Gun control

Gun control

Nothing is more precious than life. The invention of guns makes it easier to take ones life. A single pull of a trigger can decide between life and death. Such lethal weapons are easily available in our society. They can be bought legally at federally owned or private gun stores, and at gun shows. There are far too many guns floating around the United States. With more than 200 million handguns produced in the United States, there is a chance that some of them may fall in the wrong hands. From time to time, sensational shootings provoke public outrage, resulting in the ratification of strict gun control laws. However, due to reactions by gun right proponents, the effectiveness of the governmental action to enforce these gun control laws is deterred. Americans have a long affection for guns based upon their heritage of hunting, sporting, and self-protection during colonial times. In addition, the United States won independence from Great Britain using the guns they possessed. Currently, according to the National Rifles Association (NRA) poll, eighty-nine percent of Americans believe they have a constitutional right to hold guns. Gun control opponents also use to argue that gun ownership is a right granted and protected by the United States Constitution, and that tough gun control laws encroach on those rights. In its entirety, the Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Despite claims from people in favor of guns that it is the citizens’ right to own and carry a weapon, the right to keep and bear arms by individuals is not protected by the constitution. The Second Amendment states that it is the right for a militia to have weapons, not everyone. The constitution clearly talks about a “well-regulated Militia”. According to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, a militia is a trained military force whose members do not belong to a regular army but operate like one, especially to defend their country in an emergency. Today’s version of the “well-regulated Militia” is the National Guard. The constitution means it is the right for the National Guard, the arms forces, and law enforcers to hold guns, not the civil population. Widespread gun ownership lead to an increase of gun related deaths. Even with previous gun control laws in effect, such as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Law), as indicated by the CDC’s WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, there are 29,569 gun deaths in the United States in the year 2004 alone. It is the second leading cause of deaths after motor crash and, in several states (Firearm Injury Center at the University of Pennsylvania, “Gun Violence Is a Serious Economic and Public Health Problem”, Current Controversies: Guns and Violence, 2005 p. 21). Stricter gun control laws should be put into place since guns lead to deaths of young people due to unintentional gunfire, economic costs on society, and unsafe societies.

From my essay I wrote for class.

SF is an unhinged fantasist.
It is a waste of time reasoning with him (he has the gun, remember) It is cruel, and too easy, to mock him. He is best ignored.

Originally posted by OnetimePoster:

SF is an unhinged fantasist.......

Typical Leftist swerve & divert tactic.

Go ahead then, if you dare, you take a "shot" at it.....debunk the logic & enlighten us how the author is incorrect. (the original text)

Or are you going to just be another who can't legitimately argue the message, so failing there, you'd rather muffle the messenger.

Problem with the US is that gun ownership is just too lose and anybody can get their hands on guns. Then we have guys like Smileyfaze that fight for the right to yield arsenals of guns matching the ones owned by the US army whatever the cost. They don't care who died as long as they have their guns.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Problem with the US is that gun ownership is just too lose and anybody can get their hands on guns. Then we have guys like Smileyfaze that fight for the right to yield arsenals of guns matching the ones owned by the US army whatever the cost. They don't care who died as long as they have their guns.

I suppose it all balances out. Smileyfaze balances you and Johnny, opposite ends of the pole so to speak.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Problem with the US is that gun ownership is just too lose and anybody can get their hands on guns. Then we have guys like Smileyfaze that fight for the right to yield arsenals of guns matching the ones owned by the US army whatever the cost. They don't care who died as long as they have their guns.

Not true, if you have a mental disorder, or you are a felon, you can't legally get a gun.

If you are a criminal you could always get, & will always be able to get, a gun on the black market. That's true everywhere.

Your mouth seems to write checks you can't cash wiko...I dare you to tell me one person who died because I legally purchased & own personal firearms!?

Tic....toc.....tic....toc.....tic....toc......Tic....toc.....tic....toc.....tic....toc......Tic....toc.....tic....toc.....tic....toc......waiting..

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Problem with the US is that gun ownership is just too lose and anybody can get their hands on guns. Then we have guys like Smileyfaze that fight for the right to yield arsenals of guns matching the ones owned by the US army whatever the cost. They don't care who died as long as they have their guns.

Not true, if you have a mental disorder, or you are a felon, you can't legally get a gun.

If you are a criminal you could always get, & will always be able to get, a gun on the black market. That's true everywhere.

Your mouth seems to write checks you can't cash wiko...I dare you to tell me one person who died because I legally purchased & own personal firearms!?

Tic....toc.....tic....toc.....tic....toc......Tic....toc.....tic....toc.....tic....toc......Tic....toc.....tic....toc.....tic....toc......waiting..

Well not you you... but there are tons of people who died because of guns.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

.....there are tons of people who died because of guns.

Tons of people also died from falling off of bicycles too.

Would you like to know how many people died in the USA from falling off of legally purchased bicycles last year, as opposed to how many people died because of legally purchased guns/firearms last year?

Take a guess.....2 to 1, 3 to 1, 5 to 1, 8 to 1, 10 to 1, 23 to 1, 87 to 1, 352 to 1 ...... take a guess which would you think was the actual ratio?

It's tricky now, but you take a guess.......hell, look it up if you wish...then "guess"

I'm surprised the number of deaths involving bicycles isn't higher than it is. Some people on bikes only obey the laws of physics, and then only because you can't disobey the law of gravity and get away with it.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

I suppose it all balances out. Smileyfaze balances you and Johnny, opposite ends of the pole so to speak.

It would certainly take at least two of us, I'm nowhere near as extreme as Smiley, or even as most anti-gun campaigners.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

If you are a criminal you could always get, & will always be able to get, a gun on the black market. That's true everywhere.

And where exactly do you think black market guns come from? I'll give you the answer - exactly the same place as legal guns. Besides, not everyone buying a weapon intent on committing a violent crime already has a criminal record, or they have friends who don't.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Your mouth seems to write checks you can't cash wiko...I dare you to tell me one person who died because I legally purchased & own personal firearms!?

*sigh* Stupid argument. Name one woman who got raped because I don't have a gun.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Go ahead then, if you dare, you take a "shot" at it.....debunk the logic & enlighten us how the author is incorrect.

Well for a start, there's very little logic. But to pick off the really low-hanging fruit:

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 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.

No, it doesn't. There's a lot more difference between a victim and an attacker than weight and weapon. False security is worse than no security at all. There are better and more appropriate weapons for protecting oneself, that are also non-lethal.

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.

Rubbish. Without guns, the correct response is to run away, very fast. A mugger isn't out to kill you, he's out to take your wallet. A burglar wants your stereo. Neither of those is worth escalating the risk of death.

We are the Sheepherders of Government.

It is our responsibility to maintain guard over the Government to ensure they do not overstep their bounds, for after all the Government derives it's right to exist & ALL it's powers from us, "The People".

The Government does not give us our rights.

Our rights are unalienable, & were bestowed upon us by our Creator---not Government.

The Second Amendment establishes what Government is required to obey in serving us, The People, where the line is drawn by us The People---a line the Government is not permitted to cross.

The Second Amendment does not give us the right to own & bear arms....No, the Second Amendment tells Government that it must never interfere with Americans--free men--& their right to own & bear arms. Period.

The Second Amendment is set to limit Government, it is not meant to give Americans a right to anything through Government.

To own & bear arms is known as a 'natural right'.

The right to own & bear arms is an unalienable right.

Our Creator didn't stop by Congress to ask them to pass this right on to us, no He bestowed this right directly to all men.

Never forget that!




Spend the time----watch this video---it's well worth it.

If you really want to begin to understand why we must forever resist & block ALL gun control, begin here.

---We all have the "Minuteman Prerogative"---

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

....And where exactly do you think black market guns come from? I'll give you the answer - exactly the same place as legal guns......

Duhhh, you figured that all out on your own did ya?

So Einstein, now that you've stated the most blatantly obvious trivia..............your point???????

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Duhhh, you figured that all out on your own did ya? So Einstein, now that you've stated the most blatantly obvious trivia..............your point???????

That it seems to have escaped you. Like you say, it was blatantly obvious.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Our rights are unalienable, & were bestowed upon us by our Creator---not Government.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

The right to own & bear arms is an unalienable right.

I think you may be confused as to what "inalienable" means. The right to own and bear arms, being as it is codified in a Government document, is a legal right, not a natural one.

You could argue that the right to own property and to defend yourself are natural rights, but then the right to life and to not have that taken away from you is most definitely a natural right - and yet you have, earlier in this thread, made it very clear that you have decided that there are some people not worthy of life, or have forfeited what is most definitely an inalienable right. The prevalence of guns has made very sure that innocent people have had that right taken away from them.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

It is our responsibility to maintain guard over the Government to ensure they do not overstep their bounds, for after all the Government derives it's right to exist & ALL it's powers from us, "The People".

Talking about blatantly obvious....

The Government are in the employ of the People. That is trivial and obvious. And you know what? I'm quite happy to employ people to clean the streets, solve crimes and regulate the markets. I wouldn't employ a maid and then insist on doing the cleaning myself.

What matters, when you employ someone to do a job, is that they do the job, and do it efficiently and cost-effectively. Now there's no question that the current Western governments aren't doing a bang-on job. But there are some times in business when you need to hire more people to do a difficult job, or let people go because fewer staff are required in that area. It's foolishly simplistic to say that the only way of running an organisation effectively is to hire as few people as possible and do it all yourself.

The relationship between the People and the Government isn't antagonist - it's a complex ecosystem of interlocking parts. We each depend on the other to make it work.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

That it seems to have escaped you. Like you say, it was blatantly obvious.

You're talking in circles, have you no point?

I've already established mine, regardless of source criminals will always be able to get firearms via the black market.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

I think you may be confused as to what "inalienable" means. The right to own and bear arms, being as it is codified in a Government document, is a legal right, not a natural one.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Read all the documents of the times, & specifically those by Jefferson, Adams, Madison, & Hamilton.

It's abundantly clear what they meant.

Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence quoted above, & Madison, the Constitution & the Bill of Rights.

Unalienable, not inalienable.

Rights bestowed directly upon man, not to a King, or a Government, to then be passed on as they saw fit or to remove at their pleasure.

And if life is an unalienable right, it cannot be taken away. If I remember correctly, you seem to support the death penalty and the death of innocent people due to gun crimes. Most of gun crimes come from legally sourced guns, not illegal ones.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

And if life is an unalienable right, it cannot be taken away. If I remember correctly, you seem to support the death penalty and the death of innocent people due to gun crimes.

The Second Amendment in the US Constitution is not about me, what I believe or don't believe.

Read it, & read the supporting documentation before you apparently attempt to couple my beliefs with it's specific meaning & relevance.

It was here hundreds of years before me, & it will still be here when my bones have passed to dust.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Most of gun crimes come from legally sourced guns, not illegal ones.

If you mean that they were all manufactured legally, & then those used in crime mostly fell into criminal hands through illegal means, I agree.

Most shoot outs weapons come from legal sources i.e. gun stores. The shooter of Virginia Tech got his gun from a store. So as other shootings (e.g. At another high school, which name I've forgotten). Domestic violence involving guns also involve legally purchased weapons.

Also it seems hypocritical to say that life is an inalienable right and that cannot be take away while otherwise supporting the life of criminals to be taken away. If life, an inalienable right of a higher degree than guns wielding can be taken away to protect the public, then right can also be taken away to protect the public.

On a side note, it seems strange to be agreeing with you Smiley in the Muslim-Christian tolerance thread.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Most shoot outs weapons come from legal sources i.e. gun stores. The shooter of Virginia Tech got his gun from a store. So as other shootings (e.g. At another high school, which name I've forgotten). <all> Domestic violence involving guns also involve legally purchased weapons.

Your source for your specific & implied statements are.................?

So, you're simply saying, confiscate each & every firearm on the planet, destroy them all --each & every one, eliminate all firearm manufacturing, & therefore all sales, then any future Virginia Tech gunman killer would not be able to kill, domestic violence deaths would end, & gangs would cease to cause harm to anyone?

Originally posted by wikipedian:

If life, an inalienable right of a higher degree than guns....

No, guns have no rights silly. The owner & bearer of the gun has the unalienable right to own & bear the gun. Guns have no rights!

Originally posted by wikipedian:

On a side note, it seems strange to be agreeing with you Smiley in the Muslim-Christian tolerance thread.

When you're right, I have no problem agreeing with you either. That's only when your right, so I hope you don't think you'll always get my stamp of approval.

you two a couple now?

Originally posted by ensbb3:

you two a couple now?

Why, you got a threesome on yer mind fella?

rain check?

Originally posted by ensbb3:

rain check?

Shit, or get off the pot -- you savage!

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

On a side note, it seems strange to be agreeing with you Smiley in the Muslim-Christian tolerance thread.

When you're right, I have no problem agreeing with you either. That's only when your right, so I hope you don't think you'll always get my stamp of approval.

I have no problem seeing where you would think guns would help people but current gun laws are way too lose. It needs to be tighten up so that only sane non criminal people can get guns.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

I have no problem seeing where you would think guns would help people but current gun laws are way too lose. It needs to be tighten up so that only sane non criminal people can get guns.

Sorry, but any law that would only be as permissible as you wish would seemingly be easy to implement, but realistically, it would be impossible to ensure & enforce.

In the end the only people that would be restricted would be the law abiding, honest, legal gun owner/citizen.

Regardless of how carefully crafted, hardened criminals, & the insane, would easily find ways around any law implemented.

Anything, & I do mean anything, can be gotten on the black market.

Even if it did work, the criminal or the insane person, hell bent on murder & destruction, would just find another weapon to implement their carnage & mayhem.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

It needs to be tighten up so that only sane non criminal people can get guns.

And there is the problem. Sane can become insane. Like your shooter you like to mention. As for kids getting guns... They, especially teens, are unstable in a way all their own. You should take extra care they don't get your guns ever! Them taking their parent's guns to school is sad and should never happen. Ignorance.

Originally posted by ensbb3:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

It needs to be tighten up so that only sane non criminal people can get guns.

And there is the problem. Sane can become insane. Like your shooter you like to mention..

Well he got the guns ESPECIALLY for the shooting. Guns are the only easily accessible weapon that can cause mass carnage (well other than a bomb).

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Guns are the only easily accessible weapon that can cause mass carnage (well other than a bomb).

Precisely, eliminate guns & you get............bombs, gas, poison....need more? See my earlier post

Guns control is handled locally. I'm not privy to Virginia's gun laws but wouldn't he of searched out an illegal option too?

Originally posted by ensbb3:

Guns control is handled locally. I'm not privy to Virginia's gun laws but wouldn't he of searched out an illegal option too?

I guess we need to ask him.

BTW....how many insane never get certified insane, & how many criminals never get caught in order to get a criminal record?

Because they are still "in the closet" so to speak, are they less insane, or less a criminal?

Like I say, restrict guns & all you do is restrict the sane/law abiding, peace loving, gentle, honest citizen. The rest have no restraint.

I then again refer you to this text:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

....................................... Carrying a Gun is a Civilized Act

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 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.

Are you still posting that drivel SF? If it was meant to be a parody I would understand better, but otherwise it simply illustrates low-brow paranoia.

Originally posted by string:

Are you still posting that drivel SF? If it was meant to be a parody I would understand better, but otherwise it simply illustrates low-brow paranoia.

You're entitled to your own, in your mind, personal, superfluous opinions.
In the end though as long as they mean something to you, that's all that really counts.


These days that, and $2.50 cash, will still only get you a ride on the NYC Subway.

Watch this, and try not to fall about laughing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ju4Gla2odw

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

You're talking in circles, have you no point? I've already established mine, regardless of source criminals will always be able to get firearms via the black market.

It doesn't look like anyone else has a problem understanding the point. As wikipedian says, black market guns come from white market sources. And some guns bought by legitimate owners will, inevitably, end up in the hands of illegitimate users.

It matters not one jot that "someone" will "always" be able to get hold of guns. Like it or not, the more guns are in circulation, the more guns wind up being used for criminal purposes.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Precisely, eliminate guns & you get............bombs, gas, poison....need more?

Nope. Bombs require planning and execution. Guns allow fast and personal killing. Terrorist attacks that want to murder as many people in an instant as possible are still done by bomb. If you want to hunt, it's guns all the way.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

So, you're simply saying, confiscate each & every firearm on the planet, destroy them all --each & every one, eliminate all firearm manufacturing, & therefore all sales, then any future Virginia Tech gunman killer would not be able to kill, domestic violence deaths would end, & gangs would cease to cause harm to anyone?

No. That would be a foolish conclusion for someone to draw.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Read all the documents of the times, & specifically those by Jefferson, Adams, Madison, & Hamilton. It's abundantly clear what they meant.

Yes. It is. That life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights. "Unalienable", in the legal terms of the time, mean:

Originally posted by William Blackstone:

"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture."

In other words, the unalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence, are ones that do not require legal documents to protect, and receive no further protection from being codified in law.
The Second Amendment, and the Constitution in general, is a legal document. If the right to bear arms were a natural, God-given right, then it wouldn't need to be written down at all.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Precisely, eliminate guns & you get............bombs, gas, poison....need more?

Nope. Bombs require planning and execution. Guns allow fast and personal killing. Terrorist attacks that want to murder as many people in an instant as possible are still done by bomb. If you want to hunt, it's guns all the way.

Two points both on the bolded:

(A) Bombs don't seem to require as much planning as you might think. These days an email warning has been going around, which is confirmed (one of the few that IS confirmed, most email warnings are junk) about a bomb which kids are making and leaving in people's yards. It's very touchy, and if you disturb it it explodes and covers you with a caustic chemical. A bomb that requires something more explosive only presents difficulty in securing the explosive itself. Anything else you need to make a bomb can be gotten at the hardware store or at Radio Shack. Instructions can be downloaded from the Internet. Just as a "supposein' ", suppose I wanted to off my ex-wife. I could have done the dirty deed with stuff available in her own kitchen. I wouldn't have had to shop for anything, everything I needed to construct a bomb was right there. Legally. She, herself had bought all of it for legitimate purpose at the "Moo&Oink". All that was needed was putting it together in the right way. That and figuring out how I would get away with it, when any policeman would figure that since I was the husband I'm numero uno on any suspect list.

(B) Obviously, Johnny, you've never been hunting. At least, not around here. If you had been, you'd know that around here we have a season open to bow hunters. You go out into the woods making like you're Robin Hood or maybe an American Indian and try to bring down a White Tail with a bow and arrows. I think the only license you need for bow hunting is the hunting license itself, I haven't heard of anything being needed for the weapon, but I haven't really checked that. Ever see a broadhead hunting arrow? It's a nasty thing to be on the wrong side of, let me tell you.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Obviously, Johnny, you've never been hunting. At least, not around here. If you had been, you'd know that around here we have a season open to bow hunters.

Here, we use crossbows mainly for hunting wild boars.
Extraordinary weapon and a really emotive and dangerous hunting. Not for everyone.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

I could have done the dirty deed with stuff available in her own kitchen. I wouldn't have had to shop for anything, everything I needed to construct a bomb was right there. Legally.

Of course. That's not the point though. If anything, it counts against it. If you want to kill someone, there are many options open to you. That'll continue to be the case, whether or not guns are available. There will always be ways to plot a murder. Guns are simply the most convenient method.

Guns are available to be used in the heat of the moment, you don't have to prepare in advance.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Obviously, Johnny, you've never been hunting. At least, not around here.

I didn't mean hunting in the literal sense. I mean a mugger stalking his prey, a gang committing a drive-by, a threatened man playing vigilante, a sociopathic student taking revenge on his classmates, a political demagogue wanting to see his enemies suffer, a husband punishing his wife's infidelities. These are up-close, personal and brutal. These are crimes committed with guns.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

I could have done the dirty deed with stuff available in her own kitchen. I wouldn't have had to shop for anything, everything I needed to construct a bomb was right there. Legally.

Of course. That's not the point though. If anything, it counts against it. If you want to kill someone, there are many options open to you. That'll continue to be the case, whether or not guns are available. There will always be ways to plot a murder. Guns are simply the most convenient method.

Guns are available to be used in the heat of the moment, you don't have to prepare in advance.

[/quote]
So are knives. Most kitchens are loaded with knives suitable to the task. I have, at hand in the kitchen right now, a battery of knives from small paring knives on up to the meanest looking cleaver you can lay your hands on. Any of them will do, they're available in the heat of the moment, all I have to do to activate it is pick it up, and I don't even have to load it or click the safety "off". It's ready to go right now.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Obviously, Johnny, you've never been hunting. At least, not around here.

I didn't mean hunting in the literal sense. I mean a mugger stalking his prey, a gang committing a drive-by, a threatened man playing vigilante, a sociopathic student taking revenge on his classmates, a political demagogue wanting to see his enemies suffer, a husband punishing his wife's infidelities. These are up-close, personal and brutal. These are crimes committed with guns.

And/or anything else the perp can lay his/her hands on. Guns are by no means the exclusive weapon for any of the things you mention. A mugger may choose a knife or a baseball bat. The baseball bat was the weapon used in a particularly brutal attack on Chicago's North Side not too long back. A political killer has a range of weapons he may choose, a gun is only one of them. A husband punishing his wife may choose a gun, or he may choose a knife, a telephone cord, any number of poisons (the cabinet under the kitchen sink is usually loaded with suitable poisons) or his fists. The sociopath may construct a bomb or use a knife. Only the drive-by seems to need guns, and even here imaginative gang members could probably come up with a work-around if they don't have guns.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

So are knives. Most kitchens are loaded with knives suitable to the task. I have, at hand in the kitchen right now, a battery of knives from small paring knives on up to the meanest looking cleaver you can lay your hands on. Any of them will do, they're available in the heat of the moment, all I have to do to activate it is pick it up, and I don't even have to load it or click the safety "off". It's ready to go right now.

Yes. But that's a different problem. Knives being lethal has no impact on guns being lethal. As I've said, it actually undermines your case. If knives are as effective as guns, why aren't knives the weapon of choice?
Guns are faster, more lethal (and debilitating), can be operated at a distance, and are harder to run away from or defend against.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5703.pdf

Firearms were used in 64.5% of homicide deaths (Table 11), followed by sharp instruments (12.2%) and blunt instruments (5.3%). No other single method was used in more than 3.6% of homicides.
[...]
In 12.6% of male homicides, the decedent also used a weapon during the altercation, compared with 2.4% of female homicides (Table 16).

Fancy those odds?

I'll repeat what I've said before: no-one's claiming that the existence of guns is what causes crime, or that removing guns will prevent crime. But if we can't easily fix the underlying problems, we should at least be trying to make it less damaging.

You know, I've been trying really hard to try to believe much of the stuff being posted isn't just anti-gun paranoia, but it just can't be done. You haven't made your case at all, and that's a shame. The only thing you have is "Guns=bad", and there needs to be more to it than that.

Smiley doesn't improve matters much in this discussion, he sounds like just the sort of person who maybe shouldn't have guns. Crazy as a bedbug, guns are the solution to all problems according to him. Both extremes read as being completely nuts.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

You know, I've been trying really hard to try to believe much of the stuff being posted isn't just anti-gun paranoia, but it just can't be done. You haven't made your case at all, and that's a shame. The only thing you have is "Guns=bad", and there needs to be more to it than that.

There is more. In fact, I've made precisely the point that "Guns != bad". My case has been made with reason and statistical evidence, from crime figures, medical figures, socio-economical comparison with other countries and cultures. My reasoning has been sound, and my evidence tight.

If you think that being pro-gun-control is paranoia, then, please offer some evidence that the situation isn't as unbalanced as it appears. As far as I can tell, all the other side of the debate has been able to offer are emotional arguments, based on an appeal to fear - either of being in a personal situation that they feel that they need the security of lethal force, or of some dystopian fantasy of mowing down their government.

Many weapons are available - but guns cause more and greater harm than other weapons, either intentional or accidental.
Wielding a gun does not make one safer, and generally makes hazardous situations more lethal.
Guns will avail you nought in a stand-off against your government.
An increase of guns in legal hands creates a increase of guns in illegal hands.
There are a tiny subset of people for whom having a gun is a marginally useful tool in their line of work - the presence of these people does not mean that gun controls cannot be tightened, and in fact are a good indicator that gun rules should be tightened.
Guns are not a natural, god-given right, were never considered to be, and certainly aren't now.

The other side of the house has failed to demonstrate that the fuzzy feelings of being able to shoot things for fun, or that a false sense of security is in any way worth the pain and suffering that they cause to others.

Guns aren't bad - but people put them to bad use far more than they are put to constructive use. It's time to grow up and make the choice to lay them aside. Turn the swords into ploughshares.

You don't like guns. Nobody is forcing you to have one. I don't have a gun, but I choose to reject the paranoia surrounding the issue. I've lived much of my life next door to people who have guns, and nobody got shot. A father and son hunting team no less. Those of you on the anti-gun side haven't produced a convincing argument beyond "Eeeek!!! A gun!!!!" so I choose to disregard much of what you have to say. Smiley hasn't produced much in the way of an argument for gun ownership beyond the idea that his neighborhood seems to be overrun with muggers, rapists, murderers and terrorists, none of which seem all that frequent in any neighborhood I've been in--- and I've been in some nasty neighborhoods.

So, somewhere in between the two groups of paranoids there must be a halfway sane place. A place where owning or not owning a gun is personal choice developed according to reasons that make sense. I don't own a gun, and it's quite possible I never will. But, if I ever do decide to own one, I probably won't lay it down just because Johnny and Wiki are terrified of guns. I probably won't carry it everywhere either, truth is I have a hard time imagining needing to have it 24/7/365 so most times it will be in its case at home.

Later I'ma saddle me up a steed, grab my trusty rifle and just as the sun is going down I'll ride out posse style and shoot the first thing I see. Then I'll have to charge home to take down my american flag before dusk... but if there's time after I'll go see what it was I actually shot.

Just another day in america.

Originally posted by ensbb3:

Just another day in america.

Unless that was intended to be sarcastic, I don't think it's helping the cause.

I will probably be going to the range later. As I said, it's fun.

Though just for educational purposes. I present a link to The Armed Citizen. The NRA collects news stories involving using a gun for self-defense (even if it is never actually fired - which is most of the time) and has printed them in its monthly magazines for years. The web-based version seems to only have the last 12 months available. Just for those who say they've never heard of anyone using a gun in self-defense.

Does it also publish accounts of people being killed by guns?

Why? Those get listed in national news all the time, ask any American when they've seen a self-defense story and most can't think of one (not counting those stories where someone claims "self-defense" where it obviously doesn't apply - like the Norway shooter).

2009, United States Unintentional Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000

Number of deaths: 554
Population: 307,006,550
Population Crude Rate: 0.18
Age-Adjusted Rate : 0.18

The bottom line:
In 2009, guns took the lives of 31,347 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.
.....
In the same year the number of deaths in Britain from gunshot wounds fell to a 20-year low of 42 despite concerns about levels of violent crime.

Most of the 42 gun-related deaths last year took place in London, the West Midlands, Manchester or Merseyside, with swathes of the country recording no homicides, suicides or accidental deaths from firearms. One third of the victims were younger than 21 and four of them were female. The Gun Control Network, which campaigns for tougher restrictions on firearms, disclosed the figure, which was a sharp drop on 2007, when 51 gun-related deaths were recorded in England, Wales and Scotland.
.....



Almost forgot to mention that there were 317 U.S. fatalities in Afghanistan that year. The bottom line? You're safer in a combat zone than in Chicago or Detroit.

Unfortunately SF posted the drivel again .... well someone has to tell him.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

I then again refer you to this text:
............................... Carrying a Gun is a Civilized Act

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

Not true; there are many ways to deal with people; as only some of the examples: with religion, with love, with action, with legislation, with social pressure, not to mention with illogic and lies and with threats of some kind; the way glorified here as a solution to Force is “Threat of 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.

Nonsense – see above

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.

Would that was so .......… and the personal firearm is ...... (drum roll) an instrument of force

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.

A boastful statement made by someone arrogantly blinded by his opinion, factual or not, of his own reactions and capabilities; not everybody is a terminator-in-waiting - a potential "victim" could be a little old and frail lady (or man or child or handicapped person), armed with a handgun, facing a murderous thug armed with a howitzer. Is it really conceivable that such a person could face down a mugger intent on violence? It is more likely the mugger would do whatever he wants, quickly and violently just in case the terminator-in-waiting was to pull the trigger.

You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

Not if this omnipresent ubiquitous mugger sees you and your gun first

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 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.

See above.

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.

… and the victim is equally and credibly as pugnacious as the would-be-mugger and sees him first

Yes it is true that if there were no guns then no-one would get shot, but given the situation as it is now, the issue is not the gun per se, it is the bellicose and fanatical attitude which is followed by some, repeat some, who own a gun and boast about how big it is and how they would use it. Unfortunately in the US it appears that the horse has bolted and that so many guns are in circulation that reason has fled with the horse.

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.

The above is a curious mixture of woolly extrapolation from one absurd situation to another and a far right wing muddle between democracy and anarchism. There are more checks and balances in (any) society than guns.

Incidentally banning is a red herring as far as this thread is concerned, few if any are suggesting downright banning; regulation is more the approach evolved during the discussion and suggestions so far have included better training, both with regard to safety and with regard to a responsible approach to gun-owning; education, education, and education..

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.

Both statements assume that violence is an inevitable result of any confrontation. The “argument” is based on a hypothetical situation from which general conclusions can’t be reached.

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.

A bit of non-drivel there, I would just add "guns .. or, indeed a flesh wound".

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 “field” - this is a telling slip into the vernacular of military thinking. In Society one does not actually live on a Field of Battle. One wonders what it must be like to walk down a street assessing each corner as a possible hiding place for snipers or a handy bit of dead ground in which to hide.

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.

Not everyone is a trained and eager killer, not even muggers and little old ladies, except in the imagination of the paranoiac.

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.

One can imagine examples where it might reduce force (for example if the mugger is a little old lady) but the unfortunate fact is that it raises the potential for a gun fight where none existed before.

There are many people around in countries that have been civilised for a long time who don't carry guns and who are even less afraid simply because gun ownership is not a national hobby.