 sj |
||
|
||
Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
|
|
|
Subject: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: nutty Date: 18 Apr 07 - 03:14 AM This thread has been started by someone in the UK who would like the views of Mudcatters from over the water. It is in no way intended to censure but, in view of the recent massacre in Virginnia, I find it difficult to understand how allowing unstable young people (as well as criminals and others) to own guns can make a community safer. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Peace Date: 18 Apr 07 - 03:20 AM Nutty, I think my friends to the south (I'm in Canada) don't 'allow' criminals and unstable young people to own guns. They just procure them despite the general population's wishes to the contrary. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Peace Date: 18 Apr 07 - 03:27 AM That said, I have twice had handguns pointed at me, neither time by a properly constituted authority. It makes a guy nervous. The one time I pointed a firearm at anyone, I was out hunting when a fellow spun his rifle by the head of a friend of mine and fired just as the gun cleared his head. I figure the bullet missed by all of two/three inches. I leveled my rifle and told him to drop his. He did. When I'd kicked it away, I lowered mine. Guns aren't toys and should never be treated as such. They are tools. Deadly in the wrong hands, to be sure. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Georgiansilver Date: 18 Apr 07 - 03:29 AM The problem surely will always be 'Well how do you measure the level of someones stability'? The guy who perpetrated this shooting, walked into a gun shop a short while ago and bought his handgun...a simple sale.....possibly having already meditated over his possible future behaviour. I am sure the problem goes a lot deeper than that when it gets down to 'the rights of the people'. The UK is fast becoming an illegal gun culture so how long will it be before we can rightfully bear arms? If only for our own protection. Sad to say IMHO it is just another sign of the breakdown in our societies. Best wishes, Mike. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Slag Date: 18 Apr 07 - 05:49 AM Right on Peace! A cousin of mine was hunting with my father, shotguns for dove. He swung the barrel around and just cleared my dad's and fired. My dad had a hearing loss in that ear the rest of his life. Could have been much worse. Could have been a very short life! The hunt was over and he never hunted with his nephew again. Like cars, responsible people try to be as safe as they can. Then you have the idiots and the scoff laws and the out and out criminals. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: GUEST,chris Date: 18 Apr 07 - 06:32 AM I think the most worrying thing that I heard on the Today prog on radio 4 was a quote from a man from an american gun magazine that went something like 'If someone else had been there with a gun they could have killed him and less people would have died' he seemed to miss the fact that had NO ONE been allowed guns then NO ONE would have died. chris |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Joe Offer Date: 18 Apr 07 - 06:48 AM I'm reading a book by theologian Walter Wink called The Powers That Be: Theology for a New Millennium. Wink says the most predominant religious belief in the United States is what he calls the Myth of Redemptive Violence - the belief that violence can accomplish good. He says it is in our literature, our television and movies and music, and in our politics and military policy. So, in a nation that believes that violence does good, isn't it appropriate that everyone be armed? Can't say that I believe in the myth myself - but I have to say that it sometimes captures me and takes me where I'd rather not go. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: catspaw49 Date: 18 Apr 07 - 07:11 AM .........and as the beat goes on............... In Columbus last evening a 5 year old boy was dead on arrival at Children's Hospital after shooting himself in the chest with a handgun. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 18 Apr 07 - 07:24 AM Handguns are completely illegal here in the UK, nutty, yet anyone in the know can apparantly go out and get one tomorrow! Legality and ownership are not the same thing. I don't believe guns should be made legal for everyone but the current laws only stop responsible, law-abiding citizens from getting them. Maybe if we seriously clamped down on firearms, as in shoot anyone carrying one on sight, we may see a reduction in gun crime? I don't really know and suspect the topic is too complex for us amateurs to solve. Cheers Dave |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 18 Apr 07 - 08:25 AM To be honest, I would have some same sort of law for car ownership. Some people are psychologically unfit to be allowed out behind the wheel of a car - too competitive, short tempered, argumentative, impatient. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: GUEST,Wisdom Date: 18 Apr 07 - 08:45 AM If a madman were to come into this room with a stick in his hand, no doubt we should pity the state of his mind, but our primary consideration would be to take care of ourselves. We should knock him down first, and pity him afterwards. Dr Samuel Johnston helps if you have a stick too..... |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: frogprince Date: 18 Apr 07 - 09:07 AM The guns the young man in Virginia used had the serial numbers filed off; that means that, in this one instance, any specific laws about legal gun ownership are beside the point. The question is, rather, whether we can do anything about the fact that the society is so flooded with unnecessary guns that, 1. A criminal can steal one, or buy a previously stolen one, or a previously legally purchased one, at the drop of a hat. 2. A decent citizen who becomes mentally ill, loses his head in anger, or panics at falsely perceived danger, can immediately grab one. 3. It's an everyday occurence for a little child to get hold of a gun for a plaything. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Rapparee Date: 18 Apr 07 - 09:12 AM I saw statistics (from the UN) that put the US third in the world for gun-caused homicides per million people, at 41. Brazil was first, at (I believe) 213. I can't remember which country was second, but it ranked about 150. The UK was at something like 0.41. The figures were for 2003. Nevertheless I will go to work, unarmed. I will visit the doctor, unarmed. I will talk to the AARP, unarmed. I will meet with my Supervisors.* And I'll go back home, unarmed. I have only rarely been afraid in the US, and then it was because of weather or animals (like my run-in with a mountain goat), not because of other people. *Well, sometimes I'd like to be armed.... 8-) |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Rapparee Date: 18 Apr 07 - 09:20 AM Filing the serial number off a weapon (and I hadn't heard that) is in itself a crime. Keeping firearms accessible to children should be a crime, since there are LOTS of ways to prevent it. My own firearms are locked up and the ammunition is stored in a seperate locked container. Do I feel safer with guns in the house? Since I'd have to run downstairs, unlock the the guns, unlock the ammo, load the gun, and then run back upstairs -- no, I don't have them for "defense." My old nightstick is far better, since I know how to use it -- and you're not going to do much shooting or stabbing with a broken wrist, kneecap, or elbow. Were I to run downstairs to get a weapon I'd probably grab my smallsword -- it's hanging on the wall, I know how to use it, and I don't have to take the time to load or reload it. (At work I have a pencil.) |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Sorcha Date: 18 Apr 07 - 09:43 AM Same here, Rap. And, I figure if we have anything they want badly enough to steal it, fine, just take it. Not worth my life. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: catspaw49 Date: 18 Apr 07 - 09:48 AM CNN reports that two Secret Service Agents were injured yesterday in the accidental discharge of a firearm near the White House. Yes, guns are safe in the hands of trained professionals. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: saulgoldie Date: 18 Apr 07 - 09:49 AM But if we all had guns...First of all, many people would legally qualify to own them who shouldn't for a variety of reasons. Lack of coordination for one. Lack of common sense for another. (And yes, there are a lot of people driving cars shouldn't oughtta be.) Second, with a gun in every hand, every dispute has the potential for ending in anything form a small disaster to a large-scale disaster. Disagreements escalate, and the next thing you know, someone whips it out. When they fire, they can seriously injure not only the intended victim, but anyone else who unhappily is in the area, or even out of the ares. Stray bullets travel, dontcha know. And unlike with a fistfight where the injuries are likely to be survivable, the resulting gunfight is more likely not. Imagine this going on all over the place. Imagine this in schools, in hospitals, in shopping malls, on Main Street. In the homes, where isn't there already enough accidental (or intentional!) gun mayhem? No, I am afraid that the presence of a gun automatically escalates whatever is going on. Gun laws? Well, some of them are too weak, like the allowances for military-type guns that no civilian reasonably needs. And if they were enforced better and waiting periods were honored... But I realize that I am dreaming. There are too many voters out there who are willing to vote ONLY the gun issue to the exclusion of all other issues. So we are likely stuck with this situation for the duration. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Riginslinger Date: 18 Apr 07 - 10:06 AM I think in America people have figured out that prohibition doesn't work. It didn't work with booze, it hasn't worked with drugs, and there's no reason to suspect it will work with guns either. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Peace Date: 18 Apr 07 - 10:09 AM "helps if you have a stick too..... " I'm of Scottish extraction and Dr Johnson isn't high on my list of those I love. However, I would like to disagree with the quoted statement. If you have a stick and know how to use it as a weapon, good. If not, you are better without the stick. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: GUEST,pattyClink Date: 18 Apr 07 - 10:20 AM Chris, the person who said 'if somebody else had a gun' was probably referring to the fact that the Luke Woodham killing spree at Pearl High School was only stopped when one of the staff ran to his pickup and grabbed a shotgun and stood the killer down. Another few dozen souls would have perished if that had not happened. The police aren't protecting us in our 'gun-free' workplaces, shopping centers, schools, etc. where all of us are gun-free except crazy criminals. Unfortunately the police don't rush in at the last minute to save the day like in the movies. Guns are the tool but the diseases are criminal lifestyles and mental illness. If we could spend the time, money, and breath on those things we would be better off. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 18 Apr 07 - 10:30 AM My ice axe is hanging inconspicuously by the back door. I know how to use it on a glacier, and I know how to use it as a weapon. (Don't waste your time with a wind-up to swing the axe over your shoulder or head, use it for a direct thrust with the bottom point. It'll do the trick without the warning and frontal exposure offered by a swing). SRS |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 18 Apr 07 - 10:31 AM that's my point - no use a stick or an ice axe against a maniac in a car. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: GUEST,meself Date: 18 Apr 07 - 10:41 AM A big part of the problem - if not the crux of the problem - is the matter that Joe Offer alludes to above, and which no one seems to want to talk about: "the most predominant religious belief in the United States is what he calls the Myth of Redemptive Violence - the belief that violence can accomplish good" ... In other words, if the issue were simply the NUMBER of guns, there would be percentages of gun-deaths in Switzerland and Canada comparable to those of the United States. Michael Moore, whatever you may think of him, gets into this in "Bowling for Columbine". Consider the extent to which the television and movie industries nurture and prepetuate a little-boy fantasy world in which heroes save the day with spectacular acts of violence. This in combination with the prevalence and social-acceptability of confrontational - or, as we've seen recently, downright abusive - public rhetoric, often with an underlying implied threat of violence, and the ready access to guns, may partly explain the problem. Just some thoughts I'm throwing out there ... |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: katlaughing Date: 18 Apr 07 - 10:49 AM Right you are, meself. I grew up watching heroes such as Marshal Dillon go after the bad guys and get them, but he did his best not to have to shoot them and to bring them in for "justice" in court. It seems today's heroes are all about how spectacular the use of violence can be portrayed so that is the main element that little kids take away with them. My grandson knows about the Force and the Light in the Star Wars movies, but he much more enamoured with the light sabres and obliterating the bad guys. I was really happy the other day when he drew me a "nice" robot instead of some vicious automaton; maybe his pacifist grandma will prevail.:-) A better title for this thread, or subject, might be "Are the kids really safe." ids and Guns: Key Facts * For every child killed with a gun, four are wounded.[2] * According to the Centers for Disease Control, the rate of firearm death of children 0-14 years old is nearly twelve times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized nations combined. The firearm-related homicide rate is nearly 16 times higher for children in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. The suicide rate of children 0-14 years old is twice as high in the U.S. as it is in those same 25 other industrialized countries combined. Interestingly, there is no difference in the non-firearm suicide rate between the U.S. and these other countries. Virtually all the difference is attributable to suicides committed with guns in the U.S.[3] * Over 3,500 students were expelled in 1998-99 for bringing guns to school. Of these, 43% were in elementary or junior high school. This means that, in a 40-week school year, an average of 88 children per week nationwide are expelled for bringing a gun in school. And these figures include only the children who get caught.[4] * During 1999, 52% of all murder victims under 18 in the U.S. were killed by guns. In 1986, guns were used in 38% of such murders. In 1999, 82% of murder victims aged 13 to 19 years old were killed with a firearm.[5] * In 1998, more than 1200 children aged 10-19 committed suicide with firearms. Unlike suicide attempts using other methods, suicide attempts with guns are nearly always fatal, meaning a temporarily depressed teenager will never get a second chance at life. Nearly two-thirds of all completed teenage suicides involve a firearm.[6] * In 1998, 3,792 American children and teens (19 and under) died by gunfire in murders, suicides and unintentional shootings.[7] That's more than 10 young people a day. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 18 Apr 07 - 10:52 AM weelittledrummer, that's what your brain is for, finding the right defense when called upon. If I'm at my back door with an ice axe, chances are it isn't because a car is trying to break in. I also have dogs that I consider working dogs--they are here for my protection. I have a pit bull and a blue heeler/catahoula mix. More people may be afraid of the pit bull, but I'd put my money on the blue heeler as the dog to do damage to an intruder if I was being attacked. There are many schools of thought in self-defense. Guns don't trump all of the others, they are a crutch in that they block self-defense intelligence and cause more problems than they solve. That's my point here. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 18 Apr 07 - 10:58 AM "Guns aren't toys and should never be treated as such. They are tools." Yes, but they are tools for killing people and other living creatures with. This makes them different from other tools, like hammers and screw-drivers, which can be used for violent purposes but are not specifically designed for such purposes. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 18 Apr 07 - 10:59 AM What I'm really saying is - supposing these NRA guys are right. It isn't inanimate objects that kill people its the person using them - is their argument - as I understand it. What is true of guns, is doubly true of cars. We need to have a section of the population prohibited from owning guns and cars - those who have trouble controlling themselves. I bet assholes with cars with kill more people than assholes with guns. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Bill D Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:09 AM Thank you again, SRS..(I thanked you in the other thread)....and to Rapaire, who noted how complicated it would be to defend one's self with guns in the home IF the guns were properly secured in the first place. ...and to catspaw, who gives an example of what happenes almost everyday somewhere. We get all upset when a disturbed gun owner shoot a LOT of people, but barely notice the little stories from little papers all over the country of shootings...one at a time....which FAR outnumber all the mass killings together. It is time to consider sweeping re-writing of gun laws...and we need responsible gun owners to HELP craft sane measures, and not stand in the way grumping about "2nd amendment rights". |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Peace Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:26 AM "Yes, but they are tools for killing people and other living creatures with." Yes they can be tools for killing. They are easier than the spear, sling shot, bow and arrow. Longer reach. I'm a meat eater. On occasion I shoot things. People are never on the menu. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: katlaughing Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:27 AM Absolutely, Bill. Guns are made for one purpose and that is to destroy/kill/maim. Cars are made for getting from one point to another, just as step-ladders are made for climbing up and down and, black cats for petting and listening to them purr:-). Comparing guns to cars, etc. is a specious argument with no relevance. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: autolycus Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:38 AM When Gandhi visited the mountain hideout of some Indian militants and he saw their guns,he said to them, "You must be very frightened." (quoted in Marilyn Ferguson's The Aquarian Conspiracy,1980) Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Rapparee Date: 18 Apr 07 - 12:25 PM I have only a couple minutes but please consider these points: 1. Violence and perception of violence as the only solution, not just guns, is at the root of the problem. 2. The gun (and weapon) ownership problem is exacerbated by the increasing urbanization of human society. Discuss? Right now I have to dash off. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 18 Apr 07 - 01:09 PM look at it another way - most weeks someone threatens you, or tries to intimidate you with their driving. being threatened by a gunman is comparative rarity for most of us. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Big Mick Date: 18 Apr 07 - 02:23 PM Once again I point out that there are a number of legitimate uses for guns, including sport shooting, hunting, etc. There are many well thought out posts here, and many more that are not well though out. But the winner for succinctness is Patty Clink. Right on, Patty. I have the ability to legally carry a concealed weapon in my home state. I can count the number of times I have done so on one hand. Many of you try to shift the premise of the debate to "why should you be able to have a gun? What purpose does it serve other than to kill?" That is not the issue. The issue is "Why should I give up a right that I have always had, I have not abused, I have always followed the law?" I understand folks that have never had weapons as a part of their culture. But in this country, we have always had this right. Hunting and shooting sports have been a part of our culture from the beginning. In addition to the sporting aspect, there are many utilitarian uses for guns, including handguns, in farming and rural areas. I don't expect anti hunters to accept this, and we will have to disagree. But imagine if you are a person who has been raised in the environment that I have been raised in. Virtually every family in the community has firearms (including handguns) and uses them for hunting, target shooting, farm work, varmint control, etc. There is no violent crime, and in anyone's memory there has only been one accident involving firearms. Then, because an unbalanced young man decides to take revenge for a lifetime of perceived insults and kill as many folks as possible. He chooses a firearm as the weapon of his revenge and his suicide. Folks in my community don't see a gun as the problem. They see a sad case of a young man who was ill and acted out in a tragic way. Tim McVeigh did the same thing. The thought that their weapons were part of the problem never enters their mind, because these weapons aren't part of the problem. Solve the problems of a society that is starting to run amok. Acknowledge that in our haste to demonize government programs, cut funding on necessary social programs, glorify capitalism to the point that all actions can be justified in the interest of profits, we have created a society where many young people feel lost and hopeless. This is what causes a kid to pick up a gun and kill 32 innocents. When a wonderful and insighful prof tried to tell folks about this kid, nothing was done. Blame the system, and I am with you. Blame a system that failed to note his mental condition and allowed him to buy a gun, OK we can talk. But suggest that I give up a right that I have had all my life? Especially since taking the weapons from law abiding citizens won't materially change the dynamic? Silly, and further, the argument shows intellectual weakness. Attack the cause of the disease, not the symptom. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Donuel Date: 18 Apr 07 - 02:34 PM I don't want to pry anything out of anyone's cold dead hand. I just want fewer dead cold hands. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Big Mick Date: 18 Apr 07 - 02:39 PM Now there's a well thought out response, Don. Who the hell said anything like that? |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Donuel Date: 18 Apr 07 - 02:45 PM Please don't take offense Big Mick... I said it. Its my talking point/slogan for the day. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Slag Date: 18 Apr 07 - 02:48 PM So many paths. So little time. Criminals, by definition are not going to obey the law. The insane CAN'T obey the law. Restrictive gun laws do nothing but disarm the innocent and the good (as we all want to be good, law abiding citizens). In essence, the anti-gun stance of VT condemned all those students to suffer whatever some criminal or deranged person might inflict upon them. It's such a pleasant fiction to believe we live in an ideal world. Joe, Redemptive violence? That is a contradiction in terms. Redemption means to BUY back something or exchange one thing for something else. It's pretty easy to make up a term and then attack it (straw man). But, I haven't read it so I must reserve judgment. Wherever evidence of mankind is found there is evidence of his violence as well as his fear of violence: weapons, bones, shields and walled cities. It is folly to think that we have somehow moved beyond that as a race. Remember, monsters from the ID (Forbidden Planet)? It is always with us. We need religions. We need civilization. These are our first and best lines of defense against those who would otherwise seek to rape, pillage and do mayhem. As in the VT case, passive resistance didn't deter the mad man one bit. The choice is the repugnant taking of some criminals' life or forfeiting our own. Sorry. That's the world we live in. I would that it were not so. Cars and guns ARE a lot alike. They are machines of useful and good purpose. They serve us well if we are responsible in our approach to them. They are both susceptible to abuse. They are both capable of doing great harm to a large number of people in a short period of time. They are both susceptible to accidentally killing and maiming of people. They both need to be regulated in some fashion and as population density goes up greater controls must be used. Both can be put to criminal use and both can be wielded by a deranged person. Apples and oranges are both fruit. They grow on trees. They are both edible. They are both generally round in shape. Etc. So, to use cars as an analogy for guns IS a legitimate argument. For any given year, death by firearms runs around 8000 and over half of those are justified homicides at the hands of a sworn peace officers and another 1000 or so are accidental shootings. Cars account for nearly 50,000 deaths a year albeit mostly accidental. More people die in fires, or in drownings, or by poison, or by errant medication prescriptions, or by other medical errors than by firearms. Why isn't the same strident hew and cry raised about these other egregious deaths? That's what you call a "Good Question"! Who would benefit the most from disarming a people? Those who would seek to CONTROL the same. I contend that it is the right of the people to defend themselves that keeps our nation free and if we lose THAT right all the other rights enumerated in our Constitution and in the Declaration are just ink on paper with no force and no teeth. A free society must put up with and manage a certain degree of abuse of that freedom in order to remain free. Freedom is the right to do the "right" thing, the responsible thing and yet freedom, by its very nature is subject to abuse. That is why we must also police and protect our rights and punish and defend against those who would abuse those same rights and freedom. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: katlaughing Date: 18 Apr 07 - 02:56 PM *sigh* Cars are NOT made specifically to be used to kill. A criminal may steal a car or drive without a license without the intent to kill whereas there is no question when they pick up a gun, they are undoubtedly prepared to kill or be killed. Apples and oranges. I had read the student was referred after his odd behaviour had been noted: Around Dec. 2005 after complaints by two students: The police spoke with acquaintances of Mr. Cho's and became concerned that Mr. Cho might be suicidal. Officers suggested to Mr. Cho that he speak to a counselor and he did so. He went voluntarily to the police department and, based on his meeting with the counselor, a temporary detention order was obtained and Mr. Cho was taken to a mental health facility, Carilion Saint Albans Behavioral Health Center. Neither of the female students who complained about Mr. Cho were among the shooting victims, and the police said they did not know if they were in the vicinity of the shootings. There were no further referrals to the police before Mr. Cho was named on Tuesday in connection with the deaths of the students and teachers on the sprawling campus. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: nutty Date: 18 Apr 07 - 04:17 PM Thank you all for your responses I have found reading then very interesting. It really is have difficult to understand the need for the right to carry a weapon as it is something that is totally outside my experience even though, like Big Mick, I was raised in a farming community. When I found myself living alone and in need of extra security I invested in two extremely noisy terriers. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: dianavan Date: 18 Apr 07 - 04:18 PM In a country whose economy seems to be based on war and the sale of weapons, civilian gun laws aren't likely to change. The national identity is based on violence. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Apr 07 - 04:24 PM Yes..."the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air" The USA is a society which venerates war and violence and is damn proud of it too. Better just get used to the fact that you are not really safe. Life is not really safe. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Donuel Date: 18 Apr 07 - 04:28 PM Guns and cars, cars and guns, how about the best of both worlds. In South Africa many private cars have guns afixed either in a fixed position or on a swivel turret. Yes the comparison of cars to guns serves no purpose. I just heard a statement by the female CNN moderator talking to an advocate of strict gun laws ... "The biggest school murder scene was actually in Michigan when a principal used dynamite to blow up himself along with 44 others, so guns are not the cause of the biggest school murder scene, why single out guns?" How obscene is that comparison? The arguement should not be about a weapon of murder as bad, good or best - in comparison to something else be it cars or dynamite. It is about guns. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Wolfgang Date: 18 Apr 07 - 05:02 PM The argument that had all the students had guns with them the murderer would have been dead earlier is most likely correct but a bit misleading. Spree killing would definitely be more dangerous for the killer. But if all them kids would come to university with a gun, many more killings would result from moments of (short) anger. Guns lead to a culture of violence in my eyes and make life much more dangerous for the law abiding people. We have criminals and they like to wave with a gun in order to make you do what they want. But they are not prone to fire the gun quickly because they know their victims do not have guns as a rule with very few exceptions. The threshold for shooting or inflicting bad wounds any other way (with knifes,...) on the victims of a crime is much lower if the perpetrator knows that each of the people at the scene could have a gun and be ready to fire to kill. Yes, if all honest men have no guns only the not so honest will still have guns. That's true, but they use them very rarely. The mad murderer will not be stopped by his victims having no guns. But the overall number of gun related (and, by changing the culture of violence, other violent) deaths will decrease. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: katlaughing Date: 18 Apr 07 - 05:04 PM We do need a new anthem....judging by the verses we never sing, even. Some suggestions HERE. Also, this looks like a worthy organisation to Support for Peace. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Scoville Date: 18 Apr 07 - 05:06 PM The Bath School Disaster occurred in 1927 and its perpertrator was, likewise, pretty clearly mentally ill (though he was not the principal of the school). Actually, the mental states and motives, irrational as they were, of the men responsible were probably not that different. (Which doesn't mean I support the gun lobby. I don't. But it was definitely no less obscene than Virginia Tech, if you've read the accounts.) If anything, it should be a mental health issue. When I was in school, we got three free visits to the mental health center. Three. At a school that had one of the highest suicide rates among U.S. small colleges. So if you couldn't pay, you were high and dry after that. The handful of people I knew who actually did use their visits were at the crisis stage by the time they did so and either forced themselves to go or were hauled in by their parents or by academic probation. That means that either they were still rational enough to realize they had a problem or somebody was watching out for them. There were a lot of other kids who had major problems who quit or took time off. One of my classmates ate a handful of cyanide one morning before our history class; if he had been a more violent kid, he might have killed someone else, but he killed himself instead. I don't know why this kid wasn't hauled in for serious counseling and why his parents weren't apparently contacted to back that up, but guns or no guns, if you're not in that state of mind, you don't shoot people. I'm all for better gun control, but I can't believe how many warning signs were passed over before this all came down. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Rapparee Date: 18 Apr 07 - 06:01 PM The "rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air" were from the British fleet, not from the Americans in Ft. McHenry. I'm in favor of making "This Land Is Your Land" the national anthem. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Donuel Date: 18 Apr 07 - 06:16 PM I second that motion |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Rapparee Date: 18 Apr 07 - 06:20 PM Let me, as a gun owner, shooter, and someone with a concealed carry permit, give my own answer to the question asked in the thread title. No, I am not. But then, I recognize that I am not safe anywhere and neither are you. If you feel that you are safe and secure you are deluding yourself. But guns are not, and never have been, defensive weapons. Neither is a bow and arrows, a sling, a crossbow, a javelin, or any other projectile or projectile-throwing weapon. You cannot defend yourself with a projectile, you can only defend yourself from a projectile. That's why cops and soldiers wear bullet proof vests ("ballistic armor"). You CAN defend yourself with a stick, a staff, a sword, a shield, a targe, your hands and feet, and even a whip. But even then, you're not "safe." |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Gulliver Date: 18 Apr 07 - 07:20 PM I'm glad I've never owned a gun--I could have done all kinds of damage with it! I was held up at gunpoint a few times (not counting army checks in Northern Ireland) and it wasn't nice. Once by a drunken undercover police officer in Germany. Twice in Naples, Italy, where I lived for a few years, and on these occasions I just jumped on the guy who was so surprised I was able to get away. Then they tried to kidnap me--but that's another story... |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: katlaughing Date: 18 Apr 07 - 07:31 PM Yes, This land is your land gets my vote, too! |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: wysiwyg Date: 18 Apr 07 - 08:20 PM Home invasions in our part of the state tend to be unarmed home invasions, because everyone knows that most homes in the county are protected by homeowners who have guns on hand for hunting, and who know how to use them for the protection of farm animals (against predators) and who know the law pertaining to defending home and family if necessary. Bar fights here tend also to be unarmed fights, for the simple reason that it is well known that many people here have "carry" permits and may be prepared should a fight go to the next level. Children here tend to learn about gun safety, well before they are old enough to get a case of teenage rebellion and tote one to school. Most teens who hunt (for the family table), and who have earned their rifle by demonstrating their responsibbility over a number of years of careful pretnal guidance, would never think of risking the loss of their prized hunting rifle by doing something stupid with it. Parents of children tend to lock their hunting and target-shooting firearms up and sometimes keep them offsite, to protect the younger children. Of course these are not guarantees, but they are the cultural norms here in our area. And I can't say ALL parents are that responsible-- we do have idiots moving here from the flatlands who don't have a clue about any of this, and for all I know they leave guns out where little ones can grab them. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: frogprince Date: 18 Apr 07 - 09:08 PM I just, for the first time in my life, actually registered the fact that this line is in our national anthem: "Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just" That line is so little known that it isn't really a significant factor in modern American culture. But the fact that a song containing that line was adopted as our anthem in the first place, is just about appalling. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Rapparee Date: 18 Apr 07 - 09:10 PM Which is one reason I like "This land is your land." |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Sorcha Date: 18 Apr 07 - 09:11 PM It's easier to sing too. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Liz the Squeak Date: 18 Apr 07 - 09:31 PM Kat - thanks for that link.. I always thought (along with a lot of your fellow countrymen) that the last line of the Spar strangled banner was 'play ball!' "as in shoot anyone carrying one on sight" And what if that gun turns out (as it has before) to be a toy, a replica or a table leg? Redemptive violence - otherwise known as payback. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Pretty soon, the whole world is blind and toothless. LTS |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Don Firth Date: 18 Apr 07 - 09:35 PM I was pretty much of a handgun bug at one time, largely because a friend of mine was into target shooting and got me interested as well. He was a member of the Seattle Police Athletic Association, and I (and a couple other of his friends) would go with him as his guests and spend an enjoyable afternoon putting holes in paper at 25 yards. On other occasions, we go out in the tall-and-uncut where no one lived nearby (sometimes a gravel-pit or somewhere close to a hill or embankment that would act as a back-stop) and massacre beer and soft drink cans. Re: the beer cans, once we finished up a day's shooting, we'd gather at someone's place and sit around cleaning the guns. Once they were cleaned and put away, then and only then would the beer come out, and we'd prepare a few targets for next tune. This had darned little to do with killing people or things. It was more like golf. Shooting for score. I still have the guns, safely locked away, but I don't go shooting anymore. I don't keep them around for protection, and as soon as I get off my duff, I plan on selling them—to a gun dealer and repairman I know, whom I also know to be diligent and ethical about checking out a customer before selling him or her a gun. I used to walk with a pair of crutches. On the very few occasions were I felt threatened, I'm quite sure the person making the threats was unaware of how effective a crutch in the goolies can be. I like Rapaire's idea of the smallsword for self-defense. It may not have the range of a Glock 9 mm. pistol, but it's far more elegant and stylish. I am of the opinion that the National Guard units of the various states constitute the "well regulated militia" the founding fathers had in mind. A totally unorganized bunch of armed civilians is certainly not a "well regulated militia." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Peace Date: 18 Apr 07 - 09:37 PM Yeah to that, Don. Then there's Blackwater. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Sorcha Date: 18 Apr 07 - 09:47 PM Well, I could fall off the couch and break my neck too. I just can't worry about what 'might' happen. That includes maniacs in my neighborhood. Shoot 'em all and let God sort em out. Tongue FIRMLY in cheek here. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Rapparee Date: 18 Apr 07 - 10:03 PM Elegance personified, that's me. But the smallsword is hanging on the wall, I know how to use it, and I don't have to load it, etc. Besides, there's something psychological about having 35 inches of steel, in the hands of someone who knows how to use it, pointing at your stomach or throat that a pistol just doesn't supply. (A 12 gauge side-by-side double barrel shotgun has it, too. As they say out here, "Buckshot means buryin'." But it can leave messy holes in the walls and furniture and besides, it just ain't very elegant. And it's hard to pull that buckshot back if you've made a mistake.) |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Bill D Date: 18 Apr 07 - 10:49 PM ".. And it's hard to pull that buckshot back if you've made a mistake." ...and if widespread ownership of various firearms is allowed & encouraged, we will be reading about more & more 'mistakes'. Training in how to load & pull the trigger is easy: training in good judgment and restraint is not. We just had a police officer in this area kill one man and wound another at the policeman's home...they were delivering furniture! and there was some sort of silly dispute. This was the 4th or 5th time this guy had been in hot water for brandishing his gun and making threats. Imagine regular folks, already nervous about harassment & robberies 'defending' themselves by waving a gun every time someone looks at them funny. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Sorcha Date: 18 Apr 07 - 10:58 PM Hey, mistakes are too easy with guns, esp hand guns. But my Mr's biggie was with a .270 hunting rifle. Bolt open, one in the chamber (don't ask US how that happened--he has been using firearms since he was a tot and is a 'trained police officer'). Closed the gun case....BOOM! Shot my Jeep Wagoneer. Driver rear quarter panel glass and back glass, richotched off a tree across the street, and buried in the dirt. Scared the HOLY LIVING CRAP out of both of us, but thankfully, nobody hurt and the Cop Shop wasn't alerted by a neighbor. I had the aluminun panel from the storm door and some of the Jeep glass framed, put a brass plate with the date on it. Gave it to him for Xmas. He is still (as he should be) pretty upset, sheepish, embarassed...etc. Accidental discharge can (and probably eventually will) happen to anybody. Lady Luck plays a large part...or God. Which ever you prefer. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Don Firth Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:13 PM I've never heard anyone say of a smallsword, "Officer, I was just cleaning it, and it accidentally went off!" Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Sorcha Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:15 PM Nope. Hey, if it were up to me, there would be NO guns in this house, but it isn't up to me. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Big Mick Date: 19 Apr 07 - 11:56 AM Bill, you really disappoint me with all this demagogic stuff. For every story like that one, I can come up with another showing a responsible use, or a life saved. Usually when you debate a subject, you stick to quantifiable stuff. I can only surmise on this one that you are so committed to what you think is the right course that your normally sterling debating skills are being shelved. There is an important distinction that those whose real goal is to get rid of all guns don't want to make. There are many legitimate uses for guns, and the guns of law abiding citizens aren't the ones used in these crimes. - During the Clinton Administration, the Justice Department studied the issue. They were attempting to show that guns were a danger. One of the facts they uncovered is that guns were used for self defense 1.5 million times each year. This study was conducted by anti gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig. - Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. -More guns, less crime. In the decade of the 1990s, the number of guns in this country increased by roughly 40 million—even while the murder rate decreased by almost 40% percent. Accidental gun deaths in the home decreased by almost 40 percent as well. -Gun-free England not such a utopia after all. According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997. And according to a United Nations study, British citizens are more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States. The 2000 report shows that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Bill D Date: 19 Apr 07 - 02:15 PM "For every story like that one, I can come up with another showing a responsible use, or a life saved." I sincerely doubt that you can counter anywhere NEAR the number of tragic uses of guns with positive uses. "Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day. " That is....beyond my comprehension. I need a reference and an idea of what they include in those statistics. Mick...we may disagree, but as you say, you know me...Don't you think "demagogic" is a wee bit over the top for my honest presentation of my views? |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Greg B Date: 19 Apr 07 - 02:28 PM "I grew up watching heroes such as Marshal Dillon go after the bad guys and get them, but he did his best not to have to shoot them" Yeah, but in the end, on almost every show, he had to do it. Oh, he didn't want to. Felt kinda bad afterwards. But yup, pardner, it just had to be done. Wasn't it Billy the Kid who said "I ain't never killed nobody that didn't need killin'?" |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Big Mick Date: 19 Apr 07 - 02:39 PM Bill, I do know you, I value you as a friend,and I have no doubt that you are not typically a demogogue. But it seems to me that you are employing a demogogic debating tactic on this one. In this debate, it seems to me, you are relying on individual stories that suit your bias. I understand this. You know me as well. I am a progressive, and work in many liberal, progressive causes. Over the years, in my involvement with the Democratic Party at the highest levels, and in causes espoused by my progressive friends, I have felt conflicted over my use and enjoyment of firearms. Remember the Kayla Rollings shooting? That was the one where the kindergarten girl was shot by a classmate with a gun left laying around? That next weekend I was in Flint with the Second Lady. And I was challenged for my views. I said then what I say now. These are horrible tragedies. But they have little to do with the overwhelming majority of gun owners in the USA who simply have and use weapons in a legal and responsible way. Any law that takes those weapons will not reduce violent crime. In fact the statistics seem to show it will increase it. As to the cite I gave on the number of times guns are used by law abiding citizens, here is the cite: Dr. Kleck is a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee. He has researched extensively and published several essays on the gun control issue. His book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, has become a widely cited source in the gun control debate. In fact, this book earned Dr. Kleck the prestigious American Society of Criminology Michael J. Hindelang award for 1993. This award is given for the book published in the past two to three years that makes the most outstanding contribution to criminology. Even those who don't like the conclusions Dr. Kleck reaches, cannot argue with his impeccable research and methodology. In "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. . . . I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence." Wolfgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, at 188. Wolfgang says there is no "contrary evidence." Indeed, there are more than a dozen national polls—one of which was conducted by The Los Angeles Times—that have found figures comparable to the Kleck-Gertz study. Even the Clinton Justice Department (through the National Institute of Justice) found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year. See National Institute of Justice, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," Research in Brief (May 1997). Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Greg B Date: 19 Apr 07 - 02:47 PM After 9/11, I was lamenting the fact that the response had been to ground, for a period of weeks, law-abiding pilots of light aircraft (which lacked the mass and carrying capacity to do much damage) while permitting large commercial aircraft (such has had brought down the twin towers) to continue to fly. The old guy with whom I was talking said "well, they gotta do something." This sort of sums up the 'make a law' mentality which increases the burden on law-abiding citizens while doing absolutely nothing to make us safer from criminals who don't give a damn for the law. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: katlaughing Date: 19 Apr 07 - 03:01 PM These are horrible tragedies. But they have little to do with the overwhelming majority of gun owners in the USA who simply have and use weapons in a legal and responsible way. Yes, until their 14 year old son comes home from school and uses his dad's hunting rifle to commit suicide afraid to tell his parents he didn't get all "A"s on his report card as happened in WY. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Donuel Date: 19 Apr 07 - 03:01 PM " Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens with 40% ...." Karl Rove School of Super Statistics |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Big Mick Date: 19 Apr 07 - 03:36 PM ya know, kat, you are really starting to show that you don't know what you are talking about. Does the thought occur to you that someone who is so despondent and unbalanced that they are going to take their life, will do so anyhow? Did the gun make this student kill him/herself? No, it did not. Does the thought occur to you that the kid would have thrown him/herself in front of a car, jumped off a bridge, or overdosed? I think if I were you, I would be more angry at parents who drive their children to this, instead of using these victims to try and prop up your biases about weapons. As I said to Bill, I will say to you. I can match each of your horror stories with a positive story. People who are out of their depth and don't have facts to back up their positions use these tactics. You would be better off just saying you don't like guns and wish they were gone. That would be fine. But I give cites as to what I am saying. Those of you who know me, know that if I thought gun control would save the lives of these innocents, I would advocate and act to make it happen. But the evidence and experience does not show that. Until you and others stop using these individual stories to appeal to popular prejudices (which is what demagogues do, look it up)you will be on the losing end of the argument. It is why Americans overwhelmingly support the right to own firearms. One of the sad parts of this debate is that by the anti gun people taking such a polarizing position (unlike what Bill D has said elsewhere) it hinders the ability to make progress in certain areas that might make sense. For example: I support liberal conceal carry laws. But I feel that the training component should be much more rigorous. If one is going to carry a weapon in public places, the training ought be what police officers go through. There is much dialogue that could happen, but not as long as the anti gun forces advocate against law abiding citizens, and the rights they have had for generations. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Slag Date: 19 Apr 07 - 04:03 PM Just a little more grist for the mill: If you are an able bodied male in these United States, between the ages of 17 and 35, I have news for you. You ARE a member of the federal militia. In addition many states have similar clauses. What have you done to prepare to defend your state and country? It is your RESPONSIBILITY to know how to use weaponry and follow military discipline. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Apr 07 - 04:16 PM "I've never heard anyone say of a smallsword, "Officer, I was just cleaning it, and it accidentally went off!"" Only problem, it is against the law in both Maryland and DC to carry any blade over 3 inches. The police will confiscate it, and break the blade off on the nearest curb. So, one cannot legally carry a smallsword. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Wesley S Date: 19 Apr 07 - 04:24 PM "It is your RESPONSIBILITY to know how to use weaponry and follow military discipline." Caaaallll Meeeee Irresposible..... |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Rapparee Date: 19 Apr 07 - 04:32 PM That's too bad. They'll only take MY smallsword when they pull from its scabbard! Or would that make it a concealed weapon? Having been in sporting good stores in Maryland, including REI, all I can say is that the Maryland cops must spend a lot of times breaking knife blades.... |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Bill D Date: 19 Apr 07 - 04:32 PM Mick...I am reading those references. I find on the WWW the "Gunowners" site where you probably obtained them. There's a lot to read there, and more in THEIR links...but almost everything I've looked at so far seems to relate back to the "Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime" study. What I see is language like "... citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year." That still seems larger than I can imagine. They don't say how many of these were separate individuals and how many were one guy reporting he 'used' his gun in defense 53 times....and does 'use' include simply saying "I've got a gun, you better not try anything."? Since I do not have that book, I am left wondering how their numbers were arrived at....that is, what kind of data was included. Police reports? Interviews? Hearsay? I say this because as YOU know from listening to Bush for 6 years, statistics can be padded and manipulated and interpreted to prove most any point....and a "gunowners" website would certainly have an interest in a particular conclusion. I am still reading and trying to sort out what I think about the data/study/source. It would be important if it were even fairly accurate. but also..." In this debate, it seems to me, you are relying on individual stories that suit your bias." No, I am not 'relying'...as anyone does, I cite 'examples' I am familar with. (Did you read the one about the guy I knew personally? You said YOU had never known anyone who was careless or dangerous....I did.) I 'rely' on myriads of facts and stories and valued opinions of others for 45 years now. I did not start opposed to guns...I played at guns..I once owned a .22 pistol...briefly. I had no built-in opposition, or personal tragedies to color my opinions. I just ran what I knew, what I read and heard, what others (on BOTH sides) said, and what logic tells me, and was persuaded that as far as I could tell, the negative aspects of the USA's fairly open policy on personal ownership/possession of firearms has begun to to outweigh the positives. This is not a frontier society any longer, and YOUR argument that "my family has always had 'em, so why should I give 'em up?", doesn't move me a lot when I see the monthly reports of robbery & assault in DC and other cities. (I do NOT see many reports of 'honest citizens defending themselves with guns'.) But, as a matter of fact, my concern is NOT especially with making YOU give up your guns...it is rather with being MORE sure that idiots cannot GET them...and removing them from the hands of idiots who already have them! (See my post in the other thread.) further, demagogue sayeth not. (I got wood to turn) |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: katlaughing Date: 19 Apr 07 - 04:45 PM No, I am not 'relying'...as anyone does, I cite 'examples' I am familar with. (Did you read the one about the guy I knew personally? You said YOU had never known anyone who was careless or dangerous....I did.) I 'rely' on myriads of facts and stories and valued opinions of others for 45 years now. I did not start opposed to guns...I played at guns..I once owned a .22 pistol...briefly. I had no built-in opposition, or personal tragedies to color my opinions. I just ran what I knew, what I read and heard, what others (on BOTH sides) said, and what logic tells me, and was persuaded that as far as I could tell, the negative aspects of the USA's fairly open policy on personal ownership/possession of firearms has begun to to outweigh the positives. This is not a frontier society any longer, and YOUR argument that "my family has always had 'em, so why should I give 'em up?", doesn't move me a lot when I see the monthly reports of robbery & assault in DC and other cities. (I do NOT see many reports of 'honest citizens defending themselves with guns'.) Exactly, Bill. I used to be a "dead eye" with a 9mm and still have the 22 single shot rifle I grew up with in my parents' house. I don't have any bullets in the house. I quit target-practice when I moved East. Our gun culture has stifled my desire to yell at folks who drive by our house going 50mph in a 20mph posted zone because ya never know...one of them may have a gun and come back to blow my head off in a fit of rage. Chances are it would be when I least expect it and unless I am going to start walking around with a six-iron on my hip, I would never get a chance to defend myself against such an attack, so...I keep my mouth shut. Attack me, belittle me, and dismiss the personal stories of tragedy all you want Mick. They are still tragedies and they happen everyday in homes with legal guns and parents who think they are being careful. The world is not as black and white as you seem to think it is...lots of gray areas. It doesn't matter what tradition is...the world is a lot different than it used to be and some things need to change. I don't know what the answers are, but there's got to be a better way than what is happening right now. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Big Mick Date: 19 Apr 07 - 05:04 PM I didn't belittle you, kat. You attacked my arguments by citing a tragic example as though that were the norm. This is another example of trying to take the high ground by using a story to appeal to emotion. We all have emotion, and we all ache over these tragedies. But these tragedies are not the fodder for solid law that will resolve a problem. When you attempt to sway by appealling to emotion as opposed to supporting your position with solid fact and demonstrable proof, it is you doing the attacking and attempting to belittle. Bill, I don't believe you to be a demagogue. But I believe in this argument you are using the tactic. As to the cite I provided, I am unsure exactly which site I grabbed it from, but I did provide a fairly exact reference for which you should have no problem tracking the veracity. In fact, the sources cited were folks that were anti gun. As to the implication that I just grabbed these numbers, remember that I have been at this argument a long time. For the rest of you, I probably agree with Kat and Bill D on many more issues than I disagree. But on this issue I find myself at loggerheads with them and others. The facts as I have been able to uncover them just don't support the contentions many of these good folks are making. I understand the horror and desire to fix the problem. But the answer doesn't lie in band aid treatment of a severed carotid. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: GUEST,Ed Date: 19 Apr 07 - 05:07 PM Mick, remember that I have been at this argument a long time It shows too.... |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Captain Ginger Date: 19 Apr 07 - 05:10 PM My family always had slaves. Why should I not have one? |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Captain Ginger Date: 19 Apr 07 - 05:13 PM ...and my grandfather could by tincture of cannabis, laudanum and cocaine from his apothecary. Why can't I? I think my freedom is being impinged upon...(contd p96) |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Peace Date: 19 Apr 07 - 05:28 PM Canada has a gun registry. All the honest people I know registered their firearms. Estimates from the RCMP state that 1 in 4 households have a firearm. They also estimate that there are 16,000,000 rifles in Canada. "FOR THE 548 MURDERS IN 2003, STATISTICS CANADA REPORTS SHOW: 71% of murders were committed with something other than a gun. 29% of the 548 murders were committed with a firearm (6% of the guns used were registered, 26% were unregistered and the government didn't know the registration status of the other 68%). Makes a sane person ask: "What good is the gun registry?" 68% of the 161 firearms homicides were committed with handguns (that the government has been registering since 1934). Between 1997 and 2003, the registration status was known for 46% of firearm-related homicides. Of these, 86% were not registered and 80% of the accused persons did not possess a valid FAC or Firearms Licence. Why? Because 69% of murderers were already known criminals including five that had previously been convicted for homicide. Why were these murderers back on the street? " "FOR 22,906 ROBBERIES IN 2003, STATISTICS CANADA TABLES SHOW: 86% of robberies reported by police were committed with something other than a firearm. 95% of the injuries suffered by victims of police-reported robberies were injured with something other than a firearm. 88% of firearm robberies reported by police were committed with guns that were either already banned or handguns that should have been registered. 85% of injuries suffered by victims of police-reported robberies committed with firearms were committed with guns that were either already banned or handguns that the government has been trying to register for the last 70 years. " |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: nutty Date: 19 Apr 07 - 06:43 PM In the UK these are the statistics from the Home Office ..... Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in the UK is very low – less than 0.5% of all crime recorded by the police. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Bobert Date: 19 Apr 07 - 07:43 PM Well, gol danged... Apparently I'm part of a militia 'cause I own a gun??? Didn't get membership card in the mail 'er any training and for the life of me I'm not too sure if the Ruskies were to ivade Page County, Va., where I was 'spose to be with my 12 guage or my over under 410/22... But I reckon I'm in malitia 'cause I own a couple guns??? Wonder what malitia the folks in DC who ride tghe streets at night killing one another are in??? Yo, Mick... I loves ya brother but waht malitia are you in??? Might of fact, fir all my Mudcat friends: What malitia are you in??? Do you have regular training??? Patches on yer sleeves??? Membership cards??? Just curious... Now this is one dumbass argument we have going here... I think it would take a brain dead person to misconstrure the Second Amendment... Heck, if the Founding Fathers wanted everyone to pack heat just for general purposes then why did they word it in the same sentence with the right to have a malitia??? And, fir cripes sake, how many of the Founding Fathers could have envisioned the menu of arms available to folks some 250 years later??? Hey, I don't have no problem with everyone in the country owning a rifle just like the Founding Fathers prolly did but handguns in the Founmding Fathers days were for an occasional duel and not something to stick in yer glove compartment incase someone pisses you off on the highway... I mean, lets get reasonable here, folks... Yeah, I like and need havin' my guns but I, nor you, don't need no handgun... And BillD is entirely correct... When I was growin' up in Falls Church, Va. there was a gun nut who accidently killed himself with a gun so it ***can*** happen... But that's not part of my argument... Just back-up testimony... Bobert (gun owner) (former NRA member) |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp Date: 19 Apr 07 - 09:09 PM Did you know that 99% of all statistics can be used to support any damn point you want to make as long as you arrange 'em and present 'em in the right way? I love statistics. But not as much as I love packin' enough deadly firepower to feel "safe". And in my case, that is one HELL of a lotta firepower! It ain't safe out there. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: GUEST,pattyClink Date: 19 Apr 07 - 09:54 PM The Founding Fathers were trying desperately to keep their little nation from turning into someone's autocracy. They wanted and started a system where the people who live there would truly hold the power, not some elite which ruled over them. They believed one way to ensure this condition would be to never let the elite decide who could have a gun and who couldn't, and thus amendment #2. They did not foresee how civilized and numerous and mechanized we would all become, nor that we would have vast standing armies and missiles. Doubtless it would have been better had they devised other ways to keep power in the hands of the people instead of a huge armed government. It seems silly today to think the little people could rise up and slap the runaway government into line at rifle point. That said, I still don't want Dick Cheney or George Bush or Mr. Gonzales to gather all the guns to themselves any more than they already have. And I'm pretty sure this Cho character would have slapped together some IEDs to do his dirty work had gunpower not been available. And speaking of Dick & George, let's reflect on the fact that Iraqis have to live with massacres practically daily. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Don Firth Date: 19 Apr 07 - 10:25 PM The only way anyone is going to take my smallsword away from me is if they pry it out of my cold, dead hand! Don Firth P. S. They might just have to deal with the Walther P-38 in my other hand. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: IvanB Date: 20 Apr 07 - 12:23 AM As the son of a gun owner I was taught to shoot both rifles and handguns at an early age. Also, at an early age, I determined gun use was not something that appealed to me. Although I accompanied my stepdad and his friends on many hunts it was always without a gun in my hands. My true joy was when I could accompany them on fishing expeditions and sometimes even show them how it was done! Since I left home I've never owned any kind of gun nor knowingly allowed one in my house. That said, I watch the gun rights debate with mixed emotions. Mick, you've stated that dialogue can't happen "as long as the anti gun forces advocate against law abiding citizens, and the rights they have had for generations." But, admit it, the polemic from the organized anti gun control lobby has been just as rabid and is at least as responsible for the lack of reasoned debate as is anything gun control advocates have had to say. I assume you received your original concealed carry permit in Michigan, where you were required to pass a test on proper firearms usage as well as a background check that could have ruled you out for such permit for any of numerous reasons including mental disorders. But, when Allen Cropsey (a conservative who I would place among the worst Michian legislators I've seen in my lifetime) introduced his amendment to the concealed carry law, he envisioned mandatory issuance of a permit with practically no restrictions and the gun rights advocates fought long and hard against the restrictions that were finally implemented. And, unfortunately, the restrictions for handgun ownership are far lower in most other states. One thing that no gun law in my knowledge requires is that a gun owner maintain his/her competence with a firearm and this, more than any other reason, makes me hesitant to see citizens running about willy-nilly with guns. Although I learned to shoot and to shoot well, it's been almost 50 years since I've touched a gun and, although I'd certainly have the ability to shoot one if it was handed to me today, I certainly have no assurance I'd have the competence to hit my intended target or that I wouldn't instead shoot an innocent bystander. My stepdad carries a concealed handgun with him, and has told me on numerous occasions that he doesn't get to the practice range anywhere near often enough - and I've always considered him a relatively responsible gun owner! It's the millions who would buy guns and never make it to the range that worry me. I have no argument with responsible gun ownership. I do have an argument with those who maintain that individuals should be able to buy any guns they want with almost no restrictions on either the purchase or ownership and, let's face it, that's where the big money gun lobbyists seem to want us to go. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Don Firth Date: 20 Apr 07 - 12:33 AM Amen, Ivan! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Bobert Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:36 AM Amen, part B, Ivan... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:43 AM Bobert, "And, fir cripes sake, how many of the Founding Fathers could have envisioned the menu of arms available to folks some 250 years later??? " And how could they have envisioned the Internet? At the time of the Bill of Rights, it was SPEECH and PRESS- No mention at all of electronic expression. So, by your arguement, there is NO right to freedom of speech except by unamplified voice in the presence of those listening. And no right to freedom of the printed word unless it is produced by a hand-powered press. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: bubblyrat Date: 20 Apr 07 - 08:43 AM I agree that America certainly seems to have a problem with both guns, and the proliferation of gun-related violence in the entertainment industry.However, one should be careful when considering the effects of wide-ranging gun control laws, maybe even leading to total bans,in some instances, as is the ludicrous situation in Britain.Any government, anywhere, would be only too happy to have that much "control" over its citizens, removing at a stroke the possibility of armed insurrection by the populace !! ---I am sure George Bush would just LOVE that !! Sadly, no attempts at limiting or controlling the number of weapons in circulation in a civilian population will ever solve any problems, as the law-abiding citizen will dutifully obey the rules, and the criminal element of society will not. Doubtless, many a life could have been saved in Britain in the last ten years if certain shopkeepers, householders, and security -guards had been allowed to have a gun with which to defend themselves against their (fatal) assailants, but ,Alas !! --in Britain, one is not allowed to defend oneself with any kind of weapon at all.If you live in a dangerous or intimidating neighbourhood in Britain, and you are afraid that you might get mugged as you get out of your car at night, you might be tempted to keep a baseball bat behind the driver"s seat. Well, if you do, the police will most certainly prosecute you for possessing an Offensive Weapon-----They are far more concerned for the safety and welfare of your assailant than they are about YOURS !! A shortsword hanging on the wall at home, indeed !!! HA !!------Wave that at an intruder who"s just threatened you with a gun (all British criminals have one ) and is now raping your daughter, and you will get at least two years in jail, IF you attack the intruder with it !! THAT is what life is like under the dictator ,Tony Blair, and ,whilst the USA may well have gun-law problems, ----I know which country I would feel safer in ( and it isn"t THIS one !!! ) So keep your guns, guys, and be thankful that you can !!! And stay out of Britain---it"s out of control, and every day it becomes more like the Wild West than the real Wild West ever was ( with the Keystone Cops thrown in ). Sadly, Roger ( Scared Shitless every day ).... |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: bubblyrat Date: 20 Apr 07 - 09:00 AM I forgot to say !!----Take a look at dear old Switzerland---there, the Army is comprised almost entirely of civilian militamen, or at leastit was until fairly recently.All males up to age 40, or maybe even 50, had to undergo regular military training, and were legally required to keep their weapons ( Rifles, pistols and sub-machine guns and relevant ammunition ) AT HOME , as part of the "quick response " military strategy of that nation.Did they become a nation of gunslingers ?? No !! Did the citizens of Basle indulge in an orgy of drive-by machine-gunnings ?? No!! Were the Gnomes of Zurich slaughtered in their banks ?? No!! But then ,the people of Switzerland are very picky about who they let into their country, are comparatively less racially diluted, and are not forced to live like rats in a shoebox, so perhaps gun-crime is more closely linked to socio-economic conditions, rather than firearms proliferation "PER SE " ???? |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Gulliver Date: 20 Apr 07 - 09:12 AM Re Switzerland--it's the same in Israel (excluding Arabs, of course). When I was working on a kibbutz there I had to undergo weapons training (only time I ever fired a machine-gun, also learned to drive a tank!). |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: GUEST,Not that guest, not the other one, either Date: 20 Apr 07 - 09:43 AM I am convinced! I am going to get a handgun. I will take recommendations from the gun owners who have been weighing in as to what to get. I want to do mostly target shooting (so economy is a concern). But I would like to know that whatever I get could also defend me from criminal intruders and revenooers. Also from the ocassional card-cheater. ;-) I am considering a .357 magnum revolver, a 9mm semi, and a .22 semi. Any suggestions? |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Stringsinger Date: 20 Apr 07 - 10:00 AM Bubblyrat, I get it that the Swiss are more responsible in their gun ownership than they are here in the States. The NRA contributes to this irresponsibility. Therefore, those who are irresponsible shouldn't own guns. And it gets bigger and bigger. You purchase a handgun and the criminal can buy a semi-automatic on the streets and you have a bigger bloodbath than in the Wild West where there weren't any semi-automatics or illegal automatic weapons. You gun owners think you're safe but criminals can get at your weapons and they do it all the time and sell them in the streets. It's just posturing to think that gun-ownership is a solution to gun crime. But it could create more gun battles. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Pilgrim Date: 20 Apr 07 - 10:03 AM Any weapon which you hold for the purposes of defence can be used against you. Some would do well to recognise this. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Peace Date: 20 Apr 07 - 10:05 AM 'GUEST,Not that guest, not the other one, either' Gte a .44 Magnum and stop fuckin' around. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Captain Ginger Date: 20 Apr 07 - 10:11 AM Bubblyrat - don't believe everything you read in the Daily Mail. It's purpose is to scare the crap out of people like you. Doe you honestly imagine that if ordinary people had guns you would have had fewer firearms-related deaths in the UK? And yes, you are allowed to defend yourself in Britain. Whatever the right-wing tabloids say, the law entitles you to use reasonable and proportionate force to defend yourself. You can even kill someone if necessary. What you can't do is what Tony Martin did, and that is to shoot someone in the back with an illegally held firearm. So, if someone is raping your daughter, you may certainly use the smallsword on the wall. You may find yourself having to justify your actions in court, but that is only right, for no-one should have carte-blanche to take another person's life (or perhaps, in your gung-ho world, they should). And before writing any more twaddle on what the police will and won't do, why don't you talk to a police officer. Get your head out of the tabloids and engage with the real world. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: GUEST,Not that guest, not the other one, either Date: 20 Apr 07 - 10:24 AM Peace, Yeah, I thought of that, too. They ARE imressive! And one shot from one of those, and the whole friggin BLOCK would clear! But aren't the shells pretty expensive for target shooting? Like 50c apiece, or something like that? So for a 50 round set (which is not that much), it would be $25! On the other hand, the .22s would be pretty cheap by comparison. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Peace Date: 20 Apr 07 - 11:47 AM Right you are. These are available as surplus. They are easy to aim and much more effective than handguns. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Midchuck Date: 20 Apr 07 - 12:09 PM GUEST,Not that guest, not the other one, either' Gte a .44 Magnum and stop fuckin' around. I know that was said as sarcasm, but for home defense, a .44 mag loaded with .44 specials is arguably a very good choice. A large, slow, bullet is the best choice for stopping an attacker (and stopping an attacker is the only reason to shoot a human being, unless you're really hungry). A small, fast bullet just goes through. It'll kill him, but only later, after he's killed you. A large, fast bullet will cause so much recoil that you'll flinch unless you're very big, strong, and well trained. And the size of the muzzle opening might make an attacker think twice. Of course a pump shotgun is the best of all for defense. Not only because of the stopping power and the scary appearance from the front end, but because of the characteristic sound when you work the slide. A lot of bad guys recognize that sound. Peter |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: bobad Date: 20 Apr 07 - 12:43 PM For myself, I'd rather hand over my stuff than to challenge a home invader with a gun. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Big Mick Date: 20 Apr 07 - 12:48 PM Bobert, I never made mention of militia, or even the Second Amendment. While the Second Amendment seems, when taken in its entirety seems to indicate citizens shall have the right to keep and bear arms, it has been judged to not mean that explicitly. I am not an NRA member, they lost me over the cop killer bullet issue. I think that hanging on a Second Amendment argument will only leave us marginalized and ultimately could mean the loss of rights. I believe the argument should very simply be based on a cause/effect argument, as well as loss of a privilege we currently enjoy with no corresponding benefit. I see most anti gun folks as well meaning, but arguing from an emotional place (pretty hard not to be emotional during times like this week) for something that will not produce the desired effect. I am not a gun nut, and those of you who know me more than five minutes know that. The asshole trolls don't matter to me. What I am is an ordinary guy, an activist for workers rights and social justice, a dad, a husband, and a hunter/gun owner. None of the stories you relate (I purposely didn't relate my own of being saved during a robbery in E. St. Louis) alter what the numbers and data show us. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: GUEST,HIlO Date: 20 Apr 07 - 03:00 PM Guns ought to banned ..full stop. No one on this planet should be able to use, manufacture, or own a gun. They are useless bloody things, like cigarettes, they serve no purpose. Why can we villify smoking and allow"sport" shooting ? I really don't get the need people have for these offensive "tools". IOt isn't the guns that are the "offensive tools"' IMHO. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Don Firth Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:02 PM I live in a sizable city on the West Coast, within a few minutes of downtown. There are two local neighborhood business districts (grocery stores, book stores, drug stores, restaurants, specialty shops), one a couple of blocks to the east, another a couple of blocks to the west. I live in a secured building (locked outside doors, and you have to be buzzed in by someone in the building). We live on the ground floor. Our windows can't be opened wide enough for anything larger than a cat to crawl through (and they are screened, so we don't get many cat visitors), and since they are double-glazed thermo-pane, breaking one would be neither easy nor quiet. The chances of anyone breaking into our apartment are pretty slim. When my wife and I are out and about, either together or separately, we don't carry more money than we figure we'll need, and we don't carry our credit card (we have two copies of one credit card) unless we plan on using it, and we don't carry the credit cards in our wallets. If someone holds me up, I'll just hand him my wallet. No big deal. I'd be ticked off, but it wouldn't bust me up in business. As I have said, I own a number of handguns which I used primarily for target shooting and plinking. They are safely under lock and key, and stashed away. I regard them as something like a bagful of golf clubs stuffed into a corner of a closet, and I no longer go golfing. They have appreciated in price since I bought them (one that I purchased for $125 in 1968 is now selling for over a thousand), so when I want some extra cash for something, I'll take them to Stan's Gun Shop (highly reputable; he won't sell a gun to anyone without a background check). There is a chance, of course, that I could be taken out in a killing spree like the one recently in the news. But statistically speaking, the chance of this happening to me is somewhat smaller than my chance of being struck down by a grapefruit-sized hailstone. I feel perfectly safe in my own domicile, and when I go out, I do not feel the necessity of loading up my .380 (9 mm. kurtz) Walther PPK and slipping it into its belt holster. Also, the chances of my getting involved in a bloody uprising seem a bit unlikely. But that depends on a number of things, and I wouldn't totally rule that out. Don Firth P. S. Yes, I know the PPK is not a target pistol. The one I used most on the target range was a Smith & Wesson Model 41 (.22 LR). |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: GUEST,the fine art of logical debate noted Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:22 PM ya know, kat, you are really starting to show that you don't know what you are talking about When you attempt to sway by appealling to emotion as opposed to supporting your position with solid fact and demonstrable proof, it is you doing the attacking and attempting to belittle. Bill, you really disappoint me with all this demagogic stuff Same old lack of depth Actually, kat, you need to sharpen up your reading before making a point Give it a break, Bob. Bill, all of the points you make are simply gratuitous assertions on your part Lighten up, Greg. Your age is showing. You made what is known as a gratuitous assertion. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: frogprince Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:25 PM "So, by your arguement, there is NO right to freedom of speech except by unamplified voice in the presence of those listening. And no right to freedom of the printed word unless it is produced by a hand-powered press." B.B., I'll believe that making that comparison makes sense when you can cite me an example of someone literally talking any parts of several other people's heads off. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: katlaughing Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:38 PM Oh, yes, signing in as a guest and attacking is so helpful in a logical debate...you've really made your point, wow, I am underwhelmed. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Big Mick Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:41 PM Ya know, harpy, you should just use your name. Although you now have a new cookie. But when you are right, you are right. Those comments, even though they were part of a larger point, are uncalled for. I apologize for the tone of them, and I especially apologize for the belittling nature of them. I disagree mightily on the points, but one doesn't have to, and shouldn't be, disagreeable. So to all of you, and especially Bill D and kat, I apologize unreservedly for the belittling tone of those comments. I think I will start a new thread on that. And harpy, you might consider apologizing for some of your nastiness when people disagree with you. And why don't you quit hiding like a coward and come out and just voice your opinion. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Bobert Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:43 PM Well, looks as if bb's last stay at the Betty Forf Clinic has worn off as he is back to trying to put words into other mouhts that others haven't said... This is a rather bad habit, bb... Just stick with the arguments and leave others to do as well... And for the record, I made no mention of the 1st amnmendmend, did I??? Yes _______ No_________ Yet you go on saying that I think the freedom of speech is something that the Founding fathers would have prohibited because I don't ***agree with you*** about the 2nd ammendment... This behavior obn your part is not only irritating but dishonest... I have tried to point this out to you in the past but it seems you are not capable of turning away from debating practices that would have any high school debating coach jumpind down your throat over... Please discontinue this dishonest and amatuerish dabating tactic... We've all seen it and it makes you look very unintellegent, shich you aren't... If you can't debate an issue without making up what you wish your opponent had actually said then don't debate... It makes you7 look stupid... No dierespect intended... Just good advice... Yo, Mick, Hey, Big Guy... How's tricks in yer part of the world??? Okay... Maybe this discusssion is well beyond just constitutional overtones and given Guantanemo, hey, maybe the constitution isn't waht it used to be??? Yeah, we need to examine cause and effect... We need to use real science and real stats that aren't part of someones political axe to grind... Problem is that the NRA has everyone who is power scared to talk about these issues so what we get is a relentless diet of NRA's, which has a big dog in the race, propaganda... I'd like to see our democratically elected representatives feel as if they could actually use their 1st ammendement rights without the NRA targeting them for personal destruction.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: katlaughing Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:45 PM Thanks, Mick. I am pretty sure we agree on a whole more than disagree, except on this subject, of course. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Bill D Date: 20 Apr 07 - 08:23 PM .....I guess the 'demogogic' label has got legs, huh? and I will not waste time demonstrating that I know & recognize "gratuitous assertions" as well as, or better than, most any anonymous trolls. I work overtime to put qualifiers and exceptions in my posts to AVOID the "gratuitous assertions" that I dislike. I have opinions...my opinions are often milder than many on topics such as this,,,and I WILL make them known to present the sanest, most reasonable views I can manage. These are serious issues, and because I live in a major metro area, I see & read of many more examples of violence than some of you. Something has to be done. Increasing population and stress & exposure to many forms of violent images and behavior has reduced the freedom for me and others to feel safe. I DO NOT BELIEVE that owning a gun will make me feel safer...and I KNOW that suspecting my neighbors have guns sure wont make me feel safer! I have read many circuitous ramblings by various people defending gun ownership, but few real ideas from them for actually reducing the stress & violence. I made some, but they were disputed...not because they were illogical...but mostly because they 'might' reduce the 'rights' you hold so dear.....and some were just picked apart on lame technical grounds, ignoring the point of the idea.....and *I* am accused of "gratuitous assertions"... --------------------------------------------------------------------- "It is very difficult to discern the difference between a man who can't think and one who won't think ." |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Bobert Date: 20 Apr 07 - 08:36 PM Well said, Bill... |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Slag Date: 21 Apr 07 - 01:50 AM Well, this thread's shot. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: nutty Date: 21 Apr 07 - 05:58 AM Yes I think people have probably said all they need to say. As I am British,I wanted to hear other perspectives and I was interested to hear to views of a mixed community such as Mudcat. I'm glad that this thread hasn't disintegrated into an all out slanging match as so many of these threads do. I think that , as with politics and religion, there are many views and many reasons for holding those views ... thats what makes us unique individuals and, despite the rights and wrongs of gun ownership, ultimately it is being able to tolerate our differences that is most important. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: kendall Date: 21 Apr 07 - 08:47 AM I won't go into a long diatribe on guns. I will answer the original question, and that is: YES, I do. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Midchuck Date: 21 Apr 07 - 10:28 AM Guns ought to banned ..full stop. No one on this planet should be able to use, manufacture, or own a gun. They are useless bloody things, like cigarettes, they serve no purpose. Here's a purpose. Link probably won't be up long, though. Peter |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Big Mick Date: 21 Apr 07 - 11:10 AM Bill, can you not see the whole picture precisely because you live in a major metro area with high crime rates? You still have not answered the question as to why decent, law abiding citizens who live in areas unlike yours (the majority of people, btw)should be made to give up the weapons they own? You still haven't indicated how folks that use these weapons for all kinds of legitimate reasons, including teaching responsibility to young people, will solve the problems you want solved. You still haven't addressed the fact that the number of legally owned weapons used in violent crimes is so miniscule as to not be relevant. Until you, and others as passionate as you, recognize that the problem in the DC metro area isn't legally owned weapons, it is the urban blight and the hopelessness of youth trapped in these area with no prospects, that cause these things to happen. Cho killed because he was ill, not because he could purchase a gun. Never mind the fact that the weapon was purchased (just as in the Columbine case) illegally. I applaud the intent, but the medicine you would impose would not work. That is demonstrated in an elemental way just by the violent crime stat's in areas with heavy gun control, as opposed to those areas with less controls. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: kendall Date: 21 Apr 07 - 11:26 AM Maybe we could get a law passed that would require all criminals to register their guns before they kill or rob. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: nutty Date: 21 Apr 07 - 11:40 AM As I said before --- I think people have said all that needs to be said Thank you folks |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Stringsinger Date: 21 Apr 07 - 11:51 AM Gun ownership is not being made responsibly by the tactics of the NRA. I don't think that I agree with Mick on his stats about gun control vrs. gun crime. These are disputable. Sources please. The gun lobby represents an industry. Guns are for one purpose alone. To kill. Most of the rabid defenders of gun-ownship without regulation appear to be a lot like Dick Cheney. As long as the NRA is allowed to run its rampant lobbying course in Washington, no one is really safe any more. As Elayne Boosler says, "I'm tired of prying your gun out of your cold dead hands". Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Bill D Date: 21 Apr 07 - 12:31 PM Mick...did you read the posts on that other thread (the long one) where I DENIED that "... decent, law abiding citizens who live in areas unlike yours (the majority of people, btw)should be made to give up the weapons they own? " was my point? Here are two relevant posts, in which I make 'some' suggestions... copied over... "...and frankly, I am weary of the use of weak, fallacious arguments about how 'hammers' or knives or autos are also deadly in the wrong hands. Fine...I stipulate that I 'might' be assaulted with a brick on a dark street, or that a disgruntled student 'might' drive his car into a crowd. That is not the point!!! The point is that we have guns...ESPECIALLY handguns inaddition to those dangers....we NEED hammers & bricks and cars. I at least have a chance with a kid waving a brick or knife! Let guns be restricted to those who genuinely NEED them...let ammunition be **tightly** controlled. Let penalties for being found with a gun or ammunition in violation of licenced NEED be VERY severe! Let legitimate collectors of firearms be subject to surprise inspections to see that their collection is secure, and in some instances, rendered incapable of firing! (removed firing pins..whatever) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Mick...I will agree with you one one thing...*IF*, as is likely, private ownership of a wide variety of firearms is to continue, we desperately need a comprehensive, nation-wide computer system with databases of not only LEGAL owners, but of those judged NOT to be trusted with firearms. Now, as a working idea, I think that it might be a good idea to rule that ALL firearms permits are to expire, in say, two years, and that ALL owners must re-apply within that period, with severe penalties for anyone found with unregistered guns after that. And VERY severe penalties for anyone found abusing the gun laws...either in sales or use. Further, in my opinion, we need ONE set of laws, so that someone from DC cannot drive an hour into Virginia and buy what they wish. We need a FULL review of weapons and ammunition types and technology and revised laws reflecting a saner designation of things like 'semi-automatic', so that kids don't find it easy to get AK-47s....and must PROVE why they need certain types of clips! Those are just quick brainstorming ....there might be more." Now...I am assuming that I am NOT likely to get some of the more extreme ideas I have suggested implemented...so I am working to imagine how we can proceed- knowing that there are millions of guns out there in the hands of folks who should not have them. *IF* Mick Lane and similar folks were all I had to worry about, this debate would not be taking place. You ask several times why you should have to give up the guns you have...and I answer that *IF* you can help me figure out how to reduce the threat from idiots, you shouldn't have to! All I hear is 'well, there laws on the books'...'well, parents and mental health officials and gun outlets need to do more to screen potential dangerous people'....etc. As several have said, ANYONE with $$$$ can get a gun...illegally, if necessary. *I* have made suggestions to combat that situation.....what, if anything is wrong with them? What would YOU suggest, if you don't like mine? There is a problem....but all you seem preoccupied with is being SURE that no one can take YOUR guns. I need to hear useful, practical alternatives that would make me relax & shut up. Got any? |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: kendall Date: 21 Apr 07 - 01:35 PM I expect to be ragged on for splitting hairs, but I take mild exception the that statement that guns are made for only one purpose, to kill. When I first went into law enforcement, one of the statements on the written test was: A sword, in its scabbard, keeps anoter so." I propose a discussion on the meaning of that phrase. (By the way, I got it right.) |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Amos Date: 21 Apr 07 - 01:38 PM A man with a gun is less likely to use it against another man with a gun. Why else would boot camp be so strident about blind obedience? A |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Bill D Date: 21 Apr 07 - 01:48 PM well, kendall...that phrase is similar to the one we used during the arms race with the Soviet Union. "mutually assured destruction". I understand the 'theory' that if both sides are armed, neither will be too quick on the trigger, but that feeling comes in gradations of attitude, depending on the weapons involved. With atomic bombs, it worked pretty well. With fists & teeth, it barely works at all. Other weapons are in between. I heard an interview with a member of a DC street gang a few years ago in which he was asked "why use guns to settle silly arguments?" His reply was, approximately, "Man...fighting is work and you might lose! If you got a gun, it be fast and simple. A guy diss you, you just blow him away...easy!" *shrug*...as long as that culture in common, "a sword in its scabbard" doesn't stay there. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: mg Date: 21 Apr 07 - 01:50 PM no one is safe anyway....we live in times of international terror, domestic situations awash in drug use, a violent culture...we need a large number of guns in society, and people trained to use them and of course disciplined in their use. But nothing can make us safe really. Kiss it goodbye. mg |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Slag Date: 21 Apr 07 - 05:12 PM NRA's official magazines have a page near the beginning of each issue entitled "The Armed Citizen" and it consists of 7 or 8 articles selected from newspapers from all around the nation. They are stories of how citizens have used firearms to thwart or stop cold criminal, murderers housebreakers and the like, from perpetrating their intended crimes. Often it's the elderly or women or even children, the weak and seemingly defenseless who are attacked. The gun equalizes the situation and gives the intended victim a fighting chance. Much more often than not, the intended victim comes through unscathed. The little caption that precedes the column states guns are used over 2 million times each year to halt crimes. I would counter the argument which someone made earlier that a gun is never a defensive weapon. It obviously IS a defense against personal assault and other crimes. And if someone is attacking you with his little broadsword, wouldn't you rather defend with a gun? I know I would! |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: GUEST,amazed at this logic Date: 21 Apr 07 - 06:21 PM Congratulations for killing the desperate Black man who held you up, Slag. I'm so glad you can defend yourself in such a reasonable and honorable manner. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: GUEST,patty o'dawes Date: 21 Apr 07 - 07:17 PM You still haven't indicated how folks that use these weapons for all kinds of legitimate reasons, including teaching responsibility to young people, will solve the problems you want solved. If young people in America need gun lessons to be responsible young people - then there really is no hope. The illogicality (if there's a word?) of that argument beggars belief. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Bobert Date: 21 Apr 07 - 08:10 PM I just don't get it... When reasonable people say stuff like, "Hey, maybe we need to renew the background check laws to keep guns outta the hands of violent people" then the gun owners hear for some reason that is beyond my comprehension "Hey, we need to take everyone's gun"???????? Where does this come from??? No one here has advocated taking everyone's guns... Not Bill... Not me... No one... But here we have folks lined up to testify on how we are safre with guns and how they don't want anyone messing with their guns??? I believe that the term "knee-jerk reaction" has neever been more on target then in this thread by NRA brainwashed people... Give me a danged break and argue for or against others positions without inventing what you folks think the other side has said,,, Geeeze... And you, Mick, of all people??? Disgustingly shamefull arguements.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Midchuck Date: 21 Apr 07 - 08:16 PM Congratulations for killing the desperate Black man who held you up, Slag. I'm so glad you can defend yourself in such a reasonable and honorable manner. I went back and read Slag's post again. I saw no mention of skin color of either perp or victim. So it must be Guest who is assuming that violent crime is limited to Blacks. Shameful racism if you ask me. Peter |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: mg Date: 21 Apr 07 - 08:24 PM It might be that there really is no hope and it might be we are wrong. I think we have to prepare as if there werehope, but also great threats, and certainly not give a message of hopelessness to the young, but realize that we live, as most of humanity has and does, live in very dangerous times. mg |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Slag Date: 21 Apr 07 - 08:31 PM Amazed guest must have had a brain-fart. I've never killed anyone, black , white or indifferent. Yuh, the stuff that passes for logic these days!!! Learn how to read, then how to think, then look me up and we'll have a discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Peace Date: 21 Apr 07 - 08:38 PM I mentioned elsewhere that I have twice had guns pointed at me by people other than law enforcement officers. On neither occasion would my having a gun done anything else but exacerbate the situations. People who suggest that no one have guns are as out to lunch as those who say anyone should have guns. I use guns as a tool. I hunt and then use the gun to kill meat. I suppose I could use trapping techniques and clubs instead, but one bullet is faster and easier. From my perspective, guns have no utility beyond target practise and hunting. *********************************************** "So it must be Guest who is assuming that violent crime is limited to Blacks." It sure as hell wasn't Slag. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Peace Date: 21 Apr 07 - 08:54 PM Sorry, Slag. Cross-posted with you. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Slag Date: 21 Apr 07 - 09:09 PM 'S'alright Bruce. Thank you. You bring up a good point. There are many times when, for even the armed person to give up the money if no other violence is going down. What are a few dollars compared to a human life. And such is often what actually happens. I have read plenty of accounts of such things happening. At the very least, I wouldn't want to get involved with all the paperwork and endless questioning. Reporting the crime is hassle enough. I know of one case personally where a fellow was being beaten by two men. He had a CCW but tried to duke it out with them rather than produce a gun. But when he knew he was losing consciousness ( one of the guys was already starting to rifle his pockets) he knew they'd find the gun and feared they'd use it on him so he drew it and they took off running. Like insurance: you really don't want to have to use it but it's sure nice to know it's there when you really need it. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Bill D Date: 21 Apr 07 - 09:13 PM Well, I have read some reasonable comments lately...(they must be..*grin*, they agree with ME).. Peace notes some sane, useful ways that guns are utilitarian, and refers to the problems inherent in using them otherwise. Bobert, at least, heard the point I was trying to make, and was aware of some of the excesses of replies to me. On the other hand, Slag refers to "... stories of how citizens have used firearms to thwart or stop cold criminal, murderers housebreakers and the like, from perpetrating their intended crimes. " I rather doubt the NRA magazine mentions the stories about shopkeepers and homeowners, etc., shot by criminals as they TRIED to grab for weapons. (Stories of old ladies who drove off robbers with their old Colt make good reading, but when I worked part-time in a liquor store years ago, I was told.."if they want the money, GIVE IT TO THEM." If I knew that bulge in his pocket was probably just a flashlight, I might try one of those 'hit him with the bottle of I also wonder if they recount the number of accidental shootings by kids & others who have more access than training...statistics are important, but let's have ALL the statistics, reported & analyzed by a neutral agency or committee, so we could devise a strategy based on good data. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: kendall Date: 21 Apr 07 - 09:36 PM People who are not trained in the use of firearms should not try to be a hero. All you have to do is hesitate for a couple of seconds and you are dead. That is, if you don't shoot your own foot off. The NRA would never print that story about the man who woke in the night, heard someone in the hall, grabbed his gun and blew his daughter away. She got up to pee and ended up dead. This was not an isolated incident either. It happens much too frequently. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Bill D Date: 21 Apr 07 - 09:50 PM ..and a corollary of Kendall's point is that a large number of the people who are likely to need protection FROM firearms are not the sort who are easily trainable in the use OF them. It takes a certain type of personality to work with guns easily and competently and stay mentally prepared to use them. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: kendall Date: 22 Apr 07 - 05:28 AM There are 10,000 people in Maine who are licensed to carry concealed. That scares me. Handling a long gun is almost second nature to a rural Mainer, but a hand gun is a whole other bag of rats.I can't believe that all of those people are qualified to carry. Where did they get their training? Gun violence seems to be on the rise, it makes the news, and it causes us to worry. However, the thought of EVERYONE carrying a gun is just not acceptable. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: nutty Date: 22 Apr 07 - 06:33 AM Gun violence seems to be on the rise, it makes the news, and it causes us to worry. However, the thought of EVERYONE carrying a gun is just not acceptable. I agree Kendall but that's the message that your society is giving to their young people. Here in the UK plenty of people are licensed to have a weapon usually a shotgun, particularly if they are part of the farming community but there are rigid checks on storage and handling. Of the two main atrocities regarding guns in my lifetime one man had been trained by the army(Hungerford) and the other was a member of a gun club(Dunblane). Generally, the population has no experience of guns although we hear that among the gangs in the inner cities carrying a gun is beginning to be the norm. The main difference in this country is that we have no gun shops in our shopping centres or towns, so we very few opportunities to obtain a gun legitimately or otherwise. Perhaps in time our society will become like the USA where carrying a gun is the norm but I sincerely hope it doesn't happen in my lifetime |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: kendall Date: 22 Apr 07 - 06:47 AM Last July a certain whacko rolled a pig's head into a Mosque "as a joke." He was charged with a hate crime by desicrating a place of worship. State charges were still pending, and yeaterday he went to a local store with a gun. The Police came and he refused to surrender, but instead, shot himself in the head. I make no comment. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: kendall Date: 22 Apr 07 - 06:57 AM >Reminding us that several recent situations were resolved by private >individuals, including schools/universities, but the vast majority of the >press stories did not mention it!! > When mass killers meet armed resistance. >It took place at a university in Virginia. A student with a grudge, an >immigrant, pulled a gun and went on a shooting spree. It wasn't Virginia >Tech at all. It was the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, not far away. >You can easily drive from the one school to the other, just take a trip >down Route 460 through Tazewell.It was January 16, 2002 when Peter >Odighizuwa came to campus. He had been suspended due to failing grades. >Odighizuwa was angry and waving a gun calling on students to "come get me". >The students, seeing the gun, ran. A shooting spree started almost >immediately. In seconds Odighizuwa had killed the school dean, a professor >and one student. Three other students were shot as well, one in the chest, >one in the stomach and one in the throat.Many students heard the shots. Two >who did were Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges. Mikael was outside the school >having just returned to campus from lunch when he heard the shots. Tracy >was inside attending class. Both immediately ran to their cars. Each had a >handgun locked in the vehicle.Bridges pulled a .357 Magnum pistol and he >later said he was prepared to shoot to kill if necessary. He and Gross both >approached Odighizuwa at the same time from different directions. Both were >pointing their weapons at him. Bridges yelled for Odighizuwa to drop his >weapon. When the shooter realized they had the drop on him he threw his >weapon down. A third student, unarmed, Ted Besen, approached the killer and >was physically attacked. But Odighizuwa was now disarmed. The three >students were able to restrain him and held him for the police. Odighizuwa >is now in prison for the murders he committed. His killing spree ended when >he faced two students with weapons. There would be no further victims that >day, thanks to armed resistance.You wouldn't know much about that though. >Do you wonder why? The media, though it widely reported the attack left out >the fact that Bridges and Gross were armed. Most simply reported that the >gunman was jumped and subdued by other students. That two of those students >were now armed didn't get a mention.James Eaves-Johnson wrote about this >fact one week later in The Daily Iowan. He wrote: "A Lexus-Nexis search >revealed 88 stories on the topic, of which only two mentioned that either >Bridges or Gross was armed." This 2002 article noted "This was a very >public shooting with a lot of media coverage." But the media left out >information showing how two students with firearms ended the killing >spree.He also mentioned a second incident. And while I had read many >articles on this shooting for an article I wrote about school bullying not >a single one mentioned the role that a firearm played in stopping it. Until >today I didn't know the full story.Luke Woodham was a troubled teen. He >felt no one really liked him. In 1997 he murdered his mother and put on a >trench coat. He filled the pockets with ammunition and took a handgun to >the Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. In rapid succession killed two >students and wounded seven others.He had the incident planned out. He would >start shooting students and continue until he heard police sirens in the >distance. That would allow him time to get in his car and leave campus. >From there he intended to go to the nearby Pearl Junior High School and >start shooting again. How it would end was not clear. Perhaps he would kill >himself or perhaps the police would finally catch up with him and kill him. >Either way a lot more people were going to get shot and die.What Woodham >hadn't planned for was the actions of Assistant Principal Joel Myrick . >Myrick heard the gun shots. He couldn't have a handgun in the school. But >he did keep one locked in his vehicle in the parking lot. He ran outside >and retrieved the gun.As Myrick headed back toward the school Woodham was >in his vehicle headed for his next intended target. Myrick aimed his gun at >the shooter. The teen crashed his car when he saw the gun. Myrick >approached the car and held a gun to the killer who surrendered >immediately. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed >resistance.So you didn't know about that. Neither did I until today. >Eaves-Johnson wrote that there were "687 articles on the school shooting in >Pearl, Miss. Of those, only 19 mentioned that" Myrick had used a gun to >stop Woodham "four-and-a-half minutes before police arrived."Many people >probably forgot about the shooting in Edinboro, Pennsylvania. It was a >school graduation dance that Andrew Wurst entered to take out his anger on >the school. First he shot teacher John Gillette outside. He started >shooting randomly inside the restaurant where the 240 students had >gathered.It was restaurant owner James Strand, armed with a shot gun, who >captured the shooter and held him for police. There would be no further >victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.It was February 12th of this >year that a young man entered the Trolley Square Shopping Mall, in Salt >Lake City. The mall was a self-declared "gun free zone" forbidding patrons >from carrying weapons. He wasn't worried. In fact he appreciated knowing >that his victims couldn't defend themselves.He opened fire even before he >got inside killing his first victims immediately outside the front door. As >he walked down the mall hallway he fired in all directions. Several more >people were shot inside a card store immediately inside the mall. The >shooter moved on to the Pottery Barns Kids store.What he didn't know is >that one patron of the mall, Kenneth Hammond, had ignored the signs >informing patrons they must be unarmed to enter. He was a police officer >but he was not on duty and he was not a police officer for Salt Lake City. >By all standards he was a civilian that day and probably should have left >his firearm in his vehicle.It's a good thing he didn't. He was sitting in >the mall with his wife having dinner when he heard the shots. He told her >to hide and to call 911 emergency services. He went to confront the gunman. >The killer found himself under gun fire much sooner than he anticipated. >From this point on all his effort was to protect himself from Hammond, he >had no time to kill anyone else. Hammond was able to pin down the shooter >until police finally arrived and one of them shot the man to death. There >would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.In each of >these cases a killer is stopped the moment he faces armed resistance. It is >clear that in three of these cases the shooter intended to continue his >killing spree. In the fourth case, Andrew Wurst, it is not immediately >apparent whether he intended to keep shooting or not since he was >apprehended by the restaurant owner leaving the scene.Three of these cases >involved armed resistance by students, faculty or civilians. In one case >the armed resistance was from an off-duty police officer in a city where he >had no legal authority and where he was carrying his weapon in violation of >the mall's gun free policy.What would have happened if these people waited >for the police? In three cases the shooters were apprehended before the >police arrived because of armed civilians. At Trolley Square the shooter >was kept busy by Hammond until the police arrived. In all four cases the >local police were the Johnny-come-latelys.Consider the horrific events at >Virginia Tech. Again an armed man enters a "gun free zone". He kills two >victims and walks away long before the police arrive. He spends two hours >on campus, doing what is unknown. He then enters another building on campus >and begins shooting. He never encounters a police officer during this. And >all the students and faculty present had apparently complied with the "no >gun" policy of the university. So no one stopped him. NO ONE STOPPED HIM! >And when he finished his shooting spree 32 people were dead. It was the >killer who ended the spree. He took his own life and when the police >arrived all they dealt with were the dead.There were many further victims >that day. The shooter never met with armed resistance. > > > >No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free >Edition.Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.5/769 - Release Date: >4/19/2007 5:56 PM >_________________________________________________________________ >Explore the seven wonders of the world >http://search.msn.com/results |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: GUEST,GUEST,what, what, what Date: 22 Apr 07 - 07:15 AM "The main difference in this country is that we have no gun shops in our shopping centres or towns, so we very few opportunities to obtain a gun legitimately or otherwise" Nutty - I'm sorry to take issue over one sentence when I respect some of your heartfelt sorrow and questioning of the bigger issues but that statement about "no" gun shops in our towns is simply not TRUE. My own home town/city has had a gun shop in existence for donkey's years and is still open for business in a shopping centre that charges such high rates for retail outlets that most of the smaller businesses have gone. I have no idea what added restrictions they may have in trading in recent years or particular interest in finding out but I refuse to believe that they are the only one in the country. It is sometimes too easy to use our personal experiences as being facts when they often are not. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: nutty Date: 22 Apr 07 - 08:19 AM I don't deny that there may be shops in this country (UK) but they are the exception rather than the rule and most are confined to the type of weapon used by the gun enthusiast for pest control or target shooting. I did Google to see how many I could track down and found 4. I would be very surprised if you could legitimately buy an automatic pistol such as was used in the Virginia massacre. but I may be wrong. More worrying, however, are the site peporting to be selling guns online |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Slag Date: 22 Apr 07 - 04:53 PM Yes Bill D. The NRA column are stories from newspapers. If a defender is hit in an exchange of gun fire that is included in the story. I don't recall ever seeing one where a defender is killed and the bad guys got a way. I know that probably happens from time to time. The skill or the circumstances of the defender may work against him or her and the outcome may be negative in total. That's not the point. The point is, they HAVE A FIGHTING CHANCE! Unarmed, they have NO CHANCE! Most crooks are cowards to begin with. They want to cheat at Life's game. They use fear and intimidation to get what they want and, like bullies, when someone stands up to them they flee. Sociopaths are another story, HOWEVER, an armed defense still serves. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Bill D Date: 22 Apr 07 - 06:15 PM "The point is, they HAVE A FIGHTING CHANCE! Unarmed, they have NO CHANCE!" piffle...the point is, **unless** you are trained AND have ready access to a weapon and don't have one aimed at you, you are FAR better off just cooperationg! What is this 'defender' bit? Are you in the Alamo, expecting an attack? 99.9% of us are just minding our own business. 'Sometimes' a shopkeeper who KNOWS he could be robbed will gain an advantage, and sometimes a in a rural setting, an intruder on your property can be dissuaded IF you know soon enough...but even folks who DO know guns are usually not prepared at a moments notice to react to someone who actually has a weapon in hand. I can see the sane, legitimate uses of firearms, but I shudder at the idea of an armed populace carrying guns around 'just to be safe'...they won't be. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Ebbie Date: 22 Apr 07 - 06:27 PM In reading those accounts of heroic, armed people taking action against a gun-wielding person, I can't help being glad that it ended that way. (On the other hand, what if the Assistant Principal in that story had, in the excitement, mistaken someone else in the escaping car for the killer?) If gun owners keep their guns locked in their cars I can see their utility. (When I drove into Canada from the US on my way to Alaska, Customs asked me if I had a gun. I said, truthfully, No, but I do have a hunting knife in the glove box. Only because my brothers didn't want me to be defenseless. The border agent laughed and said it wasn't a problem.) I can see why a person who is used to guns might carry one while he or she is traveling. However, I couldn't do it, mostly because I can't imagine my getting the mindset that would let me use it. Do you know that there are many - sane - people who believe that when one goes armed through bear country, that person is less safe? The thinking is that when we travel unarmed in the wilderness we are more respectful, less confrontational; a gun or rifle can make someone 'spoil for a fight'. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Peace Date: 22 Apr 07 - 06:44 PM I partly agree with you, Ebbie. I think guns can give people a false sense of security. However, there's bear country and there's bear country. I've never worried about being armed in black bear country. However, grizzly and polar bear will hunt people, and although I have no particular fear of them, I do recognize that they are fast, strong and in a bad mood can be very antagonistic. Hence, I'd prefer to have something that makes a loud noise and can spit out a projectile at 2000' per second. I have been in bear country numerous times and I have never once shot a bear or even unshouldered the rifle. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Bobert Date: 22 Apr 07 - 08:15 PM Well, first of all we (US citizens) have been brought up on a steady diet of violence and fear... That's not good if we are now to have a ****reasonable discussion**** about guns but... ...depending on which study one believes there is between 22 and 43 times a greater chance of someone being killed in homes with guns...Heck, I wouldn't care it were 2 times greater... Bottom line, this one fact alone is just cause for a civil discussion... Oh, silly me, I forgot for one moment that we don't live in a civil society.... What I think all people want is to feel safe and folks have all too often been led by NRA propaganda to think they are safer with a gun... The facts don't show that but, hey, the NRA can sho nuff whip up some fear and scare when reasonable peole say, "Hey, can we atlk about this???" Yeah, the voice or reson has been shouted down by people who profit from violence and murder... That is the bottom line here... If we want to talk safety then we have to turn the NRA completely off... Their agenda is based on money... Not safety... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: kendall Date: 22 Apr 07 - 08:36 PM I went on a tour today with a group of antique car fans, and although I resisted, they insisted on going to McDonald's. While I was standing in line, the thought crossed my mind that if a crazy came in to spray the place, how would he know that there might be an undercover cop there? Would he care? |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Bobert Date: 22 Apr 07 - 08:47 PM Yer in more danger of eating a Big Mac than a crazed gunman shottin' ya', Capt'n... Them things is downright dangeruos to yer health... |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Bobert Date: 22 Apr 07 - 09:11 PM Ditto on the LOL... |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: kendall Date: 22 Apr 07 - 09:34 PM All I had was coffee. There is no way I would eat anything at McDonalds. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: freda underhill Date: 22 Apr 07 - 09:39 PM a new study in Australia has found that tough gun controls introduced after the Port Arthur massacre have probably saved about 2500 lives, and that removing 600,000 guns from circulation has sharply reduced suicide and murder rates. Using deaths data since 1915, the authors estimated gun control had led to about 35 fewer murders and 247 fewer suicides annually since 1997. They calculate slightly smaller numbers when their statistical model is restricted to data after 1969. Their report found no evidence that gun control may have simply caused a substitution from shooting to other killing methods. The authors slam an earlier report in the British Journal of Criminology that claimed the firearms agreement had no effect on death rates. That study, by Jeanine Baker from the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia and Samara McPhedran from the Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting, exploited less than a third of the available annual data and used "very dubious" statistical methodology, they say. The Federal Government's 1997 National Firearms Agreement allowed the buyback of semi-automatic rifles, pump-action shotguns and other firearms. The agreement, which introduced some of the world's toughest gun laws, was negotiated by the Prime Minister, John Howard, 35 people were shot at Port Arthur in 1996. The most recent reliable figures, for 2002-03, show there were 0.27 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 Australians - about one-fifteenth of the US rate. "The risk of dying by gunshot halved over the past 10 years," said Philip Alpers, adjunct associate professor at the University of Sydney's School of Public Health. Earlier this month, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported the rate of gun theft had dropped by 70 per cent since stricter gun laws were introduced. freda |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: GUEST Date: 22 Apr 07 - 09:45 PM oh come on clones...that was a joke kendall would have enjoyed. what a bunch of church ladies! geez |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Bill D Date: 22 Apr 07 - 10:10 PM Interesting, freda....that's the sort of statistics I would expect *IF* a significant % of guns were removed from circulation. I'll bet guys with tempers still find other ways of displaying their testosterone levels, though....and in a country with lots of back country like Australia, I assume there are perfectly legal ways to own a firearm for certain purposes. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: GUEST,Yes we are Date: 22 Apr 07 - 10:15 PM The difference between the U.S. and the U.K. on the issue of guns, it seems to me, is that our U.S. constitution says the right to bear arms is "God-given." It was a right of Americans before I was here and shall be after I'm gone, according to our constitution. We couldn't give up the right if we wanted to, because how do you give up a "God-given right?" I believe in the U.K. you are "granted" the "privilege" by the "crown" to own guns on occasion. The founding fathers in the U.S. saw first-hand what kind of tyranny that way of thinking could lead to, so they guranteed certain things as "rights," not "privileges." And yes, we are safer because of guns. Guns are obtainable by criminals in any country in the world, but in the U.S. they're obtainable by law-abiding people too. The high crime rates in the U.S. are generally in areas that have stringent disarmament laws (Chicago, New York City, Washington D.C.). Fortunately some places, like D.C., are starting to come around. People there will now be able to legally protect themselves with firearms, and the crime rate will go down. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: TIA Date: 22 Apr 07 - 11:06 PM Where do the criminals get their guns? Is there a black market manufacturing industry? Or are they sold to law-abiding NRA-belonging citizens, and get stolen? If they do, who is liable? I am truly curious. I hear that if guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns. Where will they get them? Where did the Columbine kids get their guns? |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Ebbie Date: 22 Apr 07 - 11:11 PM Guest/Yes, we are: "God-given"? Where do you get that notion? |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: GUEST,UK North Easterner Date: 23 Apr 07 - 03:24 AM nutty - Of the two main atrocities regarding guns in my lifetime one man had been trained by the army(Hungerford) and the other was a member of a gun club(Dunblane). The main difference in this country is that we have no gun shops in our shopping centres or towns, so we very few opportunities to obtain a gun legitimately or otherwise. I have always admired your attention to details but am afraid that you are out of your field with this one. Ryan (Hungerford) was never trained by the Army but fantasised he was. Hamilton (Dunblane) was not a gun club member. He applied and was turned down. When applying for a gun licence he told the police he was a member and they did not carry out a (mandatory) check. Knowing where you live, I can tell you that there are gun shops in Saltburn, Middlesbrough, Whitby, Stockton and Northallerton. Just because you dont shop there doesn't mean they dont exist. And no, you could not buy an automatic from any of these shops! |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: nutty Date: 23 Apr 07 - 09:26 AM UK North Easterner ..... thank you for your corrections with regard to Ryan and Hamilton, I have to admit tat I did not fully check out the facts. With regard to he rest , however, you are failing to see the distinction between 'gun shops' and 'shops that sell guns'. Here in the UK we have 'shops that sell guns' in the States they have what can only be described as 'gun shops', 'gun supermarkets', 'gun emporia' as shown here CLICK and here CLICK |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: frogprince Date: 23 Apr 07 - 11:04 AM "our U.S. constitution says the right to bear arms is "God-given." A couple of questions: 1.Is anyone here who agrees with that statement willing to say that the constitution was inspired, word for word, by God, in exactly the same way that strict fundamentalists say the Bible was? 2. Does any here agree with that statement, but also believe that the fundamentalist doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible is untenable? |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: frogprince Date: 23 Apr 07 - 11:06 AM Sorry, thought I had stopped the italics after the quotation. [fixed by your local clone] |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Peace Date: 23 Apr 07 - 11:34 AM Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. "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." [That is the Second Amendment.] I hate like hell to introduce fact to an argument, but . . . . Some excellent commentary here. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: GUEST,UK North Easterner Date: 23 Apr 07 - 12:19 PM Sorry 'Nutty' - but I do fail to see the distinction between 'gun shops' and 'shops that sell guns'. If a shop advertises as a gun shop, specialises in guns and shooting clothing and accessories then yes, I call it a gun shop. Weird huh? ......... They may not be as large as their American couterparts but you stated we have no gun shops in our towns and that is a misleading statement. As I stated earlier, I am suprised because I know what a stickler for facts you are normally. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: beardedbruce Date: 23 Apr 07 - 01:41 PM Bobert, "Yet you go on saying that I think the freedom of speech is something that the Founding fathers would have prohibited because I don't ***agree with you*** about the 2nd ammendment..." Care to tell me were *** I *** SAID THAT YOU SAID ANY SUCH THING? *** I *** said ____________________________________________________________________ And how could they have envisioned the Internet? At the time of the Bill of Rights, it was SPEECH and PRESS- No mention at all of electronic expression. So, by your arguement, there is NO right to freedom of speech except by unamplified voice in the presence of those listening. And no right to freedom of the printed word unless it is produced by a hand-powered press. _____________________________________________________________________ YOUR arguement that since the times have changed, the right in the Bill of Rights should as well, in order to make YOU feel safer. can be used against the OTHER rights therein. Sorry if you have a comprehesion problem. Oh, that's right- YOU canbe as dishonest as you want- the rules can't possibly apply to you that you want others to follow. "This behavior obn your part is not only irritating but dishonest... I have tried to point this out to you in the past but it seems you are not capable of turning away from debating practices that would have any high school debating coach jumpind down your throat over... Please discontinue this dishonest and amatuerish dabating tactic... We've all seen it and it makes you look very unintellegent, shich you aren't...: If you can't debate an issue without making up what you wish your opponent had actually said then don't debate... It makes you7 look stupid... No dierespect intended... Just good advice..." |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Apr 07 - 01:54 PM "If you can't debate an issue without making up what you wish your opponent had actually said then don't debate" (sigh) Almost everyone here does that...in the heat of their argument...and they probably...they almost surely don't realize they're doing it even while they're doing it. That's how people are when they argue. Myself included (sometimes). It's sad. It's fucking sad. I wish on days like this that I had never heard of the Mudcat Cafe. I am sick to death of people arguing eternally on this forum and treating each other like shit in the process. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Big Mick Date: 23 Apr 07 - 02:00 PM Two things. First off, Bobert, if I need lecturing, and comments like "disgustingly shameful arguments", I will ask my Mother to do it. Your patronizing, horseshit tone is offensive. I am not sure why you don't answer the points I have made, maybe it is an inability to do so. But you continue to make comments like that without answering the points made. This is my last post on this matter. I want you to read for comprehension. I am not a Second Amendment freak. I think using that argument is silly and simply marginalizes one from the discussion. I don't believe the problem in high crime urban areas is related to the legal availability of guns as much as it is related to the conditions and lack of opportunity for the young people. Poverty breeds crime (as ever has been so) and with crime comes violence. When automatic weapons were banned, it did not do anything to slow their use by criminals. It simply created a black market. In their zeal to impose their values on me, anti gun folks refuse to make the distinction between high crime areas, and suburban and rural areas where the crime rate is lower. They refuse to make the distinction between gun deaths from illegally purchased firearms for criminal purposes, and legally purchased weapons used for legitimate reasons by law abiding citizens. They don't want to do this, IMO, because law abiding gun owners account for such a miniscule amount of the gun deaths (as opposed to criminals using illegally obtained guns)that it is hardly worth mentioning. You don't have to like hunting and shooting sports, and if that is the case then that is an honest disagreement. But facts don't fit in the emotion driven arguments that drive the anti gun folks. Only by demonizing the gun and its owner can you use demagogic arguments to make your case. By the way, I found it interesting that you all got pissed when I pointed out that I could answer your "stories" with other stories that showed weapons used for personal safety. But when someone above pointed out a story or two, you immediately jump on him/her for using them. Seems a bit hypocritical on your part. But these stories are not the point anyway. It is hard data, and that doesn't support your positions. Murders, such as Cho, usually spend months planning (as is now coming out), with much hatred and premeditated planning. If legal guns aren't available, then illegal ones would be obtained, or another method would be found, as in the case of McVeigh. To the smart ass (read that old European troll) who derides using guns as a method of teaching responsibility, you are a fool and show your intent, which is more of attacking me than making a comment on the issue. Many of our countries greatest leaders received weapons training focusing on safety and good practices. In my own family, it was a rite of passage to finally be able to carry a gun when hunting, or shooting for target practice. This only came after a certain age, and after a Safety course had been passed. Then came the "probationary" time when you were allowed to carry under the close supervision of parents, Aunts, and Uncles. Finally you were allowed to hunt/target shoot unsupervised. As I say, this was a rite of passage. It was a time of great memories and time spent with family. As to self defense, this too is a legitimate use, but rarely used. I can carry a gun legally in a number of States (due to reciprocity laws), but can count the number of times I have done so on one hand. I spend huge amounts of time at the range, have trained for surgical shooting, but in a home invasion, I would rarely use the handgun, or any gun for that matter. There are better ways to protect ones self. Staying put, and calling 911 is the answer. But most importantly, I think it is foolish to debate the premise that all guns should go, or even limiting legal owners. I know it is hard for people from other countries to understand, but guns are a very large part of our country's culture. They have been from the beginning. It simply is not possible to collect them all. Most law abiding gun owners would simply not give them up, thereby becoming criminals simply because a right (notice, slow readers, that I didn't say Constitutional right) was being taken for no reason other than others don't want them to have weapons. These folks broke no laws, are responsible in their ownership, have never pulled them in anger, use them responsibly as part of their lifestyle, and yet others want to take them. The statistics show that in areas where guns are completely illegal to own, violent crime goes up. No one yet has addressed my most basic question, that being; how is taking the weapons, or even registering the weapons, of law abiding citizens who have never committed a crime, going to address the problems you see? In fact, what is the problem you see? When you answer this one, please don't do the old "C'mon, Mick, you can't be serious" routine. I am tired of the debate tactic that seems to focus on belittling ones belief's because you don't have an answer. Even my friend Bill D., when presented with numbers he didn't like, didn't bother to respond to them. He simply questioned the validity of them. This was done in spite of the fact that I pointed out that these numbers were arrived at by researchers looking to eliminate guns. There are three things that I believe constitute reasonable gun regulations. 1) If a person is going to earn the right to carry a concealed weapon, then they must take and pass comprehensive training on the order of what police must take. This training should be administered rigidly by professionals. These professionals should be able to hold up issuance of the permit if they observe any behaviour that might indicate mental instability. 2) There are already plenty of laws on the books. I believe they ought to be enforced rigidly, and I believe the penalties for crimes involving firearms (most especially those laws dealing with securing one's firearms so that kids can't get at them) ought to very severe. I don't believe they should be able to be bargained down. Violate them and you are going away for a long time. 3) Investment must be made in a national system which allows for instant checks for mental health/criminal background issues that might disqualify one from purchasing firearms. We can check every detail of ones life now, why can't we have a system which would have disqualified Cho from purchasing the handguns. Usually the anti gun folks give this one lip service but don't push for it as they really just want to eliminate guns ..... period. As to the issue of defending oneself against tyranny, I do think that you all too easily dismiss the potential consequences. One that fails to learn from history is doomed to repeat it. In every great dictatorship (including some very recent examples), the first order of business is to disarm the populace. I don't feel like this type of thing is imminent for us, but can you think of a leader in this country that seems to think that he has a direct line to God and is right when all around him (including his own party) tell him he is wrong? Do you think this guy, who has suspended Habeus Corpus and can, at will, declare folks enemy combatants, would like to disarm the populace so he could act with impunity? Hell, he already does it. Again, I don't necessarily think this imminent, but I think it is a mistake to just dismiss those that are worried about this as loonies. Recent world history seems to lend some credence to these views. So hack away now, I am headed back to the music threads where we are all still friends. But do yourself a favor and try to use some original thinking and analysis. It makes for a much better debate than this "Oh yeah?????" stuff. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Apr 07 - 02:18 PM It simply isn't worth it. (the arguing, I mean) |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: katlaughing Date: 23 Apr 07 - 02:47 PM Here's some interesting reading, fwiw: Prevalence of Household Firearms and Firearm-Storage Practices in the 50 States and the District of Columbia: Findings From the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2002 Some good links at the bottom of this page. Also, from HERE comes these facts, from 2001: Deaths by guns (U.S.Centers for Disease Control & Prevention) suicides 16,869 homicides 11,348 unintentional 802 other 554 More of interest, to me, at least, on this page. Submitted without comment, fwiw, kat |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Slag Date: 23 Apr 07 - 04:07 PM Good point LH. Debate ideas and logic, not persons (minus your "colorful" language [though I do share the feeling]). I've posted it before and will do so again, here. Google "INFORMAL FALLACIES". This will give you some basics of logical discourse. It's interesting and fun and if you heed the rules you too will sound intelligent! When one knows the laws of logic you can debunk TV commercials (they are the worst), news casts and talking heads, professors in the classroom (could be some trouble here) and, of course, specious arguments found on the internet. I believe this is what Big Mick is trying to get across. Everybody has an opinion. Sometimes two or three at the same time. But NOT everybody has a CONSIDERED opinion, that is an opinion based in fact and presented logically. Pardon me if I get a little pedantic but I do feel school IS in order for some. Words are the building blocks of thought and reason. Grammar and syntax and the like are how we construct our thoughts to convey meaning and not just meanness. This, and a mutual respect for your audience, is the basis for civil discourse, i.e. "dialog" and not a monologue. Concerning the point about God given rights: It is the Declaration of Independence which states that we are endowed by our Creator with certain INALIENABLE rights (emphasis mine). Jefferson enumerates that among these God-given rights are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Inalienable means that no one, NO ONE can take these rights from you. The Declaration says that these rights are ours to secure. The idea here is that if someone, anyone is trying to deprive you of these rights you should resist by any and all means. By extrapolation certain corollaries are derived such as the right to protect your life and the right to the necessary means to protect your life, i.e. the right to keep and bare arms. Jefferson and the signers recognized these truths to be self evident, as do I and most freedom loving Americans. If you can't see this, then God help you. You belong to the biggest bully on the block. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Bill D Date: 23 Apr 07 - 04:22 PM well, I am slowly reading the links FROM the link Peace provided. Both sides are well represented there. (I do hope that Mick had noticed that *I* did try to differentiate between urban areas and other situations.) |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Bobert Date: 23 Apr 07 - 09:26 PM Well, well, well... Here we go again... I, as well as Bill, have tried to open up some kind of discussion about whether or not we are collectively safer with the proliferation of *****primarially handguns*** and we get attacked by folks who thing we are saying, "We want to take all your guns away"??? Like for the 15,000th time, can you gunnies get a friggin' reading comprehension course under you belt that allows you to not hear "We want to take you guns" every danged time anyone says "Can we talk???" Talk about a load of "horsesh*t", Mick, for an otherwise reeasonable person you have shown your ignorant self here in this thread... No offense intended but, geeze Louise, no one here has threatened to take ***your*** guns away yet you have gotten all self righteuos and like beardedbruce invented stuff that you think other people have said... This is "horsesh*t" of the highest nitogen content... I mean, like steamy stuff... I mean, let all of us get real here... We in the US have a major problem with violence and murder and maiming and all that bad stuff that the rest of the world is warned about before they come here as tourists but rather than look at statistics and other models we just plung ahead in our best John Wayne mentality and continue the same behavior expecting different results... (But, Bobert, that is because we have so many poor people...) Well, okay, that may be part of the problem but I ain't seen the knee-jerk gunnies over at the "Poverty in the US" thread with any thoughts about how to deal with that problem... And nor do I believe that the situation is that simplistic.. Gun violence permiates our society... It's not just poor people thou it's always easy to blame them for everything that is wrong with our social structure... Bottom line is that something is very wrong with our society and when we look at other societies who have imposed regulations on gun ownership we find less murders and that ain't the opinion of mad man ranting into the night but reality.... You can hear "We wnat to take your gun" or you can hear "Lets talk about something that makes us both happy" but, no matter how longf you gunnies want to put this coversation off, its time ***will*** come... bearded bruce, Okay, even if I let you slide on yer bad habit of trying to change an argument to words that you opponent didn't say, then lets look at your argument, unfair as it is... The 1st Ammendment is the crux of Thomas Jefferson's vision of democracy in that he said that the survivabilty of out denmocracy was based on an "informed electorate" and therefore he would, IMO, look as the internet as something that represented what he and the Founding Fathers would think as goodIMO, would view it as a means of spreading the information that an "informed electorate" would need to have.... Now back to my oroginal argument that has nothing to do with the other 9 Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights... When Thomas Jefferson and his felloe Framers wrote the Bill of Rights it is my opinion that they nevr thought that folks would either be able to break down the ***sentance*** as to not tie the right to bear arms to a standing militia... Not, IMO, could they have fast-forwrded to a time when they thought they were perserving a nation's right to maintain an armed militia would mean having millions and millions of folks packin' 9mms.... I think this is a major stretch of historical interpretation... I mean, lets get real here... Handguns were for an occasional duel in those times... Bottom, line, like I've said, there will come a time when our nation will have to have this discussion... Like the knee-jerk hawks who think that the Iraq inavsion and occupation is okay, the knee-jerk gunnies will also have to eventually be brought to the negotiating table... But, until then, feel free to blame me for your inabilites to comprhend what folks are trying to tell you... I'm getting purdy uesd to it here in Mudville... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Bill D Date: 23 Apr 07 - 09:58 PM *standing off to the side, watching in awe* (and still reading and wondering if there's any more I can say.) |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Ebbie Date: 23 Apr 07 - 10:13 PM "Concerning the point about God given rights: It is the Declaration of Independence which states that we are endowed by our Creator with certain INALIENABLE rights (emphasis mine). Jefferson enumerates that among these God-given rights are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Inalienable means that no one, NO ONE can take these rights from you. The Declaration says that these rights are ours to secure. The idea here is that if someone, anyone is trying to deprive you of these rights you should resist by any and all means. By extrapolation certain corollaries are derived such as the right to protect your life and the right to the necessary means to protect your life, i.e. the right to keep and bare arms. Jefferson and the signers recognized these truths to be self evident, as do I and most freedom loving Americans. If you can't see this, then God help you. You belong to the biggest bully on the block. " slag Good God. What a stretch. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Ron Davies Date: 23 Apr 07 - 11:03 PM Ebbie-- Hey, let's not attack Slag. Slag-- I want you to know I fully support your right to wear T-shirts any time and any place you want--January, Mt. Everest etc. -- (right "to bare arms") By the way, I also support your right to arm bears, if that should be your desire. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Ron Davies Date: 23 Apr 07 - 11:13 PM Mick-- I'm certainly not--nor are most posters here, as far as I can see, planning to have the government come and take your rifles--or anybody else's. Handguns are a different matter--but even there I suspect it would not be worthwhile to try to do that. But we could prohibit further sale of handguns--that would be a start. And as far as your scenario of Bush's behavior, if he were totally bonkers enough to try a coup--likely only in the fevered imagination of the Left--his civilian opponents having their own weapons would not stop him. What would in all probability do so is a likely mass mutiny on the part of the military--many of whom, like thinking beings everywhere, have had enough of Chickenhawk #1. The military is not likely to support the continued reign of a person who has been no more than a tragic joke as a leader. This is of course not surprising--consider the people on Mudcat who support him-- themselves no more than sad jokes--which they prove anew with every posting. |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Slag Date: 23 Apr 07 - 11:24 PM Ebbie, the Declaration was exactly what I stated. It was our justification for going to war with King George's England. The battle of Lexington was fought because the King's men were marching to confiscate What? Marshmallows? No. the guns and the rest of the arsenal which belonged to the PEOPLE at Lexington. What else could it possibly be? What else could it possibly mean, if not that? (Oh, I'm going to pay for putting that in question form but oh well, have at it.) |
|
Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe? From: Ebbie Date: 23 Apr 07 - 11:35 PM Frankly, I think bare arms are kind of ugly. Unless, of course, you have the arms for it. |
| Share Thread: |
