate, versus the rest of the world's gun death rate.


If we made it illegal to own a gun in the US I guarantee crime would go up. Think about it..if you were a criminal and wanted to rob some one or break into their house and knew there was no chance they had a gun woulndt you be a lot more likely to do it(not saying there still isnt the one who would either way) than if you thought the may have one. Criminals are criminals they are going to break the law no matter what if that means just owning a gun is breaking the law the will do it just like mugging someone. DC is a perfect example of this.

[LaoSexMachine]

Right. But my point is there are so many dumba$$ses out there who can't control their anger. You can, but not the guy who shot the Taco Bell employee because he wouldn't give him an extra few packs of hot sauce.
By not blaming the "object", as you say, the result is the U.S. gun death rate, versus the rest of the world's gun death rate.


How many people live in the US? How many murders happen when a gun is not present? So Americans are suppose to do what the rest of the "world" does? What "world" do you live in. Gun deaths happen in country where there is strict gun laws. Idiots get a license to drive so why not stop/ban that? Like I said personal responsibility. I have my HK P2000 right next to me as I typed and "it" hasn't gone on a rampage and killed anyone.

[schwarz]

A scientist made a documentary about it. His name is Moore. Michael Moore p-)

And he is a liar and an asshole.

[Calanen]

restaurant employee was shot to death by a customer who was irate about having been denied extra packages of hot sauce taco seasoning. The customer was carrying, of course, and when the retard was provoked, BOOM was the response.


Hey I don't see what the problem was - I mean, he asked for extra hot sauce and all he got was attitude! Like when Michale Douglas wanted the breakfast menu after 10.30 in Falling Down. The answer is just better service.

[Hollis]

Right. But my point is there are so many dumba$$ses out there who can't control their anger. You can, but not the guy who shot the Taco Bell employee because he wouldn't give him an extra few packs of hot sauce.
By not blaming the "object", as you say, the result is the U.S. gun death rate, versus the rest of the world's gun death rate.


This is one of the most runned to death discussion, I gather your in Canada, WELL STAY THERE, the US is none of your ^&&* business. USE SEARCH this topic has been whipped to death a million times. In Canada I obey Canadians Laws and DO NOT tell Canadians how to live. TRY DOING THE SAME.

Thank you very much...................

[stonecutter]

This is one of the most runned to death discussion, I gather your in Canada, WELL STAY THERE, the US is none of your ^&&* business. USE SEARCH this topic has been whipped to death a million times. In Canada I obey Canadians Laws and DO NOT tell Canadians how to live. TRY DOING THE SAME.

Thank you very much...................

Lol -- touchy topic, eh? Nothing wrong with a bit of discussion, mate.

[Hollis]

Lol -- touchy topic, eh? Nothing wrong with a bit of discussion, mate.


Look at tool bar, see "SEARCH"........... Use it M8

[Shellshock1918]

The 2nd Amendment is about Liberty. It is your God given right to defend your self and to keep government in check.

[schwarz]

The 2nd Amendment is about Liberty. It is your God given right to defend your self and to keep government in check.


They(Canadians) wouldnt know anything about that.

[Backwoodshunter]

In all reality guns are a way of testing citizens ability to handle responsibility, just because certain individuals or even alot at first react badly, we need to ensure a mature responsible society, not protect and coddle citizens by removing and desensitizing them.

[Samurai]

If you where to take one person out of every country and put them in a room, they all have different cultures, languages, customs. Can you imagine all those barriers while their living together, it will drive some one fvking crazy.
Well thats the USA, oh and KEEP OUT.

[Hollis]

In all reality guns are a way of testing citizens ability to handle responsibility, just because certain individuals or even alot at first react badly, we need to ensure a mature responsible society, not protect and coddle citizens by removing and desensitizing them.


I was thinking about something similar to that. I agree 100%. Talk about fire control... and a added dimension of ***, then unwanted pregnancies.... In the preponderance of times it show what ill-responsible people will cause. IMHO the vast majority of gun owners are responsible, they know a mistake is something to be completely avoided. How many lived are lost via guns or abortions. No wonder those who feel they will be forever children and the government will always be their parents, they will not take responsibilities for their actions. They will advocate denial of freedom to those who are responsible.

Freedom is not what ever the state allows one to be "free", it is being able to take responsibilities for ones own actions and being able to make that decission for one self.

[NeedsABetterName]

I think the reason that it's a *touchy* topic is two-fold:

- You're Canadian. You obey Canadian laws in Canada and American laws in America. You don't tell us how to live, just as we don't tell you how to live. Keep to your own, I guess.
- The topic's been done to death. Yes, discussion is healthy. There's a point where it gets redundant, however.


In America, we feel there's a need for guns. We believe that it's an inalienable right to defend ourselves and keep our government in check. Whether or not our government's the English Crown and is oppressing us nowadays is moot; it's called 'inalienable' for a reason. We believe that we have a right to defend ourselves, be that from a foreign army or a local robber. That's why we have the right to keep and bear arms. It's a foreign concept for those that have grown up in a society that doesn't give that right.

I've got several guns in my home. Unless they did it while I was asleep or out of the house, they haven't grown legs, walked down the street and shot somebody. A gun is a tool, just like the screwdriver in my garage or the pen on my desk. More importantly, it's an inanimate object; neutral, in a sense. It can be used for good and for bad, just as a screwdriver can. I can sharpen that screwdriver against a sharpening stone and stab somebody if I so wished. I could drive that pen through my neighbor's neck if I felt so inclined. I could also use that screwdriver to fix my laptop, and I could also use that pen to write myself a note. A gun is the same way. I could use it peacefully, take it to the range and shoot it or carry it with the intention of defending myself and my family, or I could take it to Wal-Mart and open fire because they short-changed me the other day.

Let's use the example of me shooting up Wal-Mart. How do you blame the gun for my stupidity and lack of judgment? The gun did not form a probe, enter my brain, and force me to decide to kill people. The gun did not jump into my hand, aim itself at the cashiers and customers, and pull its trigger. I made that decision. I moved my arm and withdrew that gun from my waistband, and I ultimately made the decision to pull that trigger. The responsibility rests solely with me, the shooter. Not with the gun. Not with the ammunition. Not with the gun safe or lack thereof. The shooter. Nobody or nothing else. Not mommy grounding me when I was twelve. Not my girlfriend dumping me. The shooter. That's a part of society that I don't like: the tendency to place the blame on anybody but the individual.

And even if you removed the gun from the situation, I've still got plenty of knives. I've got a good amount of blunt or sharp objects in my garage; I've probably got a few that combine a bit of both. I've got the pen sitting next to me. I've got an automobile, something filled with a few dozen gallons of gasoline that has the capability to run countless numbers of pedestrians over. If I make the conscious decision to kill somebody, a law stating that owning a gun is illegal will not stop me. That's evidenced in countries all over the world that don't allow their citizens to own guns. People will find a way.

However, if you're a serious advocate of gun control/banning guns, I hope you're also a strong advocate of the following:

- A total ban or heavy restriction on *****es. They ejaculate, often times in the wrong places, causing many unwanted pregnancies that often ruin people's lives
- A total ban or heavy restriction on cars. They have this horrible tendency to slam into other cars at high speed, causing multiple deaths and injuries
- A total ban or heavy restriction on sand. It often sinks, causing thousands of dollars in damage to businesses and homes. It's also rated more likely to kill someone in the United States than sharks
- A total ban or heavy restriction on breathing. Breathing allows people to live, and people are the biggest danger on the planet to other people and therefore shouldn't be allowed

Get my point p-)?

[lider_r]

The 2nd Amendment is about Liberty. It is your God given right to defend your self and to keep government in check.


The US constitution isn't founded on God though, specifically the christian god to which i assume you are referring to.

[Wall]

One problem in banning guns in america is that, there is so many guns now time. It must be done, when there arent. Now there are, and they just go illegal, couple hunred thousand weapons go to state and so on.
There is still weapons for criminals, if they ban guns.

[stonecutter]

Seems I've been misunderstood -- why is everybody going on about freedom-hating Canadians who want to ban guns and be coddled by government?? Calm down everyone. I didn't say that guns should be banned; rather I was just wondering if it was perhaps a gun storage issue (as my instructor related) that might have an effect on keeping some death stats down. That is all.

As for the *****es and cars, these both come with certain controls (laws against underage ***, incest, etc; speed limits on roads, DUI, etc), so in this case they're not the best examples. But whatever, as has been pointed out, this has been done to death already....sorry.

[lider_r]

its concerning to see how irrate many of the 'pro-gunners' are, people with quick tempers like that are probably not the best candidates for gun ownership i would of thought

[Buckeye67]

its concerning to see how irrate many of the 'pro-gunners' are, people with quick tempers like that are probably not the best candidates for gun ownership i would of thought


S'ok, people who post comments as idiotic as this (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=2583418#post2583418) are probably not the best candidates for free speech. We still have to let to them make them though. Sucks, doesn't it?

[maple.leaf]

It always seems to be the most ignorant, arrogant, radical and just plain crazy people who scream the loudest about "free speech". In fact, they are abusing the priviledge.

The truth of the American War for Independence is that it was instigated by a minority of merchants who didn't want to pay taxes (and not initially supported by the majority of the colonists). Furthermore, it was only through the intervention of professional military training (and mercenaries) provided by some German states that the Continental Army became an effective fighting force. And even then, it was the intervention of the French Navy that really tipped the final balance.

As for Canadians being anti-gun - that's a load of ignorant rubbish. There are almost as many guns per capita in Canada as there are in America - and yet somehow we don't have the same problems of people going around shooting each other.

[SineJustitia]

Well, not to spoil the thread but... What happened to the NRA in the title of the thread? If they are wrong, what is it they are saying, according to you?

[a_very_ex_STAB]

It's somewhat amusing really. A Canadian comments on the ludicrous firearms situation that has been allowed to develop in the USA and gets told not to comment on domestic US affairs.

One thing I've noticed on here is that US gun nutters are not exactly shy about commenting on other countries' internal domestic affairs/events and pompously lecturing them about it when they think it suits them :roll:

[Buckeye67]

It's somewhat amusing really. A Canadian comments on the ludicrous firearms situation that has been allowed to develop in the USA and gets told not to comment on domestic US affairs.

One thing I've noticed on here is that US gun nutters are not exactly shy about commenting on other countries' internal domestic affairs/events and pompously lecturing them about it when they think it suits them :roll:

I think this one of those "chicken or the egg" type deals. It's been going back and forth for so long that noone knows who started doing it to who - and for one group to call another one on it is sort of the pot calling the kettle black.

Every.single.time. a thread comes up about a shooting in the US (on pretty much any forum you read) someone not from the US starts moralizing about our gun laws, and every.single.time. a shooting happens elsewhere - the same happens in reverse.

People is just people.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I think this one of those "chicken or the egg" type deals. It's been going back and forth for so long that noone knows who started doing it to who - and for one group to call another one on it is sort of the pot calling the kettle black.

Every.single.time. a thread comes up about a shooting in the US (on pretty much any forum you read) someone not from the US starts moralizing about our gun laws, and every.single.time. a shooting happens elsewhere - the same happens in reverse.

People is just people.

For once I agree with you. Arguments about gun laws etc in a civilian context are completely sterile and I guess are pretty much 'off topic' here now.

[Litti]

I think it´s not the crime itself but the general FEAR and nervousness this mass owning of guns creates.

I would be very scared to know that all my neighbours might have a gun inside their house. Even more so if this right was extended to public places. To walk on the street knowing your average nobody with a mental disease could just unload his clip on me...That would make me nervous and I might even get a gun as well in order to stay out of harms way. But in reality I would only make the situation worse.

It´s a bit like violent pop-culture. It does not cause an increase in violence directly but over time there are consequences which affect the society in a negative way when people learn to think that violence might be a decent way to solve problems and when they lose their ability to feel empathy.

A person who is afraid and owns a gun. That **** is not good for anyone.

[urbanassualt]

If owning a gun becomes criminal, only criminals will have guns.
Edit: And of course, the level of gun ownership and availability is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire. This is common sense; the more guns that are present in a region the higher the probability of one of these guns being used to harm another individual. Keep in mind that roughly 39% of all American households contain a gun of some variation. "If you have a country saturated with guns - available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed - it's not unusual guns will be used more often, (U.S. Leads Richest Nations in Gun Deaths (http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html))'' said Rebecca Peters, a Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence. According to the research presented from this website, the featured study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and ninety-five times higher than in Asia. To me, this data infers that Americans are more violent, and thus more predisposed to engaging in gun crimes, than societies which are similarly economically prosperous.


As I understand, Stonecutter's question is:
(A) Whether the placement of a weapon and its ammunition in the same vicinity will result in a higher percentage of violent gun deaths and injuries
...and...
(B) If a firearm's ammunition is restricted from being stored in the same gun cabinet, room, or building containing the weapon itself, will gun crime decrease?


...don't give [gun owners] the means to [commit violent gun crimes] right off the bat without having a chance to cool down first.And how would you suggest enforcing this proposed policy of giving an angry individual the "chance to cool down first?" All guns must be locked in separate storage containers from the required ammunition? Separating the gun from its ammunition sounds like a swell idea - until one realizes it only takes seconds to walk from one room to the next. Will an individual who is deranged enough to violently attack another person with a deadly weapon 'sane' enough to properly contemplate the consequences and morality of such a decision in the time it takes to walk from one locked gun cabinet to another?

An individual with a gun and a determined mindset to cause harm with said gun will have every opportunity to do so - and there's not too much anyone can really do about it. As an American, I am aware that many millions of fellow Americans regard the capability to own, operate, and maintain a firearm as an inalienable right granted to all U.S. citizens. I agree with this line of thought - if a man or woman has the desire to own a gun, or two, or three... let them! As long as the buyer is a valuable member of society with no criminal history I see nothing that should limit their ability to posses a firearm. Of course those with a criminal history, mental handicap, or psychological problem should be barred from obtaining deadly weapons.

Ultimately, our gun laws rely solely upon the individual gun owner to promote safe firearm use. A pistol or rifle can provide the user with entertainment, solace, and personal fulfillment if handled safely and responsibly. Fortunately, the vast majority of American gun owners are not dangerous criminals or psychotic maniacs, but are average, productive, and able members of society. Unfortunately, it is impossible (and illegal) for the local or federal government to provide constant authoritative surveillance of gun-toting Americans in order to protect the safety and well-being of Americans who chose not to use firearms.

To answer your question, Stonecutter, I do not believe that separating a weapon from its ammunition while being stored a reliable nor effective means of cracking down on gun crime. I do not believe a gun-owner's personal procedures concerning the storage of their firearm(s) is a significant factor for increases nor decreases in gun crime. Yes, various firearm storage procedures may help decrease gun crime; but the affect such safety procedures will have on overall gun crime will be minuscule - it simply won't register as effective.

The individual gun-owner, with his or her purchase of a deadly weapon, agrees to use the firearm safely and within the confines of U.S. law. With such a 'user agreement,' American citizens are able to enjoy relatively lenient gun-control laws while residing in a country pestered with reoccurring, and sometimes downright horrific, gun violence. I chose to rely upon an individual's desire for non-violent and safe gun use rather than demand and require the many millions of law-abiding American gun owners to fully separate the storage of weapons from ammunition or any other similar proposal with the designed objective to lengthen or otherwise impede the process of enjoying one's firearms.


Phew. Thanks for listening to my rant. Now that this topic has been sufficiently beaten to near-death, I will retire to the confines of my warm and cozy bed. ;)


Ah yes you selected point 25 from the NRA's drop down list of simplistic homilies :roll:

Well done.

Sorry, mate. Spent a few more minutes than I had expected on the remainder of my post. Hopefully you can forgive my feeble attempt at a reasonable, original, and informed response. Next time I'll try to post everything at the same time. You could ease up a little, though. Surprisingly, members of these forums sometime take a little extra time to write out their entire response...;) But your comment did manage to get a few chuckles out of me in the early hours of my morning, I'm a sucker for homilies.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

If owning a gun becomes criminal, only criminals will have guns.

Ah yes you selected point 25 from the NRA's drop down list of simplistic homilies :roll:

Well done.

[Buckeye67]

I think it´s not the crime itself but the general FEAR and nervousness this mass owning of guns creates.

I would be very scared to know that all my neighbours might have a gun inside their house. Even more so if this right was extended to public places. To walk on the street knowing your average nobody with a mental disease could just unload his clip on me...That would make me nervous and I might even get a gun as well in order to stay out of harms way. But in reality I would only make the situation worse.

Yes because this is exactly how it is here. :roll:

[Buckeye67]

As the posts that STAB and I have just highlighted illustrate, this topic is just sort of retarded to discuss on this, our intarweb.

[Sabre]

This thread is mega. Page 3 and we already have reference to the real motivations behind the war of independence.

I'll go ahead and mention the other necessities:

A-(UK) Prince Phillip - Cricket bats -lethal weapons?
B-(UK ex/current mil) wouldn't mind the odd pop, still don't fancy the US though
C-(US Christian) Marilyn Manson is to blame
D-(US Patriot) King George's return
E-(US conspiracy theorist) Fed-dropping tool
F-(US LE enthusiast) Crackhead home invasion
G-(US fatalist) Criminalise = criminals have guns
H-(US general gun nut) ZOMBIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


To make this go faster, please just post a reference number, together with a brief one liner, ie:


"B, deer stalking"

[joe mama]

Yes, a law that says guns and ammo must be kept separate would work great. After all, the type of person who'd shoot the Taco Bell worker for not giving him enough hot sauce is, of course, a reasonable law abiding person who would obey the law saying keep yo gat and yo bullitz separate, yo! Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Just like he obeyed the law that says don't shoot Taco Bell workers over hot sauce disputes.

Anyone ever seen any statistics on how many gun crimes are actually committed by legally armed & (up until the crime, at least) law abiding people? I hear plenty of antigun whining about numbers of shootings and how that shows we must restrict the law abiding (since the criminals already don't obey the laws against their guns), but I never hear them back their arguments up by pointing out that a significant number of those involve legally armed people. Wouldn't that make their anti gun/restrict the law abiding arguments much stronger? You think they choose not to strengthen their argument? I doubt it. I doubt the numbers are there to back them up.

[Buckeye67]

This thread is stupid. Page 3 and we already have reference to the same ill-informed, idiotic, cliched stereotypes that have little bearing on the actual circumstances of the situation... much like everything else that gets "discussed" on the internet.


Fixed



678910

[a_very_ex_STAB]

To make this go faster, please just post a reference number, together with a brief one liner, ie:

B, target shooting

:)

[Buckeye67]

Q, Knob Creek Machinegun Shoot

[Sabre]

Fixed



678910


Don't touch my posts.

[maple.leaf]

I think it´s not the crime itself but the general FEAR and nervousness this mass owning of guns creates.

What a load of absolute bollocks! CRIME is the enemy.

But in today's society, perception is reality.

I can't believe I even bothered to come back here and take part in this "discussion"....

Option N: nut-cases who should never have been allowed near a real firearm.

Option O: obtuse beaurocrats who don't do their jobs properly and allow nut-cases to slip through the net....

Kill them all - let God/Allah/Budda/Elvis sort them out.

[Litti]

Crime is the enemy of course but fear is even a stronger element in the society and a deciding factor when guns are being used. When a person is constantly bombarded, by media, with messages like :

-A burglar can waltz into your house, rape your wife and shoot you at any given time. Everyone has a gun these days, just remember that when you see a bunch of abusive teenagers kicking your trashcan.

Eventually fear will grow and it begins to control people´s actions. The Iraq mess being an example of what might happen when we take this weapon issue to a bigger level (I should know since I thought the war was necessary at the time).

I understand that the situation can not be changed easily in USA, because there are so many firearms in the market (black and normal). But I would never want similar approach to gun laws in Europe.

edit : Nothing against hunting and weapon sports (target practice etc) of course. I just dont want weapons in cities.

[Buckeye67]

Don't touch my posts.

QQ more plz.

[Shellshock1918]

The US constitution isn't founded on God though, specifically the christian god to which i assume you are referring to.

No, but the Founders believe that your rights were given to you individually by your creator, whoever or whatever it may be.

"Liberty means responsibility, which is why most men dread it."

[Seraphim]

http://homepage.mac.com/thesw0rdofroland/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2006-03-20%2020.11.35%20-0800/Image-97549EDCB89011DA.jpg

[Shellshock1918]

To those in favor of Gun Control, go here and download the PDF.

http://www.gunfacts.info/

These are also good tibits of information:
http://www.saveourguns.com/LethalLaws.htm

http://nramemberscouncils.com/lifeclock/

[WarriorMonk]

G - Not all gun deaths are violent related (ie suicide)

EDIT: I meant like not all of the gun deaths reported have something to do with murder, or armed robbery, some are self-defense and suicide.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

G - Not all gun deaths are violent related (ie suicide)

Seems like a violent way to off yourself to me.
If shooting someone else is an act of violence then shooting yourself must be as well.

[Sabre]

QQ more plz.

http://www.mattscdsingles.com/acatalog/5131%20new.jpg



No, but the Founders believe that your rights were given to you individually by your creator, whoever or whatever it may be.

Whoopee for them. I had two creators, one called Mum and the other called Dad. Which one gave me which rights?

"Liberty means responsibility, which is why most men dread it."

What a load of arse. Typical 'we're all sheep' beliefs. Grow a pair.

[stonecutter]

As I understand, Stonecutter's question is:
(A) Whether the placement of a weapon and its ammunition in the same vicinity will result in a higher percentage of violent gun deaths and injuries
...and...
(B) If a firearm's ammunition is restricted from being stored in the same gun cabinet, room, or building containing the weapon itself, will gun crime decrease?


Urbanassault:
I appreciate you reading my question and providing a thoughtful response.

[lider_r]

http://nramemberscouncils.com/lifeclock/



no thanks, i don't want the fleas from that dog

[stonecutter]

Well, not to spoil the thread but... What happened to the NRA in the title of the thread? If they are wrong, what is it they are saying, according to you?

My bad -- the title was only half-thought out on my part. What I had meant was the NRA's insistence on people being guaranteed to have split-second access to firearms at all times, which probably leads to them being used more often in hot-headed situations whereas other means of solving an issue would be used if the firearms and ammo were slightly more inaccessible (i.e., left at home in storage).
You know, unless it's just a Hollywood thing, some American Wild West towns prohibited cowboys and townsfolk from carrying guns within the town limits. Was this an un-American direct assault on the 2nd Amendment (from probably the most iconic of Americans!), or did the old-time sheriffs support what my instructor was saying about bloodshed going down if you keep firearms one step removed from potential conflict situations.

[joe mama]

My bad -- the title was only half-thought out on my part. What I had meant was the NRA's insistence on people being guaranteed to have split-second access to firearms at all times, which probably leads to them being used more often in hot-headed situations whereas other means of solving an issue would be used if the firearms and ammo were slightly more inaccessible (i.e., left at home in storage).
You know, unless it's just a Hollywood thing, some American Wild West towns prohibited cowboys and townsfolk from carrying guns within the town limits. Was this an un-American direct assault on the 2nd Amendment (from probably the most iconic of Americans!), or did the old-time sheriffs support what my instructor was saying about bloodshed going down if you keep firearms one step removed from potential conflict situations.

Perhaps you should do a little more research and maybe then you'll understand that what the NRA "insists" on is that responsible law abiding adults not have their rights infrindged upon, and that they be allowed to decide for themselves what things like safe storage of firearms means. Sorry to disappoint you, but despite the hysterical screeching of the anti gun people, the NRA does not insist on arming everyone or letting criminals have guns or replacing at birth the right hand of all children with an 88 magnum.

A tiny number of wackos turn to their guns in hotheaded moments when compared to the huge number of people who have guns, you think they're going to obey a law that says they have to store things separate when they don't obey the laws against their violent outbursts? Good thinking. And the vast majority should be told what to do because of these aholes?
A tiny number of people drive when drunk compared to the huge number of people who drink. Should we ban drinking in public? Put breathalyzers on all car ignitions? Sure, why not infringe on the law abiding many because of the ahole few.

[Shellshock1918]

http://www.mattscdsingles.com/acatalog/5131%20new.jpg




What a load of arse. Typical 'we're all sheep' beliefs. Grow a pair.

Tell me, have you been to the desert?

Because there seems to be sand in your ******.

[Hollis]

People who have never grown up will not understand what it means to be a adult. When the government is eternally the parent, who protects the child, makes critical decisions for them and cares for them from cradle to grave how can we expect them to know what responsibility means.

For many people, the government has taken away their adulthood/freedom by placing them is the worse form of slavery, being a slave in ones own mind.

Freedom means risk, uncertainties, danger, along with the positive characteristics of being free. Those who are unwilling to live with the associated risks of living in free society will advocate oppression, that the State becomes the parent of us all. That is a abomination of nature, as a child grows to adulthood, they will stand with equal footing with their parents, the State will never allow that equality to exists. The State will define what is good or bad for us, freedom of choice is given up for "security".

Until these children taste freedom they will forever support a "parental" style of government. ... or as was mentioned earlier, grow a pair.

[Litti]

So you are advocating what exactly...anarchy? Because that´s what it is without a state.

We live together so there are limits to individualism and freedoms. State is not some abstract being that decides for us - WE are the state. It is us who decide the rules in order to sustain order. If you are not happy with opression by the majority, maybe you should try out something else than our current representative democracy. p-)

[lider_r]

Freedom means risk, uncertainties, danger, along with the positive characteristics of being free. Those who are unwilling to live with the associated risks of living in free society will advocate oppression, that the State becomes the parent of us all.

What about the freedom that comes with living in a community where you dont have to worry if your kids are going to get shot? Most of lifes uncertainties are out of our hands- some are choices.

All the bills of rights and shiny toys and trinkets won't make you free, it just makes you a wage slave who works to buy more things then works even more to buy even more things etc. Freedom has absolutly nothing to do with what your 'allowed' to have and everything to do with what you can be satisfied with- ideally, as little as possible.

Citizens who think they need guns are not free- they are prisoners to fear and can be manipulated easily by others who are cueing up to make megabucks from their insecurities.

[Buckeye67]

^--bottom of page 2.

[StukaJr]

My bad -- the title was only half-thought out on my part. What I had meant was the NRA's insistence on people being guaranteed to have split-second access to firearms at all times, which probably leads to them being used more often in hot-headed situations...


Use of firearms in self-defense greatly outweighs the use of firearms in hot-headed situations. You have millions of cases of saved lives in Self-Defense situations and thousands of cases of guns being used in your so called "hot-headed" situations... And you are trying to reverse the tables.

Your method of thought has been applied in Washington DC in the 70's - after its murder rate rose four times since the prohibition of Self Defense in the City Limits, the law is being reversed after a costly and lengthy battle. When sh1t ain't working - why do you keep on pushing it? If a triangle block did not fit into a square peg twenty years ago, keep banging it, why don't ya?



...whereas other means of solving an issue would be used if the firearms and ammo were slightly more inaccessible (i.e., left at home in storage).


Rendering firearms useless in a defensive situation.

You are missing two points:

a) something is in place and it saves lives
b) you are trying to f%&k with it. Adolescent way of forming your thoughts and poor historical insight make it aggravating.



You know, unless it's just a Hollywood thing, some American Wild West towns prohibited cowboys and townsfolk from carrying guns within the town limits. Was this an un-American direct assault on the 2nd Amendment (from probably the most iconic of Americans!),


Many of those Wild West towns were in the Territories and sometimes not even in what US claimed land - it would be town/camp by town/camp basis, but many of the infamous towns were not extended the protection of the US Constitution... Even if they were, they were still enforced by self appointed individuals whom happened to have guns/power - Frontier Law would be a mockery of the Constitution, even where it extended.



or did the old-time sheriffs support what my instructor was saying about bloodshed going down if you keep firearms one step removed from potential conflict situations.

old time Sheriffs were "grab what you can grab" - the right party was often the one left standing and was able to give his side of the story... Men rode into the territory, hired guns and called themselves the law. Perhaps he made the law about "no guns in town" to remain in control.

As per your instructor - "bloodshed going down if you keep your firearms one step removed from potential conflict situation" is about right! Gun in a cupboard and bullets at home do you no good when you are a victim of aggravated assault. Guns are like anything else - it's better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it...

But you can sleep soundly at night that using any weapon in a hot headed situation is a felony in every state in the US of A and persecuted with somewhat harsh punishment... None of that will bring an innocent life back, so self defense has a word self in it for a reason.

[toowoozy]

I think the real problem is simple the NUMBER of firearms that currently exist or are produced every year - especially hand guns. I wonder how dramatically things would be different if there was an outright ban simply on hang guns, thusly only allowing the general populace (not the militia of course) to own only long guns. So every American will still have the right to bear arms but only long guns, this certainly seems to allow for compliance under the 2nd amendment (well REGULATED militia). So any one caught with a illegal hand gun would spend a very long time incarcerated. This would certainly make it more difficult to undertake spur of the moment spontaneous crimes, and would obviously make planned crimes more difficult as it is more difficult to conceal a long gun as opposed to a hand gun. It wouldn't eradicate gun crime or violence but I think it would make a dramatic difference.

I understand when people say people kill people, but the reality is hand guns facilitate the killing and make that killing so much easier. For someone to kill another person with a bat or knife makes that attempt so much more difficult and puts the assailant in a greater position of failure, improving the chances for the victim.

No I don't want to take away your guns, I just want to take away your hand guns.

[Buckeye67]

How about instead of banning guns, we just make violent crime/homicide illegal? Then noone will hurt or kill anyone else.

Amirite?

[CPLHUNTER]

I think it is a good idea to require firearms training and the such to new gun owners.

However the idea of forcing you to separate guns and ammo in your home is absolutely retarded.

"Hold on Mr. Rapist while I locate my ammo and load my gun and then point at you and tell you to stop being a bad bad person."

[StukaJr]

What about the freedom that comes with living in a community where you dont have to worry if your kids are going to get shot? Most of lifes uncertainties are out of our hands- some are choices.


Firearm owning households are not representative of levels of violence in those zones - most of the "Crime Capitals" in the US are also the Pioneers in Firearm Prohibition.



All the bills of rights and shiny toys and trinkets won't make you free, it just makes you a wage slave who works to buy more things then works even more to buy even more things etc. Freedom has absolutly nothing to do with what your 'allowed' to have and everything to do with what you can be satisfied with- ideally, as little as possible.


Freedom of choice is a freedom. That's one.

Two. Some of us have rewarding lives and actually enjoy what we do for a living - sorry it isn't you, though. "wage slaves" p-)

Taking away things that I may want in life has nothing to do with freedom, neither is telling me that I don't need a certain thing.



Citizens who think they need guns are not free- they are prisoners to fear and can be manipulated easily by others who are cueing up to make megabucks from their insecurities.

Right, because the best way to avoid being bludgeoned is not to fear a metal pipe heading for your temple.

I don't need guns. I don't fear nor am I a prisoner of fear. But if a need arises - I will have a working plan. Feel good windbag of a philosophy about things I don't need won't be part of it though.

[handsome777]

And he is a liar and an asshole.
before Guns were invented man had other means of killing others, Guns have taken so many lives caused so many heart breaks and sadness all over the world. as i write this someone somewhere is getting killed by a gun.. men used to fight with their fist , but today its much less trouble just to shoot someone down with a Gun.. If ever nations guns were taken away there would be less war less murders.. i feel sorry for the one who invented the Gun someday he will stand before the judgment and give and account of his terriable invention...millions have been killed by guns and in the future it will continue to happen...tv promotes the Guns.. our whole intertainment is based on violence and Guns.. from the western to the streets of modern cities the gun alway shown... oh how much better off man would be without the Gun?

[Buckeye67]

I think it is a good idea to require firearms training and the such to new gun owners.


I agree with this.

I also think that it is a good idea to require voters to show proof of being a land-owning taxpayer and/or proof of being able to play a musical instrument.

[Sabre]

Tell me, have you been to the desert?

Because there seems to be sand in your ******.

My comment was in response to your statement that "Most men fear responsibility/liberty". I claim that is BS. Most people relish responsibility if they are given it truly and according to their capabilities. Your comment was fatalistic and held a very negative view of humanity, one I do not share.

To answer your question, yes I have been to the desert. It was lovely and sandy out there.

[StukaJr]

I think the real problem is simple the NUMBER of firearms that currently exist or are produced every year - especially hand guns. I wonder how dramatically things would be different if there was an outright ban simply on hang guns, thusly only allowing the general populace (not the militia of course) to own only long guns. So every American will still have the right to bear arms but only long guns, this certainly seems to allow for compliance under the 2nd amendment (well REGULATED militia). So any one caught with a illegal hand gun would spend a very long time incarcerated. This would certainly make it more difficult to undertake spur of the moment spontaneous crimes, and would obviously make planned crimes more difficult as it is more difficult to conceal a long gun as opposed to a hand gun. It wouldn't eradicate gun crime or violence but I think it would make a dramatic difference.

I understand when people say people kill people, but the reality is hand guns facilitate the killing and make that killing so much easier. For someone to kill another person with a bat or knife makes that attempt so much more difficult and puts the assailant in a greater position of failure, improving the chances for the victim.

No I don't want to take away your guns, I just want to take away your hand guns.

Your ideas are very popular with machete wielding savages responsible for multiple cases of genocide in Africa - taking longer to kill someone is somehow "better" in your mind...

Gun neutralizes an assailant effectively. Gun equates the assailant to the victim - making the former think twice before assaulting. A thought of a possibility of victim being armed makes the assailant gamble with their own life. Finally, History has demonstrated time and time again that a single man with a gun can have absolute control over a hundred of disarmed constituents.

[handsome777]

And he is a liar and an asshole.
money is more inportant than people lives.. the NRA clould care less of how many lifes are taken with Guns..they are interested on one thing money and profits...people who are allowed to bare guns should be screen and excamined to the limits.. training should be applied with hard courses and safety should be really taught virgiously... mental evaluations should also be tested.. people who carry Guns should be adults and should and younger hunters have and adult along with them when handling hunting guns ...Guns are not dangerious it the one behind the trigger that need to be careful and responable...

[lider_r]

Firearm owning households are not representative of levels of violence in those zones - most of the "Crime Capitals" in the US are also the Pioneers in Firearm Prohibition.

thats because they can be representative of violence levels when those guns are stolen and used in other zones


Freedom of choice is a freedom.

which is a freedom that is denied to those who want the choice to live in a place where they dont have to worry about getting shot when they go to university, for example.


Taking away things that I may want in life has nothing to do with freedom, neither is telling me that I don't need a certain thing.

Taking away somebodys right to live without fear of being shot by a stolen gun has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with the gun owners insistance that he/she must own a gun so that he/she can be satisfied.


Right, because the best way to avoid being bludgeoned is not to fear a metal pipe heading for your temple.

The best way to avoid any kind of violence is to stay away from dodgy areas, dodgy people and dodgy governments whohampion laws which let those dodgy people get hold of dangerous weapons.


I don't fear nor am I a prisoner of fear

Of course you wouldn't admit to being scared, nobody likes to have their pride threatened. If there is nothing to fear then why feel the need to have to a gun?

[handsome777]

Guns should be harder to obtain and hard laws inforced. adults with good metal healthy minds should be able to carry a gun under the laws and also should be carefully screen of past history of violence or anything of that nature..I,m like you Mr its too easy for anyone in this country of our to obtain a Gun...

[toowoozy]

Your ideas are very popular with machete wielding savages responsible for multiple cases of genocide in Africa - taking longer to kill someone is somehow "better" in your mind...

Gun neutralizes an assailant effectively. Gun equates the assailant to the victim - making the former think twice before assaulting. A thought of a possibility of victim being armed makes the assailant gamble with their own life. Finally, History has demonstrated time and time again that a single man with a gun can have absolute control over a hundred of disarmed constituents.

Well imagine if those machete wielding savages had guns - the genocide would have been many times worse. And yes taking longer or creating obstacles to someone perpetrating a violent crime is exactly my intent - A hand gun you can shot me from a distance, any other object you have to close the gap putting you the assaliant at risk and thusly improving my odds for survival.

A gun does NOT neutralize an assailant effectively especially if the assailant has a gun as well.

History has demonstrated where one man or one nation with a gun/power who tried to have absolute power over a 100 constituents, this then enspired those constituents to then empower themselves and rise up arming themselves as well.

[Conman]

Should gun control laws be strengthened, by this I mean existing laws should be better enforced, yes I believe they should. Does this mean that guns should be banned, NO FCUKING WAY.

Some people from outside the US have commented on what they believe should be done, as is their right. However this is strictly an internal matter for the US and its citizens. I have a feeling that alot of people from outside just don't know how important the Constitution is to your average American. I am not a religious man. I am not Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim , but i feel, and am hoping that almost all my fellow Americans agree, that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are sacrosanct.

My use of the word sacrosanct is in the most pure, and an almost holy sense.
There are exactly 10 amendments to the Bill of Rights, and some people want to take out the 2nd amendment, want to set a precedent for the removal of a right guaranteed to me by the Bill of Rights because they believe it is outdated and antiquated, is so stupid and idiotic that words can not describe

So when someone says that my Constitution, my Bill of Rights is wrong, when some foreigner says that even though I don't live in the US and am not an American citizen, I know exactly how much you lot are screwing up and i have just the fix for it, it leaves me almost speechless with rage

[Sabre]

Those 'machete wielding africans' do have guns, they just prefer to use machetes for games like '*** the baby' because they are sick, drug crazed murderers.

In fact, in places like Sierra Leone, virtually everyone had a gun. Did that make everyone free? Did it fvck, it made the sickest, most disgustingly minded, power hungry fvck the leader. Look at Afghanistan, they even make their own guns there, so that must mean extra 'liberty points' eh? Buzzz! Nope. Afghanistan is and was one of the most lawless, repressed, living on the edge of existence countries in the world. Sierra Leone was sorted out by Brits and UN forces moving in and killing as many of those sick fvcks with guns as we could, allowing elections to take place and ordered life to return. Afghanistan is going down the same road.

Guns don't make you free. Laws do. The only reason you are allowed guns is because it is written in the law, by it's very nature the 2nd amendment accepts that laws and restrictions are necessary to orderly and 'free' control of guns.

[Hollis]

So you are advocating what exactly...anarchy? Because that´s what it is without a state.

We live together so there are limits to individualism and freedoms. State is not some abstract being that decides for us - WE are the state. It is us who decide the rules in order to sustain order. If you are not happy with opression by the majority, maybe you should try out something else than our current representative democracy. p-)


I am sorry my aluminum hat is not tuned to the same channel as yours. I think your asking me to respond? Anarchy is just as bad a totalitarianism.

Try Constitutional Republic.

[StukaJr]

thats because they can be representative of violence levels when those guns are stolen and used in other zones

Right... And illegal guns are not stolen from police, military, home made or brought from outterspace (or other excuses).




which is a freedom that is denied to those who want the choice to live in a place where they dont have to worry about getting shot when they go to university, for example.

Knee jerk reaction to V-Tech tragedy, but I'll play along... Firearm ownership and innocent people getting shot is about a stretch as a car in a dealership and a 60 car pile up on a freeway.

Person not wanting to get shot and person wanting a ban on firearms are two different things.




Taking away somebodys right to live without fear of being shot by a stolen gun has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with the gun owners insistance that he/she must own a gun so that he/she can be satisfied.

Perhaps you can give an example of how firearm prohibition takes firearms out of the hands of Violent Criminals...



The best way to avoid any kind of violence is to stay away from dodgy areas, dodgy people and dodgy governments whohampion laws which let those dodgy people get hold of dangerous weapons.

Obviously, one would stay away from V-tech in your above example... because one should feel safe in a "non-dodgy area"




Of course you wouldn't admit to being scared, nobody likes to have their pride threatened. If there is nothing to fear then why feel the need to have to a gun?

I don't own a gun because of fear. You, however, make stretchy assumptions.

[joe mama]

...Of course you wouldn't admit to being scared, nobody likes to have their pride threatened. If there is nothing to fear then why feel the need to have to a gun?

I don't fear fire, in the sense that I don't live in fear of a fire happening in my house. Yet I have a fire extinguisher, just in case a fire happens. It's a tool that I MAY be able to use if a fire occurs.
I don't have my guns because I fear that someone might break in at any moment, however if someone does, they are tools that I MAY be able to use to protect myself.

Everytime I hear someone say that people have guns because of fear, it's a person who fears guns saying it. Most people I know, both armed and unarmed, don't live in fear. They apply a reasonable level of caution to their lives to avoid dangerous situations/areas/people, but that's not the same as fear, that's like driving intelligently.

How do you feel about abortion? Are you pro choice? If so, what do you think of pro life people who would try to severely limit if not ban abortions, because THEY have decided they are wrong? Don't like the idea of them controlling your life (or that of a woman you care about, or any woman, for that matter) with their views? Then where do you get off wanting to impose your views about guns on me? My guns aren't shooting anyone. They're inanimate objects that won't do anything until a person uses them. If you're afraid of them, then stay away from them and don't have any. But don't try to force your views about them onto me.

[lider_r]

Right... And illegal guns are not stolen from police, military, home made or brought from outterspace (or other excuses).

Most are stolen from homes. All were legal at some stage of their lives.


Knee jerk reaction to V-Tech tragedy, but I'll play along... Firearm ownership and innocent people getting shot is about a stretch as a car in a dealership and a 60 car pile up on a freeway.

eeer ok....


Person not wanting to get shot and person wanting a ban on firearms are two different things.

how so? If somebody doesn't want to get shot then usually they want to authorities to regulate who gets to buy guns and who doesnt (preferably the non-crazy people)


Perhaps you can give an example of how firearm prohibition takes firearms out of the hands of Violent Criminals...

Oz has seen a decline in shootings since laws were introduced.


Obviously, one would stay away from V-tech in your above example... because one should feel safe in a "non-dodgy area"

Virginia=deeply conservative/christian heartland/no shortage of guns


i wouldnt call that non-dodgy


I don't own a gun because of fear.

of course you do, you fear a break-in or somebody attacking you (with a gun most likely) so you get a gun in order to feel safe.

[lider_r]

I don't fear fire, in the sense that I don't live in fear of a fire happening in my house. Yet I have a fire extinguisher, just in case a fire happens. It's a tool that I MAY be able to use if a fire occurs.

thats because unless there are certain conditions present ie flammables you would have no real reason to fear that a fire may break out at any moment.


Everytime I hear someone say that people have guns because of fear, it's a person who fears guns saying it. Most people I know, both armed and unarmed, don't live in fear. They apply a reasonable level of caution to their lives to avoid dangerous situations/areas/people, but that's not the same as fear, that's like driving intelligently.

it becomes an issue when the actions of an individual start to affect the lives of others


How do you feel about abortion? Are you pro choice? If so, what do you think of pro life people who would try to severely limit if not ban abortions, because THEY have decided they are wrong? Don't like the idea of them controlling your life (or that of a woman you care about, or any woman, for that matter) with their views?

would you extend this concept of tolerating other peoples views to folk such as iraq insurgents or the taliban?


Where do you get off wanting to impose your views about guns on me?

Im pretty sure thats the same thing that victims of shootings having going around in their heads in the moments before they get shot dead by somebody threatening them with a gun.

:hug:

[joe mama]

...of course you do, you fear a break-in or somebody attacking you (with a gun most likely) so you get a gun in order to feel safe.

And, once again, you tell us why we gave our guns. Too bad we're too stupid to know why we do ourselves. You argue like a 3 year old. When you're ready to listen to the points of view of people who disagree with you, and learn something about gun owners instead of deciding what they think and feel, you let me know.

[StukaJr]

Most are stolen from homes. All were legal at some stage of their lives.

That's not true for any country that prohibits their citizens from owning guns - like Japan, China, Soviet Union etc... Did nothing to deter criminals from being well armed.

Illegal Guns are like any other illicit substance - make it illegal, criminals will have procure them and make a profit by doing so...



eeer ok....


Yes, I can't quite explain myself how safe zones always become grounds for violent crimes - maybe because criminals feel safe carrying out their execution style killings in areas where nobody else is armed? According to you, civilians carrying weapons to save lives are cowardly just as criminals carrying out killing of defenseless people?



how so? If somebody doesn't want to get shot then usually they want to authorities to regulate who gets to buy guns and who doesnt (preferably the non-crazy people)

But then, according to you, criminals steal guns from legal and trustworthy owners - moving to bigger fish, like blanket prohibition of civilian firearm ownership.



Oz has seen a decline in shootings since laws were introduced.

I can bet my lunch money that it was in decline before the laws were introduced...



Virginia=deeply conservative/christian heartland/no shortage of guns

i wouldnt call that non-dodgy

You've never been to Virginia, you shouldn't comment. Unless you can back it up with proper numbers of weapons per household and types of weapons of course and not just allegations... California has most restrictive State Laws in regards to firearms, yet most guns per capita than any other State - neighboring states enjoy a lot laxer gun laws with virtually no restrictions and a lot lower violent crime rates.

No guns on V-Tech campus - period. Out of everybody encountered by the killer, nobody else had a gun. So the fact that V-Tech campus was a "gun free zone" until one deranged individual came in with a gun, stands. The tragedy is not prevented by making it "harder" for a deranged person to purchase a firearm. The tragedy is prevented when other people are capable of defending oneselves. If criminals don't get firearms from local gunshow or neighboring state - they will get it from China, ambush a cop or cut down a hunting gun.

There was another case 3-4 years previously, where a deranged person tried to shoot up a college. It received a lot less world media exposure because number of victims was a lot less (3-4) - killer got held at gunpoint by a student with CCW permit while other students tackled the killer and put a stop to the event.




of course you do, you fear a break-in or somebody attacking you (with a gun most likely) so you get a gun in order to feel safe.

No I don't. Fear and forward planning - different things. It might rain - I take an umbrella, yet that doesn't mean I fear the rain.

[handsome777]

Should gun control laws be strengthened, by this I mean existing laws should be better enforced, yes I believe they should. Does this mean that guns should be banned, NO FCUKING WAY.

Some people from outside the US have commented on what they believe should be done, as is their right. However this is strictly an internal matter for the US and its citizens. I have a feeling that alot of people from outside just don't know how important the Constitution is to your average American. I am not a religious man. I am not Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim , but i feel, and am hoping that almost all my fellow Americans agree, that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are sacrosanct.

My use of the word sacrosanct is in the most pure, and an almost holy sense.
There are exactly 10 amendments to the Bill of Rights, and some people want to take out the 2nd amendment, want to set a precedent for the removal of a right guaranteed to me by the Bill of Rights because they believe it is outdated and antiquated, is so stupid and idiotic that words can not describe

So when someone says that my Constitution, my Bill of Rights is wrong, when some foreigner says that even though I don't live in the US and am not an American citizen, I know exactly how much you lot are screwing up and i have just the fix for it, it leaves me almost speechless with rage im not saying that people should,t have guns but those that do should be responsiable

[Hollis]

im not saying that people should,t have guns but those that do should be responsiable


All the gun owners I know, are saying the same thing. Like cars, Booze, fast women, eating, etc, it is all about self responsibility. There is more to life than hiding under the bed eating bon bons and letting the state run a person's life.

[StukaJr]

http://www.youtube.com/v/SxBJaAioXE0

Does not want!

[RussDill]

Citizens who think they need guns are not free- they are prisoners to fear and can be manipulated easily by others who are cueing up to make megabucks from their insecurities.

Does wearing a seatbelt make you a prisoner of fear? Do you wear it because of your insecurities? Are you manipulated into wearing a seatbelt? Perhaps you looked at the statistics and realized that hey, you can save yourself from injury and death just by putting on a seat belt.

[Seraphim]

Does wearing a seatbelt make you a prisoner of fear? Do you wear it because of your insecurities? Are you manipulated into wearing a seatbelt? Perhaps you looked at the statistics and realized that hey, you can save yourself from injury and death just by putting on a seat belt.

I put my seatbelt on because there is a crazy guy outside of my house that sticks a gun to my head and makes me put on my seatbelt. :-(

[RussDill]

Oz has seen a decline in shootings since laws were introduced.


You need to be more specific. I've looked at the statistics. Its true, there have been less shootings in self defense, and also less suicides by firearm (but not less suicides). Hooray, the ban is working.

[RussDill]

http://www.youtube.com/v/MffcBloUe_A

Does want!

[StukaJr]

Does want!

Is that an SVT? F$&king want! p-)

[Laconian]

Those 'machete wielding africans' do have guns, they just prefer to use machetes for games like '*** the baby' because they are sick, drug crazed murderers.

In fact, in places like Sierra Leone, virtually everyone had a gun. Did that make everyone free? Did it fvck, it made the sickest, most disgustingly minded, power hungry fvck the leader. Look at Afghanistan, they even make their own guns there, so that must mean extra 'liberty points' eh? Buzzz! Nope. Afghanistan is and was one of the most lawless, repressed, living on the edge of existence countries in the world. Sierra Leone was sorted out by Brits and UN forces moving in and killing as many of those sick fvcks with guns as we could, allowing elections to take place and ordered life to return. Afghanistan is going down the same road.

Guns don't make you free. Laws do. The only reason you are allowed guns is because it is written in the law, by it's very nature the 2nd amendment accepts that laws and restrictions are necessary to orderly and 'free' control of guns.

One of the best posts in this thread.

[Jaycee]

May I ask why this guy walked into a diner with a gun in the first place? I definately agree that people need their guns, but taking it along for breakfast? That's just....stupid.

I live in South Africa, one of the highest ranking crime countries in the world(According to the UN and these guys http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/sf-south-africa/cri-crime&b_cite=1) And I don't know anyone who walks around with a gun EVERYWHERE they go.

But I agree that people need guns in their homes at least

[Seraphim]

May I ask why this guy walked into a diner with a gun in the first place? I definately agree that people need their guns, but taking it along for breakfast? That's just....stupid.

I live in South Africa, one of the highest ranking crime countries in the world(According to the UN and these guys http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/sf-south-africa/cri-crime&b_cite=1) And I don't know anyone who walks around with a gun EVERYWHERE they go.

But I agree that people need guns in their homes at least

You're right, the only crimes out there are home invasions. :roll:

[lider_r]

You need to be more specific. I've looked at the statistics. Its true, there have been less shootings in self defense, and also less suicides by firearm (but not less suicides). Hooray, the ban is working.

Homicides with firearms are down, suicides with firearms are down and there have been no mass shootings since.Hooray, the ban is working.

[lider_r]

Does wearing a seatbelt make you a prisoner of fear?


No, it makes me somebody who would rather not go through the windscreen during an accident. If i developed an anxiety disorder about having a crash and dying because of/not because of the seatbelt then i would be a prisoner of fear.



Do you wear it because of your insecurities?


No, I wear it due to common sense.



Are you manipulated into wearing a seatbelt?


No, I choose to because i have common sense.


Perhaps you looked at the statistics and realized that hey, you can save yourself from injury and death just by putting on a seat belt.

You dont need stats to realise what failing to wear a seatbelt is going to do.

When it comes to guns, there are stats which show having a gun in the house is more likely to increase the risk of an accidental shooting or a criminal act (head over to the brady site for details)

Anywho this is apples and oranges, seat belts can't be used in massacres and other crimes. Although there was this one time at band camp....

[Calanen]

May I ask why this guy walked into a diner with a gun in the first place? I definately agree that people need their guns, but taking it along for breakfast? That's just....stupid.


I think he'd been denied extra hot sauce before, and was ready this time for any similar bad service.

[getl0st]

Giving up your Gun's = Giving up your Liberty's

[toowoozy]

Giving up your Gun's = Giving up your Liberty's

But my proposition is that we give up hand guns, not our long guns. I think the problem with our gun culture lies in the mass production of hand guns and their use and purpose, so a ban on hand guns would seem as a reasonable deterent but still allowing the average citizen to possess legal firearms and comply with the 2nd amendmant. Certainly the second amendmant allows for the banning of specific types of firearms (well regulated).

Stats show that the vast majority of all firearem deaths and assaults are committed with handguns.

[Hollis]

But my proposition is that we give up hand guns, not our long guns. I think the problem with our gun culture lies in the mass production of hand guns and their use and purpose, so a ban on hand guns would seem as a reasonable deterent but still allowing the average citizen to possess legal firearms and comply with the 2nd amendmant. Certainly the second amendmant allows for the banning of specific types of firearms (well regulated).

Stats show that the vast majority of all firearem deaths and assaults are committed with handguns.


Your in BC, you don't own hand guns, your Parents(State?) won't let you have one. I am keeping mine, you can give me yours if you do have one.

Did the US annex BC or something? I would not mind BC being a part of the States.

[wbear]

But my proposition is that we give up hand guns, not our long guns. I think the problem with our gun culture lies in the mass production of hand guns and their use and purpose, so a ban on hand guns would seem as a reasonable deterent but still allowing the average citizen to possess legal firearms and comply with the 2nd amendmant. Certainly the second amendmant allows for the banning of specific types of firearms (well regulated).

Stats show that the vast majority of all firearem deaths and assaults are committed with handguns.

The 2nd Amendment does not allow for the banning of specific types of firearms. Hand guns existed back then and "arms" included them.

"well regulated" does not mean rules or regulations as used in the 2nd amendment. 200 years ago well regulated meant "well supplied"

[sct1886]

Hey guys,

This may be going over old ground, if so, mods please delete. So much ink has been spilled over why so many guns are spilling so much blood in the U.S. compared to other countries (notably Switzerland, where everyone has an automatic in their home as part of their militia duties).
A short while ago I read in the papers about how a Texas fast-food restaurant employee was shot to death by a customer who was irate about having been denied extra packages of hot sauce taco seasoning. The customer was carrying, of course, and when the retard was provoked, BOOM was the response.
When I took my firearms safety course here in Canada before I could legally own any fun, the instructor told us that part of the reason guns and ammo had to be locked away in separate places was because, and I quote: "if you get into a hot-headed situation where you might be tempted to use a firearm to resolve the dispute, if the firearms and ammunition are stored seperately and have locks on them, then by the time you unlock the vault for the rifle, then go all the way to the garage to get the bullets, when you come back and are finally ready to use the firearm in anger, chances are the peak of the anger will have passed and you will reason that there are better ways to deal with the situation than killing someone." This has always stuck with me. When I read about that shooting in Texas, I wondered if the reason there is such a disproportionate number of gun deaths in the States is because of the ready access to firearms at all times by so many people? Seems like a given, but I have finally understood why exactly. Indeed, as the NRA says, people kill people; but don't give them the means to do so right off the bat without having a chance to cool down first.

Fire away (pun sorta intended).

The majority of the "hotheads" you refer to are substance abusers with a history of crimminal violence. Are you so naive to believe the shooting at the Taco Bell was committed by a law abiding and well balanced individual? What the hell good is a firearm if it is inaccessible? I personally have had several instances where I used mine in self defence. Just this May while working in a dangerous area a meth addict decided I was game until he surmised I was armed. The "disproportionate" deaths" you speak of could and would be avoided if these violent individuals were PERMANENTLY incarcerated or executed. My ex wife was robbed at gunpoint by an individual with a total of seven arrest for armed robbery. This included several convictions. The prosecutor was not going to go after him as a "habitual violent offender" The catch and release program only works for fish, not crimminals. I had a shooting occur in front of me in East St. Louis last August. It was at a well known crack house. These are the type of individuals commiting most gun related crimes. If a person will not live in peace, they should rest in peace or peices. My wife would jog anytime she desired in Beijing 24/7 without fear of rape or violence. This is because crimminals were fixed with a single shot to the back of the head and the family billed for the bullet. Our government is supposed to act as the sheperd of the flock and protect the people from harm. All I see is that they feed and protect the predators to justify thier existence. You need to know more about what you speak of first hand, not the emotional crap you read.

[D-gin]

But my proposition is that we give up hand guns, not our long guns. I think the problem with our gun culture lies in the mass production of hand guns and their use and purpose, so a ban on hand guns would seem as a reasonable deterent but still allowing the average citizen to possess legal firearms and comply with the 2nd amendmant. Certainly the second amendmant allows for the banning of specific types of firearms (well regulated).

Stats show that the vast majority of all firearem deaths and assaults are committed with handguns.
Because someone won't shoot you with a rifle but just a handgun.

[RussDill]

Homicides with firearms are down, suicides with firearms are down and there have been no mass shootings since.Hooray, the ban is working.

Suicides are not down, at all. A mass shooting is only also just a lunitic away. And heck, the largest school massacere in US history did not involve firearms.

Are justifiable homicides counted within the homicides number? What about murder suicide? And more importantly, how much are homicides down overall.

[RussDill]

No, I choose to because i have common sense.


Then stop attempting to claim that other individuals common sense choices must be because they are living in fear. Its just silly.



When it comes to guns, there are stats which show having a gun in the house is more likely to increase the risk of an accidental shooting or a criminal act (head over to the brady site for details)


I can only assume that you are talking about Kellermann. The heavily discredited study. Heck, just read it and you can think of a million ways to discredit it yourself.

But here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

[Jaycee]

How is banning guns going to reduce suicide levels? If a person really wants to kill him/herself they'll do it with or without a gun

[toowoozy]

Your in BC, you don't own hand guns, your Parents(State?) won't let you have one. I am keeping mine, you can give me yours if you do have one.

Did the US annex BC or something? I would not mind BC being a part of the States.

Ha Ha, hey no annex but always friendly neighbours, come visit anytime although that exchange rate isn't so good anymore, it looks like our dollars will be par soon. Hey you can always petition to join Canada but we are probably way to Liberal for your liking.

I think my rationale is just that Canadians proportionally own a fair number of firearms but handguns are prohibitied in Canada, I think this is significant when comes to violent altercations and the likelihood that a firearm might be used.

I think why so many Canadians are concerned about your firearms regulations is that virtually all of our illegal firearms/handguns come from south of the border (you get our weed in exchange), and every illegal handgun of course started out as a legal handgun.


The 2nd Amendment does not allow for the banning of specific types of firearms. Hand guns existed back then and "arms" included them.

Hmmm.......the last thing I read basically stated that each state has the right to ban or regulate the use of any specific type of weapon or explosive, such as the Assault Weapons Ban, so in that case a specific type of weapon was banned.

[LaoSexMachine]

Hmmm.......the last thing I read basically stated that each state has the right to ban or regulate the use of any specific type of weapon or explosive, such as the Assault Weapons Ban, so in that case a specific type of weapon was banned.

More to it then that. Fixed mags in some states, no high caps, but no banning on a specific "weapon".

[lider_r]

Suicides are not down, at all. A mass shooting is only also just a lunitic away. And heck, the largest school massacere in US history did not involve firearms.


read my post more carefully, i said suicides with firearms are down and homicides with firearms are down.


Then stop attempting to claim that other individuals common sense choices must be because they are living in fear. Its just silly.

If there is nothing to fear then why would somebody insist on being able to own military style weapons and x amount of ammunition?

Common sense would suggest that if guns are creating a problem then the last thing you would do is let even more of them flood into society. If having neighbourhoods full of assault weapons coupled with a bottomless pit of ammo makes for a safe country then iraq should be a great place to bring up your kids.

[AlterMega]

^the assault weapon part of your argument is moot.
They are hard to get a hold of legally and even if you do it's most likely a semi-auto version.The ones RARELY used in crimes are illegal anyways.
Sorry you're off a bit.

[Laconian]

The NRA may be right or it may be wrong; it doesn't matter. Individual ownership of firearms is a fact of Constitutional law that has been upheld by both Appellate courts and the USSC. Most recent court cases have continued to uphold the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, not a collective one, just like the other nine in the Bill of Rights.

[RussDill]

read my post more carefully, i said suicides with firearms are down and homicides with firearms are down.


Exactly, which indicates that firearms are not the problem and banning them outright is not the solution.



If there is nothing to fear then why would somebody insist on being able to own military style weapons and x amount of ammunition?


Please explain what makes something "military style". Firstly, the most common handgun used for self defense in the US will never be accepted by the military because it is lacks a number of features deemed necessary by the military.

Secondly, the things that make something "military style" don't really help someone out who wants to commit urban crime. Did someone seriously believe that banning bayonet lugs would reduce crime?



Common sense would suggest that if guns are creating a problem then the last thing you would do is let even more of them flood into society. If having neighbourhoods full of assault weapons coupled with a bottomless pit of ammo makes for a safe country then iraq should be a great place to bring up your kids.

Guns are not the problem, they are the symptom of the problem. Banning them doesn't make the problems go away, as is demostrated in the AU. Gangs don't commonly use assault weapons, they are difficult to conceal. Go look at the stats of assault weapons used in crimes. Add to that that the type of criminal that could afford them or use them in a crime would probably find them somewhere anyway.

Did you know that a US soldier has a greater chance being shot and killed in washington DC than Iraq? Especially now, when small arms fire accounts for a smaller and smaller number of colaliiton dead?

[Durandal]

W
T
F

Over.

This has got to be one of the lamest anti-gun lunatic threads I have seen.

Bottom line is, you want to ban or control firearms for one or a combination of four reasons:

1) Totalitarian control, State Control, or simple control of the people regardless of political ideology.

2) Fear either rational or irrational.

3) The irrational attempt to save lives (if its not guns it something else and if guns why not other things that kill more?).

In the end, gun ownership is legally protected. It is an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

[Hollis]

In the end, gun ownership is legally protected. It is an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.


Amen Brother........ That point seems to get missed alot.

[Bia]

Or when the crackhead breaks into your house and you have to bla bla bla

This is used about 247 million times more than it actually ever happens.

So much unfounded fear...

I am a single female that lives alone and often... go to sleep with windows open.



*me waits for the inevitable... "You'll be sorry when a crackhead is raping you" reply.

LMAO @ YOUR fears.

[Seraphim]

I am a single female that lives alone and often... go to sleep with windows open.



What a shocker...

[Bia]

What a shocker...
Yeah my father was a jarhead that taught me logic and reasonable fear VS unfounded stupidity.

Spot on observation sir.

[schwarz]

This is used about 247 million times more than it actually ever happens.

So much unfounded fear...

I am a single female that lives alone and often... go to sleep with windows open.



*me waits for the inevitable... "You'll be sorry when a crackhead is raping you" reply.

LMAO @ YOUR fears.

Nice job taking it out of context.

And I was just using a crackhead as an example.

I leave all my doors and windows unlocked 24/7 365. I dont live in the city and dont worry about someone breaking in as much as if I did. But its still a possibility(happend about 3 years ago lucky I wanst home) and I dont take that chance, so I have two firearms loaded within 3ft of my bed(also for critters at night causing problems raccoons, coyotes etc.) call me paranoid gun nut I could careless what you say. I am not willing to take that chance, yes the chance of someone breaking into my house and possibly killing me are slim to none I know that especially where I live..I still dont take that chance. Ah...I just wish I had the courage like you do.:roll:

[Bia]

Nice job taking it out of context.

And I was just using a crackhead as an example.

I leave all my doors and windows unlocked 24/7 365. I dont live in the city and dont worry about someone breaking in as much as if I did. But its still a possibility(happend about 3 years ago lucky I wanst home) and I dont take that chance, so I have two firearms loaded within 3ft of my bed(also for critters at night causing problems raccoons, coyotes etc.) call me paranoid gun nut I could careless what you say. I am not willing to take that chance, yes the chance of someone breaking into my house and possibly killing me are slim to none I know that especially where I live..I still dont take that chance. Ah...I just wish I had the courage like you do.:roll:

It's not courage I have that's for sure... I am very careful and aware of things in general and never was the type to do wreckless things.... cause of my lack of courage and or love of self.

Lets stay accurate... I never called you a gun nut.
That same father of mine that taught me reasonable fear and logic himself was a great collector of guns and I spent my youth shooting with Dad and his Jarhead buddies. But growing up around those men... it taught me many things including the odds.... we'd much more likely have an accident on one of our dozens and dozens of outings shooting as opposed to the boogyman (crackhead) invading our home.

I love guns, I love men, I love men with guns..... but I always cringe at the " Gonna protect myself from the mongral hoards invading American homes" speech.

Hell.... my daddy could kill ya with a pencil if need be.

;)

[lider_r]

W
T
F

Over.

This has got to be one of the lamest anti-gun lunatic threads I have seen.

Bottom line is, you want to ban or control firearms for one or a combination of four reasons:

1) Totalitarian control, State Control, or simple control of the people regardless of political ideology.

2) Fear either rational or irrational.

3) The irrational attempt to save lives (if its not guns it something else and if guns why not other things that kill more?).

In the end, gun ownership is legally protected. It is an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.


you left a couple out-

4) The desire to reduce the amount of crime committed with legal guns

5) The desire to end school shootings which show no signs of ending any time soon

if you could see beyond your paranoia for a moment then you may realise that not everybody has an agenda to 'control you and your rights'.

Some people actually just want to try prevent unneccessary violence and death from taking place.

[lider_r]

I'd like to add that there is something very dodgy about grown men who log onto the internet and enjoy looking at pictures and videos of other grown men posing with guns.


Repressed desires perhaps?

[BloodyTalon]

I'd like to add that there is something very dodgy about grown men who log onto the internet and enjoy looking at pictures and videos of other grown men posing with guns.


Repressed desires perhaps?
...and yet you are posting on a forum that exclusively features grown men with guns, among other things, which makes you either one of said men with repressed desires or a troll. Your pick.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

you left a couple out-

4) The desire to reduce the amount of crime committed with legal guns

5) The desire to end school shootings which show no signs of ending any time soon

if you could see beyond your paranoia for a moment then you may realise that not everybody has an agenda to 'control you and your rights'.

Some people actually just want to try prevent unneccessary violence and death from taking place.

Well then, lets ban automobiles...people cannot drive with courtesy, road rage is a global pandemic, and too many irresponsible people with driving privlages.

Lets ban next, the all knifes, and axes, and chain saws.

Lets confine people to their homes..this helps cut down on crime, cuts down on school violence, and make amerika a land of complete and utter safety.....


Just how ignorant can you really be?

[8thidpathfinderpower]

I'd like to add that there is something very dodgy about grown men who log onto the internet and enjoy looking at pictures and videos of other grown men posing with guns.


Repressed desires perhaps?

What I find repulsive, is people like your self, who log onto the internet, with the only purpose of logging onto a web site, and drooling over doggie ****...

I will say what the post above says the first time. You log onto this web site, knowing that there are people who serve in the military,or have served, or legally own firearms...and you preach that sick,demented "protect" us from ourselves crap.....you are either a troll,or a person with nothing better to do than go out and make something of your self, which you are not doing,as plain as anyone who sees

[8thidpathfinderpower]

I think, the anti-gun lobby up in Washington, needs to stepback, and look at what they are supporting....

[California Joe]

I like guns and I can't help it if those pics of Argyll are so dreamy. F*ck off. Take vacation and find a more suitable website to play on.

[Hollis]

I like guns and I can't help it if those pics of Argyll are so dreamy. F*ck off. Take vacation and find a more suitable website to play on.


Humm, I thought it was the Kilt and those sexy knees of Argyl that you were looking at. rofl

[joe mama]

I like guns and I can't help it if those pics of Argyll are so dreamy. F*ck off. Take vacation and find a more suitable website to play on.

(cough)ahhh-git.
:)

[RussDill]

That same father of mine that taught me reasonable fear and logic himself was a great collector of guns and I spent my youth shooting with Dad and his Jarhead buddies. But growing up around those men... it taught me many things including the odds.... we'd much more likely have an accident on one of our dozens and dozens of outings shooting as opposed to the boogyman (crackhead) invading our home.


What statistics are you reading? At least where I live, violent crimes and home invasions are pretty common. There are very few gun accidents, negligence and more commonly, gross negligence, are much more common.

Go look at http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

Lifetime chances of death by accidental firearm discharge. 1/5134.
Per year, 1/398,425

Lifetime chances of death by assault. 1/211
Per year, 1/16,403

There are 1.4 million people in phoenix, Last year there were 241 murders, 526 forcible rapes, 3,676 robberies, and 5,279 cases of aggravated assault.

Thats 1/5809 odds per year of being murdered, 1/2661 odds of being forcible raped, 1/380 chance of being robbed (not burglary, larceny, or theft, but actual robbery), and 1/265 chance of being assaulted.

Not only that, but its easy to reduce your chances of dying from an accidental firearm discharge since guns very rarely "just go off".

[Durandal]

if you could see beyond your paranoia for a moment then you may realise that not everybody has an agenda to 'control you and your rights'.

It has nothing to do with paranoia, but rather a firm belief that the under lying principles that forged both the Constitution and this nation are more important than an act of a murderer.

Which costs more?

A free and open society?

IF you could give up the right to free speech to prevent the deaths of those 31 people in Virginia, would you?

I know I would not.

[Durandal]

Oh, and Bia, I respect your RIGHT to NOT carry or own a firearm. :)

[gaz]

Eddie Izzard talks about the NRA -

http://www.youtube.com/v/KsN0FCXw914

And no, I'm not trying to make any form of political point, I just think it's funny and I'm saying that as someone who thinks I should be allowed to own a firearm if I want.

[SBL]

-edit-

2oiqwejfasokdfjalskdfjasdf

[RussDill]

-edit-

2oiqwejfasokdfjalskdfjasdf

Oh come on, it was cute. I guess too much experience with people just not having a sense of humor.

[Hollis]

Oh, and Bia, I respect your RIGHT to NOT carry or own a firearm. :)


I think that is abig part of it, a choice on risk preference. Choosing to live a more risky life style or less, coupled with taking the responsibilities for that choice.

If I choose to go white water kayaking, I have to accept the responsibility of what happens to me. If I will not accept the responsibility, then I should not go kayaking.

[Geezah]

When I took my firearms safety course here in Canada before I could legally own any fun, the instructor told us that part of the reason guns and ammo had to be locked away in separate places was because, and I quote: "if you get into a hot-headed situation where you might be tempted to use a firearm to resolve the dispute, if the firearms and ammunition are stored seperately and have locks on them, then by the time you unlock the vault for the rifle, then go all the way to the garage to get the bullets, when you come back and are finally ready to use the firearm in anger, chances are the peak of the anger will have passed and you will reason that there are better ways to deal with the situation than killing someone." This has always stuck with me.

Take as much offence as you want, but I think your instructors comments apply to Canada and Canada only. I have my concelaed carry license and if anything else when carrying, I go out of my way to avoid conflict.

To be honest I think your instructor needs to stop drinking the Kool Aid.........firearms aren't the problem!

[Geezah]

Eddie Izzard talks about the NRA -

http://www.youtube.com/v/KsN0FCXw914

And no, I'm not trying to make any form of political point, I just think it's funny and I'm saying that as someone who thinks I should be allowed to own a firearm if I want.

I love Eddie Izzard, and thought the whole skit he did was hilarious, but he's a little ignorant when it comes to firearms, funny but ignorant.

[Hollis]

I love Eddie Izzard, and thought the whole skit he did was hilarious, but he's a little ignorant when it comes to firearms, funny but ignorant.


Yeah, he was funny and Good.

[Douros81]

stonecutter

You don't know **** from apple butter. You are just talking out of your ass.

Why don't you go and read some USA crime rates from U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics(BJS)

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.gif

Line chart of overall violent crime rate per 1,000 persons 1973-2005. Violent crime encompasses rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.
For overall violent crime, the rate per 1,000 persons began at 47.7 in 1973 and increased to 52.3 in 1981. After 1981, the rate decreased, reaching a low of 21.0 in 2005.


As compared to the UK with its strict gun control
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/files/images/TREND_TOTAL_VIOLENT_CRIME_06.gif
Violent crime in the UK(Home Office)2007
Also 1998 is when the gun control took affect

The USA has more guns then ever and crime has fallen, the UK has no guns and crime is only growning.


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/ojpletterhead.gif ADVANCE FOR RELEASE AT 4:30 P.M. EDTBureau of Justice StatisticsSUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2005www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html) Contact: Stu Smith 202/307-0784 After hours: 301-983-9354VIOLENT CRIME RATE UNCHANGED DURING 2005
THEFT RATE DECLINED

WASHINGTON -- The violent crime rate in 2005 was unchanged from the previous year, the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. However, the property crime rate declined from 2004 to 2005 because of a decrease in theft.
Last year's criminal victimizations included an estimated 18 million property crimes (burglaries, motor vehicle thefts and household thefts); 5.2 million violent crimes (rapes or ****** assaults, robberies, aggravated assaults and simple assaults); and 227,000 personal thefts (picked pockets and snatched purses). Measured offenses include those reported to police as well as those that go unreported. With the exception of theft, victimization rates for every type of crime measured were unchanged from their 2004 levels.
Violent crime and property crime rates in 2005, as estimated by BJS's National Crime Victimization Survey, are at the lowest levels recorded since 1973 - the first year that such data were available. The rate of every major violent and property crime measured by the survey fell significantly between 1993 and 2005. The violent crime rate fell 58 percent during that period, and the property crime rate declined by 52 percent. The number of violent crimes decreased from an estimated 11 million in 1993 to 5.2 million in 2005.
The survey compared two-year average crime rates, 2002-03 vs. 2004-05, and found no changes in the rates for the major types of violent and property crime. However, there was some indication that the average annual rates of attempted or threatened violence, completed robbery with injury, and simple assault without injury declined from 2002-03 to 2004-05. Annual data on criminal victimization for 2005 are available on the BJS Web site at: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm)
Most demographic groups examined did not experience a change in violent or property crime rates from 2002-03 to 2004-05. Among the groups that experienced declines in violent crime rates were females, persons who have never been married, 16-19 year olds, persons residing in households earning less than $7,500 per year, and those residing in suburban areas. Households in the Northeast experienced a decline in property crime. No demographic group that was examined experienced an increase in violent or property crime during this time period.
Between 1993 and 2005 the overall rate of firearm violence declined from 5.9 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older to 2 per 1,000. In 2004 the rate was 1.4 per 1,000 and in 2003 it was 1.9 per 1,000. During 2005 offenders armed with a firearm accounted for nine percent of all non-lethal violent crimes.
The percentage of violent and property crimes reported to the police remained unchanged between 2004 and 2005. In 2005, 47 percent of violent crimes and 40 percent of property crimes were reported to police. Thirty-eight percent of rapes and ****** assaults were reported to the authorities, as were 42 percent of simple assaults, 52 percent of robberies and 62 percent of aggravated assaults. About 83 percent of motor vehicle thefts were reported.
The report, "Criminal Victimization, 2005" (NCJ-214644) was written by BJS statistician Shannan M. Catalano. Following publication, the report can be found at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cv05.htm (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cv05.htm).
For additional information about the Bureau of Justice Statistics statistical reports programs, please visit the BJS website at: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html).
The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) provides federal leadership in developing the nation's capacity to prevent and control crime, administer justice, and assist victims. OJP is headed by an Assistant Attorney General and comprises five component bureaus and an office: the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the National Institute of Justice; the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; and the Office for Victims of Crime, as well as the Community Capacity Development Office, which incorporates the Weed and Seed strategy and OJP's American Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Desk. More information can be found at www.ojp.usdoj.gov (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/).






The data, from the BJS National Criminal Victimization Survey … also showed that between 1993 and 2001, a period in which the per capita rate of violence declined 50 percent and property crime fell 47 percent, specific crime categories showed the following declines:



Rape/****** assault -56%



Robbery -53%



Aggravated assault -56%



Simple assault -46%



Household burglary -51%



Motor vehicle theft -52%



Household theft -47%

(BJS 2007)






The homicide rate peaked in 1980 at 10.2 per 100,000 and then fell in 1984 to 7.9 per 100,000. Towards the end of the 1980’s and in to the early 1990’s the rate peaked again at 9.8 per 100,000. Starting in 1992 the rate started to fall sharply. The rate fell to levels not seen since the early 1960’s, and since the rate has stayed level at about 5.5 homicides per 100,000.
(BJS 2007)




NRA Life

[urbanassualt]

you left a couple out-

4) The desire to reduce the amount of crime committed with legal guns

5) The desire to end school shootings which show no signs of ending any time soon

if you could see beyond your paranoia for a moment then you may realise that not everybody has an agenda to 'control you and your rights'.

Some people actually just want to try prevent unneccessary violence and death from taking place.

... So you want to prevent school shootings by making owning a firearm illegal? :roll: Are you absolutely retarded? Maybe you weren't seriously proposing such an option, or perhaps I missed the sarcasm. Don't mean to be blunt, sir, but that is the most ridiculous statement I have heard in many, many, many weeks. If school children used knives rather than guns, would we ban knives? I think you need to re-evaluate your logic.

[Durandal]

Don't mean to be blunt, sir, but...

You said "sir"...

You mean "M'am" or "Madam"...

p-)

[Hilbert]

you left a couple out-

4) The desire to reduce the amount of crime committed with legal guns

5) The desire to end school shootings which show no signs of ending any time soon

if you could see beyond your paranoia for a moment then you may realise that not everybody has an agenda to 'control you and your rights'.

Some people actually just want to try prevent unneccessary violence and death from taking place.

Because if "gun crime" and "gun violence" goes down even at the cost of having every other concievable form of crime sky rocket, thats doing a damn good job, right?

Ending school shooting? Getting out of the wonderful world of the media hipe for a second. As a student, I'm far more concerned about the fact we have two rival gangs responsible for 1.) Rape 2.) Assault 3.) Burglary 4.) Vandalism 5.) Injury, and the list goes on, roaming the halls at my school doing whatever the damn hell they please without anything being done because "their victims of society and entitled to a proper education blah blah blah" than I am of having of a shooting spree going on. I could give you a list of names of "honest kids" at my school who've done everything from shove a pencil into a girls hand so that it got lodged and the EMTs had to come, smashing a guys face into the wall multiple times breaking his nose and knocking out teeth, to starting brawls the faculty don't even want to intevene in. Why not address the REAL problems facing schools instead of hiding from reality, your living in a damn dream world. Please, don't even bring guns as being one of the horrible problems facing schools into the equation until you exercise common sense.

Getting back to guns, I feel Dourus81's post did quite nicely in and of it's self, however contuary to what the media hypes about these days.

[Bia]

Oh, and Bia, I respect your RIGHT to NOT carry or own a firearm. :)
Hells yeah... ;)


Actually I asked Santa for a Mossberg like dad used to have for christmas but Mr Claus didnt deliver.

[schwarz]

Because if "gun crime" and "gun violence" goes down even at the cost of having every other concievable form of crime sky rocket, thats doing a damn good job, right?

Ending school shooting? Getting out of the wonderful world of the media hipe for a second. As a student, I'm far more concerned about the fact we have two rival gangs responsible for 1.) Rape 2.) Assault 3.) Burglary 4.) Vandalism 5.) Injury, and the list goes on, roaming the halls at my school doing whatever the damn hell they please without anything being done because "their victims of society and entitled to a proper education blah blah blah" than I am of having of a shooting spree going on. I give you a list of names of "honest kids" at my school who've done everything from shove a pencil into a girls hand so that it got lodged and the EMTs had to come, smashing a guys face into the wall multiple times breaking his nose and knocking out teeth, to starting brawls the faculty don't even want to intevene in. Why not address the REAL problems facing schools instead of hiding from reality, your living in a damn dream world.

And drugs, maybe it was just my school but the drug problem was very very bad. You could walk into any bathroom and there would be one or two people in the stall snorting pills and there was always a fine coating of on the toilet paper dispenser. And they would do them in class also. Seemed like everyone was selling weed too(drity nasty bud BTW). Teachers were so stupid about too that or they just didnt care. When they would bring in drug dogs they would only search the lockers and what moron would keep stuff in their locker(well there were a few).

Back on topic dont know why I typed all that.

[SBL]

Actually I asked Santa for a Mossberg like dad used to have for christmas but Mr Claus didnt deliver.

Probably because he reads MP.net and knows your stance on the issue.

[Bia]

Probably because he reads MP.net and knows your stance on the issue.

What the FUkcc are you implying?

Stance?

[SBL]

What the FUkcc are you implying?

Stance?

Uh, I was implying that Santa knew you were for gun-control, but apparently I'm incorrect?

[Bia]

Uh, I was implying that Santa knew you were for gun-control, but apparently I'm incorrect?
I am NOT for gun control moron....
jesus fking christ YOU are the reason people cant debate.... whoosh through a comment and make a stupid assumption.

[SBL]

I am NOT for gun control moron....
jesus fking christ YOU are the reason people cant debate.... whoosh through a comment and make a stupid assumption.


Awwww, don't say that.
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/Captainbadd/cryingbaby.gif

[gaijinsamurai]

Nice response, Snakebite.

[Hollis]

I just hate it when they make Baby Jesus cry........

[Bia]

I just hate it when they make Baby Jesus cry........
Well... if I had know it was jeebus I would have used more tact.


Forgive me... for I know not what I do.

[SPROCKET]

What I always love in these debates is when some whitebread, I live in the burbs, have huge well funded police force, and no crime opines that having a firearm for self/home defense is somehow paranoid. I'd like to invite them to move down to my neighborhood in North Oakland; Ghost Town to the locals. I guarantee you any illusions you have of a nice well ordered world where the police can protect you will quickly evaporate. The two things you realize living in the hood is that criminals are criminals because they like being criminals and the police are only there to clean up the mess and write reports. Just because you're lucky or affluent enough to live somewhere you can take your safety for granted, don't assume the same is true of everyone.

[California Joe]

I have a lot of guns, but then again I have bears on my front lawn too.

[gaz]

I have a lot of guns, but then again I have bears on my front lawn too.

So not only do you bear arms but you could also arm bears?

[Durandal]

I have a lot of guns, but then again I have bears on my front lawn too.

I am assuming you do not mean big gay hairy dudes...

:)

[Hollis]

Gleamed from another forum;

The Urban Grind
Why The Gun In Civilization
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

[~center~]

^^^ Excellent article HOLLiS!!!

Having said that; This is one of the most assanine threads ever.
Heaven forbid some of you morons do any relevant or legitamate research before you give us a tirade of ignorant garbage. Why not just say, "I know jack shyte, wanna share a bowl with me?"

Yummy! :cantbeli:

BTW, when I walk the town, all you anti-gun nuts have no idea that I'm standing right next to you. And hey, I'll even protect you along with my family. I don't expect the same in return but then, that's why I'm armed.

[Hilbert]

BTW, when I walk the town, all you anti-gun nuts have no idea that I'm standing right next to you. And hey, I'll even protect you along with my family. I don't expect the same in return but then, that's why I'm armed.

woot Well said, my freind. Well said. Your CCW I assume?

[Geezah]

I am NOT for gun control moron....
jesus fking christ YOU are the reason people cant debate.... whoosh through a comment and make a stupid assumption.

I don't know, you've come out with some comments in the past that sure are borderline LibTard Anti-Gunite!

[Douros81]

I'm still trying to figure out how the NRA = Gun deaths?
The NRA does a great job. They protect my freedoms, cause with out the 2nd Amendment the rest don't mean jack****.
Live Free or Die!

[Durandal]

That pretty much nails it.

[Bia]

I don't know, you've come out with some comments in the past that sure are borderline LibTard Anti-Gunite!
Well I apologize for any ambiguity...

I love guns, advocate their ownership, enjoy shooting, advocate responsible people being able to carry at any time they wish.... all these things I have said in the past too.

But can we agree that when we see some loud anti gun person using false information and non applicable senerios.... there's a few pro gun people that do the same?

What we have is I question/comment to both groups but people only notice the critsism against their view.


Yeah? lol yeah

[~center~]

woot Well said, my freind. Well said. Your CCW I assume?

Thanks, I'm a LEO but I also live in a shall-issue state, where law abiding citizens may carry a concealed firearm.

[Geezah]

But can we agree that when we see some loud anti gun person using false information and non applicable senerios.... there's a few pro gun people that do the same?


Actually I find it hard to agree with you on this, as there is allot more pressure on the law abiding firearm owning community to provide facts....hard proven facts to counter the LibTard Anti-Gunites lies!
I guess that's why I take offence to someone claiming to love/own firearms.......but is in favour of some form of gun control. There is no middle of the road here, the laws in place should be enforced. There is no need to create more laws only to find those new laws are not enforced, until we get to the point where the only people that have firearms are the crims.


I would like to say I'm extremely loud when it comes down to my right to bear arms, but I always make sure and do my home work before stating my case.

[~center~]

always make sure and do my home work before stating my case.

How dare you bring intelligent thought to this thread?!

It's funny, I always thought the facts seemed to speak for themselves which is why I'm so amazed at how some people still argue the anti-gun way.

[Bia]

I guess that's why I take offence to someone claiming to love/own firearms.......but is in favour of some form of gun control.
I agree with you there and would never suggest such a thing.

[Geezah]

How dare you bring intelligent thought to this thread?!

It's funny, I always thought the facts seemed to speak for themselves which is why I'm so amazed at how some people still argue the anti-gun way.

Oh, there's been some doozies on here, no matter how many times you prove them wrong they continue to move the goal posts.

[stonecutter]

Gah! This thread won't die.
I must confess, I originally posted this because 1) I'd had a few beers on an empty stomach, and 2) my fiancee, while she was working on a survey crew on BLM (public) land in Idaho last year, was shot at by some azzholes who were out yahooing on the weekend. After taking five potshots at her and her crew from several hundred meters away, they got on their quads and sped off. Some of the bullets passed real close to the intended targets. With that in mind, I was thinking that perhaps an armed society doesn't always produce a polite society. Guess the bad apples tend to spoil things a bit. Just out of curiosity -- if I'd been there and was armed, I sure would have been tempted to try and plug those guys. Would that have been within my rights?

[Durandal]

Gah! This thread won't die.
I must confess, I originally posted this because 1) I'd had a few beers on an empty stomach, and 2) my fiancee, while she was working on a survey crew on BLM (public) land in Idaho last year, was shot at by some azzholes who were out yahooing on the weekend. After taking five potshots at her and her crew from several hundred meters away, they got on their quads and sped off. Some of the bullets passed real close to the intended targets. With that in mind, I was thinking that perhaps an armed society doesn't always produce a polite society. Guess the bad apples tend to spoil things a bit. Just out of curiosity -- if I'd been there and was armed, I sure would have been tempted to try and plug those guys. Would that have been within my rights?

Regardless of the reason you never actually made an argument as per the title.

I'm right there with Bia. I loved informed arguments.

Yours is not regardless of the reason you started it.

[Alael]

Gah! This thread won't die.
Imy fiancee, while she was working on a survey crew on BLM (public) land in Idaho last year, was shot at by some azzholes who were out yahooing on the weekend. After taking five potshots at her and her crew from several hundred meters away, they got on their quads and sped off. Some of the bullets passed real close to the intended targets. With that in mind, I was thinking that perhaps an armed society doesn't always produce a polite society. Guess the bad apples tend to spoil things a bit. Just out of curiosity -- if I'd been there and was armed, I sure would have been tempted to try and plug those guys. Would that have been within my rights?

I understand your worry, these guys are not law abiders: they should be considered as criminals and had to be arrested, but they are not the majority of the law abiding firearms owners.
Would you think that a society would be safer without cars if this kind of a**hole were out yahooing with car on the road and was near to run over your fiancee?... it happens sometimes, and there are more death caused by car accidents than by firearms... the only thing is that the anti-guns say that cars are useful so these deaths are acceptables...