Guns out of control in the United States
There are too many guns in the United States. How many more shootings need to happen for people to realize that the second amendment is outdated. I'm not trying to say that nobody should be allowed to have one, I have nothing against hunters, but that they shouldn't be a dime a dozen like they are now. Shops shouldn't be stocked head-to-toe with enough arms to, say, level a school, or, say, kill 4 police officers in a cafe. I understand the phrase guns don't kill people, people kill people... but guns sure do make it easy.
Number of people in America killed by firearms in 2006 alone: 12,791... four times the number of people in America killed from terrorism in at least the last 15 years.well, i just wonder why there are no resrtrictions on semi-automatic weapons and newer automatic weapons. i mean, who needs those?
i also wonder why people have to pass tests to obtain a driver's license but not to obtain a firearm. i am not anti-gun though. i just think there are some aspects that are questionable.If you want to know the truth about "automatic weapons" instead of what you think you know then read here:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Assault-Weapons … erhaps-not
And do you really want to treat guns like cars?
Do I need the governments permission to buy a car? No.
Do I need to buy the car from only certain people with licenses to sell cars? No.
Can I buy as many cars as I want each week/month/year. Yes
Can I buy small cars, big cars, slow cars, fast cars, cars that look dangerous? Yes
Can I buy Hummers virtually like the troops use? Yes.
Do I have to wait from 5 to 15 days to pick up my car. No
If I traded in one car for a newer model do I still have to wait five to ten days to pick the new one up. No
Can I modify my car to allow more fuel, more performance, or better cornering. Yes
Would I have to turn over to the government without compensation some models of automobiles that might be banned years after I buy them. No
Do I need a license to buy a car? No
(in most states)
Can I buy a car at age 16? Yes.
Are driving lessons mandated in most high schools? Yes
Can I buy a car from anyone in any state? Yes.
Can I sell my car to anyone in any state? Yes
Can convicted felons buy, own or drive a car. Yes
In some places (e.g. NYC or New Jersey) would I first need a permit to buy from the police department which sometimes takes up to 2 years to obtain. No
In some cities (e.g. Washington D.C.) would I have to store your car partially disassembled. No
Do I need to register a car that I own? No (as long as I keep it on my own property)
Do I need a background check or waiting period to buy a car? No
Is my car held responsible if I misuse it? No
Would failure to register my car be a federal felony (prevents me from owning another one). No
Do I need to "safe store" my car even though many are stolen and used for criminal purposes? No
Will I lose my driver's license if I violate the law with my car? Most likely not
Can I legally drive my car into any state/city in the nation with every jurisdiction honoring my registration/license? Yes
Shall I go on? Or do you really, really want to treat guns like cars?Point 1) Citizens (non military, and non Law Enforcement) of the USA cannot own Fully Automatic weapons unless they have a Title 3 license from the BATF&E, so your question is a bit skewed.
Point 2) Firearms owners do indeed have to pass a background check every time they purchase fire arms. This background check is preformed by the Firearm seller who places a call to the authorities and the purchase is either approved or denied. The same cannot be said about a habitual drunk driver buying a new car.
How many is the right amount? The problem is not guns, it's people.
When you give up your right to bear arms you give the Government the power to do anything they want to you.
If you need proof of the dangers of giving up your right to bare arms you can look to a man Named Hitler. Do you think he could have done what he did if the Jews had been armed?
Wishful thinking.
Cars kill. Should we ban cars?
Prescription Drugs kill 100,000 USA Citizens per year, should we ban them?
Clearly the constitution of the United States is the single most important document ever created and stands the test of time.
When you decide you are the person to change it... then it's time for some serious self reflection.Amen. The laws are inadequate and filled with loopholes and they aren't being enforced.
Just like the immigration laws! Our government sucks!
Eighteen months ago Ralph was asked the following questions... he never once attempted to answer. He's still singing the same old tune, and as always, without any actual lyrics.
--------------
Gee, Ralph… just try to state an "effective gun law" that
1) Criminals are guaranteed to obey
2) And that doesn’t penalize the law abiding citizen by assuming first that HE is no different from a criminal.
Are you even familiar with the legal concept of "prior restraint"?
And then let’s discuss just how corrosive it is on the high view of the "Law" that we American are supposed to have when we see politicians passing ineffective law after another based solely upon their emotions with no real regard as to whether or not these "laws" will actually accomplish anything.
Gun control laws only keep the guns out of the hand of law abiding citizens. Not the criminals. Most crimes are not committed with legal guns.
42,643 people killed in car crashes in 2006. Should we take away cars?
Do cars have any additional utility beyond killing people?
If someone is driving in a car you are unlikely to run up and try to tackle him, right?
Guns have another purpose - to procure meat and to kill venomous snakes. We have LOTS of both here.
If "killing people" is the only utility that guns have then do you think it might be too late to take back the guns I've had for decades and get my money back. They must be defective since thousands of rounds have been fired thru them yet nothing has been "killed."
Guns have far more utility than simply killing people.
Example #1: Deterrence. I've killed no one (yet, anyway, thank you), but have definitely used a firearm to convince an eager would-be assailant to reconsider.
Example #2: Peace of mind. Stress can be as deadly as any weapon. I flat out sleep a whole lot better with a weapon within easy reach.
I am sorry egiv, but people need to defend themselves and the right to bear arms is what keeps us free, at least free from being taken over by criminals. If laws are changed the only ones who would obey them would be the law abiding citizens we have no issue with in the first place. Criminals will always find ways to find the guns they want on the international black market, only naivitee' deduces that laws can regulate the criminal eliment, you see?
Firearms don't kill people anymore than a fork made Rosie O'Donnell fat. Not enough guns in the hands of law abiding citizens!
I quite agree and I am happy that you also agree that since...
The mainstream media such as CBS are willing to outright lie in their newscasts in order to influence national elections then the First Amendment is outdated and needs to be changed.
Far too many criminals take advantage of their right not to be searched and seized which allows them to prey on us law abiding citizens so the Fourth Amendment is outdated and needs to be changed.
Terrorists depend upon performing and then getting away with their crimes because of the Fifth, the Sixth, the Seventh, and the Eighth Amendment and therefore they are outdated and need to be changed.It was not guns that killed four policemen in a cafe...twas donuts.
I find after thirty years of street life thousnads of killings in street life most people would find another way to kill either way
Yes, I agree and also point out argue that everything is out of control in the U.S.
Be careful when you use statistics,they can be manipulated to reinforce any argument.I read a Hub on jokes recently.One went like this"nine out of ten people enjoy gang rape",see what I mean?
Which do you want, freedom or fear? Fear of freedom is what you've chosen above.
I embrace freedom in America and accept that some bad things will happen in our free and open society. The responsibility is on it's people in a free and open society. That is, if we expect to be able to keep our freedom we cannot expect government to come in and fix every problem with society.
Progressives have this utopian view of America, where certain negative aspects of a free society are completely irradicated. And they believe you need a strong central government to do it. It starts down the path of a nanny state and it's how tyranny is born.
It's not just progressives, conservatives are doing it with the war on terror. We must submit! We must give up our freedoms for security! Truth is, when we give up our freedoms for security we only succeed in losing both.
We must sacrifice our free market principles and our very idea of a constitutional republic to save the banks! Again they use fear to serve their agenda.
This country is facing a choice. Freedom or fear?The answer is in using NRA funds to educate children in the 2nd amendment. Isn't that the one giving us the right to bear arms? If the NRA would use it funding on education, instead of lobbyist, I think we would have a more responsible society.
I just want to say,my guns are under control at all times.
It's for the very reasons of those 4 police officers being killed, or my current neighbors threatening other neighbors, that I choose to carry responsibly.
I agree with you. Coming from someone who's family member was murdered. But I know many people will disagree with you. So argue on everyone...
2 family members murdered in my family , my mother and my uncle, but I don't thhink the problem is the gun Its the person behind the gun thats the problem , we need to work on keeping them out of the hands of criminals
- Poppa Bluesposted 15 years ago
0"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago. -Thomas Jefferson
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Outlaw guns, and only oulaws will have guns! More regualtion isn't the answer.And a truthful one that you cannot answer.
Exactly! My Dad was murdered, but I do not agree with more gun laws. The innocent have the right to protect themselves. Criminals will always have guns. We should always have the right to at least have a chance to protect ourselves. I know I have from personal experience...ran off potential burglars or worse because I was armed and I made it known vocally and by the sound of a "pump" shotgun.
Can't believe that I'm agreeing with this stuff, but it seems right: the black market has always been largely uncontrollable, for just about all goods or services. In London, where I lived for four years, essentially nobody had a gun, except for drug gang members... illegally (though at least they never targeted anyone except other gang members...)
And Jefferson was pretty up there in the list of great Americans; perhaps number two or three...
Unfortunately there has never been a way to determine a persons proclivity to murder or not to murder. Absent of a solution for this human flaw I have to agree with Poppa Blues on this one. The fathers of the country knew it then as we know it now.
Completely: the number of police officer deaths have dramatically increased here in Ohio ever since legislation loosened the previous gun control laws. Certain aspects of the constitution and the bill of rights are timeless, but others have changed. It does kinda seem like we all need to step back and reassess what being human is all about and if providing firearms to such an emotionally volatile species is a good idea
Colebaby, sorry for your loss- Poppa Bluesposted 15 years ago0
"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;
that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom
of the press." Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson - sneakorocksolidposted 15 years ago0
I think we should have guns but no shooting them at people unless they break into your house threaten your family or destroy your property. If they meet one of those requirements you can shoot them but you have to clean up the mess.
Egiv taking away freedoms from law abiding citizens does not solve anything. That man was a felon and should never have had a gun in the first place. I just spent part of the holiday shooting trap with my son and some college friends who came for Thanksgiving. We had a blast and no one was hurt. It's not my neighborhood you need to worry about. Having lived in Canada, the UK, and Germany, including a city of 12 million (London), and a city of 3 million (Montreal), I am COMPLETELY mystified as to why there are so many homicides in the United States.
Is this sarcasm? Give everybody in London and Montreal a gun and watch their homicide rates quadruple. In London we have a problem with knife crime, it is much easier and quicker to kill with a gun, it doesnt take a genius.
Is that a statistic or an observation. I know that guns are greatly regulated in Europe and the UK but are the murder rates lower per capita over there? I ask this because in most cases a murder committed with a knife in the US has a more personal and angry overtone to it. Does the availabilty of the knife outweigh the personal attachment to the crime? I am curious.
Yes, the murder rates are MUCH lower per capita. Innocent people are not shot regularly, gangs are not small armies like they are in American ghettos and kids aren't going to school with machine guns (except for a couple instances in Germany, I concede). I am not saying we should try to be like anybody else (especially those euro ''nancies,'' as it has been so humbly put), but it's not just anti-gun rhetoric, it's proof that this is not normal for developed, first-world countries.
Think of it this way: if somebody has a grudge against someone (or a group of people, like police officers), but doesn't have a gun, he just continues to be angry, maybe even gets over it. If he has access to a gun, he has the opportunity to act on his hatred, which happens quite frequently in America.You obviously live in London ryankett. I don't know what Londoners you know, but I lived and worked all over the "seedy" parts and what you say sounds strange, to be frank. As for Montreal, this is virtually laughable, to be honest.
But even so, if the rates quadruple, they would still be far, far lower than in the USI agree that the opportunity is greater to kill when given the choice between using a gun over a knife but I believe there are two distinct differences between America and European culture that bears mentioning.
One is that the US has had the gun culture ingrained into us for over two hundred years. It is a birthright here let alone a constitutional one. The movies and games we give our children to watch are loaded with gun violence. There are organizations devoted to gun ownership and many magazines promoting it. Militias are set up to protect the ownership and defense of the ownership of guns. Our culture has such a root formed in guns and gun ownership. There are so many guns that no one can know how many there are.
Another aspect is the violent society we do have is our military industrial complex. Guns of greater size are produced to protect us. A lot of these weapons constitute trade and favor with other countries because of our leadership.
Lets face it America loves their guns and are not afraid to use them.
So in this type of setting how can we ever get any handle on gun control?
Perhaps the crime rate is not as different as you think...
http://www.tinyvital.com/blog/2003/7/26 … ime-rates/It's possible I skipped over this blog post link too fast, but does it compare European versus American *homicide* rates. I mean, trust me, I know that Britain has tons of crime in general.
What seems to me to be the great distinction is the rates of *homicides* specifically. I mean, isn't it about 20 000 a year in the US, whereas the next in line, Canada, has 200, Japan something like 12, etc...
Mind you, incidentally, I am not trying to imply that this is because of gun possession; because Canada has mountains of guns too, for example...1) homogenous cultures for one...
2) And I simply don't trust how other countries report their crime stats.It's good not to trust stats (including American stats), to be sure!!!
As to homogenous cultures -- you have to be kidding, right? European cities look exactly like American and Canadian cities -- every colour, race and creed you can think of.I missed the part of history where Europe and Canada were ever referred to as the "melting pot."
Those statistics are often skewed and mis-reported. First comparing raw numbers of homicides to two countries with a huge difference in populations is a bad idea. Secondly, and this sounds sick but is very common practice in detective work...a person is found with a bullet hole, one of two things, murder or suicide. A person is found on the sidewalk, apparent fall from a 10 story building. It could be an accident, it could be a murder, it could be a suicide. Remember, a homicide is determined post mortem!LOL
While I do believe that a portion of the difference is related to gun posession, I would state that the majority is related to illegal gun posession.
Facts:
more people die of preventable diseases in the US than from intentional and accidental shootings. Most are related to diet, but we aren't outlawing cheeseburgers...yet.....
more people are victims of domestic violence than gun violence. Only 38% of all domestic violence is actually reported, but we havent outlawed families....yet.....Actually, here is my prescription - forget about the guns and focus on all that fat and salt - I mean that is serious business -- half a million deaths a year from heart disease, those are numbers that dwarf the homicide statistics in any case!
seek information, not propaganda, and you may get a better understanding.
- lyricsingrayposted 15 years ago0
here in Canada the rules are ridiculous, however I do owned an unregistered handgun and probably just got myself arrested. Only because I don't qualify for a permit, like most Canadians. Having been raised in the summers in Texas probably influenced my views. I think owning a gun is a necessity and I am prepared to use it if I am approached with force.
- lyricsingrayposted 15 years ago0
here in Canada the rules are ridiculous, however I do owned an unregistered handgun and probably just got myself arrested. Only because I don't qualify for a permit, like most Canadians. Having been raised in the summers in Texas probably influenced my views. I think owning a gun is a necessity and I am prepared to use it if I am approached with force.
The second amendment does not guarantee unlimted access to any desired firearm as some believe. The position that gun proliferation actually makes for a safer society is ludicrous.
Yes, being against gun proliferation can only be explained by a desire for tyranny.
So very Sarah PalinYes because gun control proponents have no logic to support their arguments. Gun legislation only removes weapons from the law abiding citizens. Should we oulaw cars to prevent drunk drivers from killing people? It's the same flawed logic.
Who are the victims of most gun deaths for guns owned by law-abiding citizens?
And who would the victims be if guns were outlawed? The idea that you can control people's behaviour with laws is itself a foolish notion! People obey laws because they want to, but when they don't want to, they won't and you can make all the gun control laws you want but as long as guns exist, people that want them will get them and people that want to use them to commit crimes will do so and in that situation all you can do is level the playing field and allow law abiding people to protect themselves.
Slightly OT: Can I safely assume you're for the legalization of drugs such as marijuana?
Statistically speaking? Dinner and inanimate targets.
In actuality most incidents involving guns owned and used by responsible gun owners confronting an attacker or invader go largely unreported and therefore no statistics are tabulated or available for the question you pose only estimates. And in most of these conflicts the firearm is not discharged, typically the intruder or assailant runs away.
Actually they are allowed to run away, usually with a little something extra in their britches, by a responsible gun owner that knows the limitations and expectations of the laws concerning the use of deadly force.
I have had to draw my concealed weapon twice during attempted attacks, and I have never been forced to fire, but I would have if the situation summoned such action. Niether incident was reported, I just got in my car and contiued on my way, safe and happy.
If you think any of that is true, you should be happy there's no minimum I.Q. required to purchase your precious firearms.
So typically quick to go to the ad hominem attack.
Many, many people caught in a bad circumstance have wished for a gun when they didn't have it. Very few people in a bad circumstance were glad they didn't have a gun.
- sneakorocksolidposted 15 years ago0
Don't be a whoosie go buy a gun! Learn to use it and you too can be a good ole boy, fruitsalad.
If people didn't have guns, then people wouldn't need guns to protect themselves. But its too late now. And because it is a constitutional amendment, the law will not change. Although I wish it would.
True... it's not like the badguys are smart enough to arm themselves with knives, clubs, rocks, screwdrivers, or just plain old fists.
The rights of individual citizens, protected within the Bill of Rights, are considered Inalienable, and beyond the reach of law or constitution. The writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights believed that every citizen has the unquestionable right to keep (which means "own") and bear (meaning "carry") any available individual firearm.
The rate of violence in the US is indeed abhorrent. A national gun ban might, eventually, bring this rate down, but not until after the resulting riots were put down with massive force resulting in major disruption in our cities and uncountable loss of life. The gun ban would still be wrong, since the right to carry arms is Inalienable.
Personally, I prefer the Swiss model. In Switzerland, to remain a full citizen, you must qualify, every year, with a military firearm that you own and keep ready in your own household. You are trained on the use of that arm, basics of military strategy, and the full responsibilities of a citizen who owns and uses such a weapon. As I understand it, the range of weapons in personal use includes anti-tank guns.
Everyone has at least one gun. Everyone knows full well how to use it. Everyone knows their responsibility as a gun carrying citizen. The crime rate in Switzerland is extraordinarily low. Go figure.(Nothing to figure - mindset, principles, thinking...again; HISTORY)
With the USA government the way it is and has been for a looooong time; would you honestly think anyone would lay down arms NOW!?
The answer in th USA is there IS no answer and there never will be.
The world had Nazi Germany (Take all the guns away from the *good people*)- It also had more recently Australia - Massive gun crime waves; *good people* put their guns down. (no one ANYWHERE will ever take the guns away from the *BAD GUYS).
Just LOOK at the two - compare what happened - is happening.
HISTORY - mindset, principles, thinking...
Have to fight fire with fire. Have to fight guns with guns.
Wanna throw down? Lay down? Might as well start building the death camps.
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that court interpretations permit, under the 2nd Amendment, "reasonable" state and local controls and restrictions on the sale and use of guns. The law wrt gun control is still evolving.
Laws that are unjust should not be obeyed! Indeed, it's the duty of good citizens to reject unjust laws. Laws that restrict a persons ability to defend themselves are simply, unjust, and even a license for a gun can and should be viewed as an impingement on ones right to arms and a violation of the constitution as well as a violation of one's god given right to defense.
- lyricsingrayposted 15 years ago0
Ineligible Persons
The following groups of people are ineligible to own firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968 [1].
Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors
Fugitives from justice
Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs
Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution and currently containing a dangerous mental illness.
Illegal Aliens
Citizens who have renounced their citizenship
Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces
Minors defined as under the age of eighteen for long guns and handguns
Persons subject to a restraining order
Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (an addition)
Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunitionThey may be ineligible, but all they have to do to buy a gun is go to a gun show or dealer in Virginia or many other states. Obviously, the 1968 law isn't being effectively enforced and very possibly may be impossible to enforce.
I think people shouldn't have to pass tests for a driver's license. You are right that it is the same principle. But it should not be required in either case.
No, I rely on my wits and my drawer full of Ginzu steak knives.
Yes but there are many many people with undiagnosed mental conditions. And who knows if someone is using an illegal substance? Do they do a drug test before you are issued a license?
Do they do a drug test before allowing virtually every male to walk around freely carrying an instrument that allows him to rape almost any woman he wants with very little effort on his part?
I cannot think of gun restriction debates without remembering Dunblane. Do you remember? When Thomas Hamilton entered a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland and shotdead 16 children,aged only 5 or 6, and 1 teacher? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre
After the nation recovered from the shock, legislation was rushed through to prevent such a thing happening again, by tighter legislation against the owning of hand-guns.
Of course the people with money, the land-owners, objected the the change and what we have now is not much improvement on the law before Dunblane.
America has always had much more freedom with guns. Our policemen aren't routinely armed.
I'm interested in reading what everyone has to say on gun legislation in America.
I love reading abou the right to shoot and kill burglars for example, when back in the UK if a burglar gets injured gaining access to your home, he can legally SUE you. Crazy world!Some states here have what is called "Castle Doctrine" which at the simplest states that a Man's home is his castle and he has the right to defend it. And do so with out having to retreat to a safe room and inform the burglars that the home owner is in deed armed and will/can use deadly force to defend his, and his family's life/ (Please note I use Him/His in the generic, Women are as capable as Men to defend hearth and home.)
Poppa Blues is right on the money in my book. I'm going to keep enjoying my gun purchasing and ownership rights.
And I disagree with you sooner. But I know that the way I feel is probably not the majority. And every time I watch the news (right now, family was killed on thanksgiving) I wish it was different.
Last year I took a "ride along" with a friend who works as a tribal police officer. We responded to a call where a man in his early 30's killed 3 familly members with a hatchet. It was at a party and he was rejected by two girls that were there.
Sexually frustrated, he struck down the two other men there and the mom so that he could rape the young teen girls. when we showed up, he was still raping a 17 year old- covered by blood from the victims in the same room. The hatchet was left in the fathers face. We learned that he chased and tormented the familly with the hatchet, and they were un-armed.
Now you tell me that a gun may not be necessary- but I bought my wife a short barrel shotgun the next day and I showed her how to use it. If all the guns were gone, we would still have the same amount of crime. Man knows how to kill man.
The rest of the world shakes its head as Americans continue to slaughter each other whilst barely debating gun control. What's passing for debate in this thread is laughable
I really don't care just what the "rest of the world" thinks about our freedoms. Europe is full of half civilized savages who started new wars with each other every few decades for two thousand years but hasn't been able to lately because of the influence of the much stronger, bigger, and smarter kid brother known as America sitting on their back.
Great post, way to represent Americans (as I assume you want to do, American flag, eagle and all). So, let me get this straight: Europeans are half civilized savages for starting wars too often? And what has the great US of A been doing the past 50 years? Oh, that's right... wars.... Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf, Iraq. Good thing we are so superior to Europe.
Heck, the US even had a war with Canada!!! You have to be pretty cantankerous to do that
Yes you are all legends in your own minds. Had it not been the the American Soldier and the American worker saving your asses you would not be able to stick your ungrateful collective noses in the air.
If you want to compare the wars where we were fighting and dying for freedom to the wars of europe fighting for which inbred cousin's backside could be on what throne go ahead and do so.
Whose freedom were the noble wars of Vietnam, and Iraq fought for?
Vietnam was fought to staunch the spread of communism, and Iraq was fought, in part, to cap the spread of radical Islamic terrorism originating from the Middle East.
And both wars were incredible, costly blunders.
It gave enough time in the far east for governments to stablize and grow strong enough to reject the communist insurgencies that were beginning in their own countries. Unless you like the idea of a communist far east spreading from thailand thru every other country including the philippines then you should be more careful about considering anything a blunder.
And I am sure the good folk of the united states who didn't wake up with a nuke going off in their back yard supplied to the jihad courtesty of Hussien don't consider it a "blunder."
So... the original question... whose freedoms were won in those wars?
Where have you been. The war in Vietnam was a political foothold failure for the United States and a military escallation exercise for the contractors.
Iraq was and is all about the oil. Pulease!That is not correct, despite what your politics makes you want to believe.
Look it up and find out for yourself. It is not my belief but the result of my study of it. You wish to believe in the crap the politicians and bravado has pumped you up to see a morality in these wars.
I've "looked it up" many times, thanks. Still not correct.
Well maybe you had better get a remedial course in World History and study a little more because what you have studied didn't take.
Yeah, I've taught more Wold History than you ever have or ever will study and I think I've got the info under control. If you disagree that's one thing, but 'go study more' is not the path you want to take.
Why should I. You have shown me no argument to deter me from it.
The "Blame America First" and the anti-freedom side sure have a lot of overlap, eh.
Are all things quite this simple for you or do you spend long hours thinking nonsense up like this?
Already got your Palin quota of snappy answers done for the day?
And ~that's~ the best you can answer, eh...
As do the revisors of history and ignorers of facts that think putting another moron in office, as was done in 2000, will make things better.
You mean as opposed to the Goron who spends tens of thousands of dollars on electricity for his mansion each month but wants to limt everyone else to a single 40 watt bulb for their home?
Well... who was running against Mr. Bush in 2000? Who has a multi million dollar mansion that has astronomical eletricity costs? Who runs around the world telling everyone that we use too much energy? Who is a combination of both a Gore and a moron?
LOL I get it. Well I can't defend someones elses hypocrisy but I can understand their views on an intellectual level and respond to them. An idea or thought should not be judged on the merits of the one making the offering. Too much knowledge would be lost in the process. Even Mao Tse Tung had some very wise sayings but was an awful tyrant non the less.
Why don't you ask the hundreds of thousands of vietnamese who were fortunate enough to flee in boats a step ahead of their brethern who spent years in communist re-education camps. Or the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were killed by the Hussien rule just for disagreeing with him. Perhaps the Kurds who were gassed by the tens of millions would be good interviewees for you... except that they are all dead, eh.
It is funny how the US created the conditions that culminated in the ends you speak of. If we had just kept our noses out of their business then they would have been better off and so would we.
We fought our own civil war to define ourselves and what we stood for as a people and as a country. What would it have been like if England or France decided to jump in and set us straight so as to how we should treat each other? Approximately 3,500,000 people fought in the American Civil War and between both sides approximately 700,000 casualties were recorded. If we were willing to buy our identity and sovereignty at this great a cost how can we expect these other countries to buy their own for any less? Mind you the civilian deaths are not fighting deaths but are huge when considering the totality of the conflicts.
You can't give someone their freedom it has to be earned for yourself to have any lasting meaning.If you're okay with communists in power over a country that's jake with me... but it does give thoughtful insight as to your desire to disarm Americans.
The last few posts I have made in this thread have been a rebuttal to TK statements about Vietnam and in the Gulf wars. If you think that those two wars were fought for the noble causes you proclaim then show some proof. Whether or not I believe the communists belong in Vietnam who is now a favored trading partner with us is mute. They won inspite of our attempts to implant a pro American leader and that is how it turned out. If we were so opposed to this from happening why are we trading with them now? Is their cheap labor a better deal than holding old grudges for political ideals lost?
As far as the gun issue goes we all have a right to bear arms and that is fine with me. I personally don't have any guns anymore because I raised three sons who would have most assuredly shot one of the others with them. I just don't feel the need to own any now. You can have as many as you want. It is your right. I also have a problem with laws that would take that right away and do very little to those who obtain them illegally.Sorry... your side brought them up. The burden is on you to prove that they were not.
If I state that Obama has had his brain replace by an alien one the burden is not on you to prove otherwise.I would hope you were up to speed on this rather lengthy topic and would be able to respond to it as such. I would not expect you to explain the Domino effect and the reasons offered by Johnson to send combat troops to Vietnam. Once again too lengthy a topic to discuss and too much time.
Perhaps you could read this to get a better understanding:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/ … index.html
You should also look up the Gulf of Tonkin incident that McNamara himself admitted before he died was a hoax.
There is a really good documentary about the politics surrounding the Vietnam war called The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara
You may not have the same take on Vietnam after reading and seeing the movie.
You can look it up or not but as you can see I have made my statements and given you the material to verify my claims.Referencing McNamara and his best and brighest is not the way to win a discussion with most people who lived thru that time.
The fact that cars kill people is totally irrelevant, because they are (usually) not intentional. The facts are undeniable: more guns = more gun deaths, say whatever you want about people being good or bad or crazy. It's long since proven. I agree that people themselves are at the heart of every killing, but if everybody who has a grudge against somebody has access to a gun, there will be a lot more dead people than if guns were more difficult to obtain.
The Thomas Jefferson quotes only prove my point: it's outdated! We're children shooting up schools during Jefferson's days? Were there bloods and crips?So with the massive increase in the past year with guns and ammo just flying off the shelves we should have thousands of newly dead bodies laying around each morning when we wake up, eh.
But it hasn't happened, eh. Because your "proof" exists only in your head.No? Explain that to the families of the four dead police officers. Even though many guns were bought this past year, it's nothing in comparison to how many were already out there, so thousands of shootings would not be proportional, but countless innocent people die in gun violence every day. This cannot be denied. If you want to argue the reason for this, go ahead, but the fact that it happens is common knowledge.
1) explain ~what~ to those police officers? That a man who should have been spending his life in prision illegally obtained guys and shot them? And please tell us specifically what that has to do with your orignal post that I destroyed with logic. Actually, nothing, eh. You couldn't come up with an answer so you attempt a subject change. Pitiful.
2) Nine BILLION rounds of ammo bought in the past year.
http://www.alphecca.com/?cat=16
And you're saying that's a small number? YOU said more guns equal more dead bodies. We have much more guns today than 24 months ago. Where are all the extra dead bodies? YOU made them up from thin air -- that's why you have no cite for it.
3) Yes, people die each day from firearms. I never denied it so asking me to deny again it is pretty stupid on your part. But that is NOT the info you posted earlier, which is why you are again attempting to change the subject.Calm down tough nuts. Yes, I said that even nine billion rounds of ammo, even if it is a lot, is adding to a society already filled with guns. Do you really need a citation for that? Anybody can cite some obscure website from a 3-second google search to prove a point. I think a better comparison is between the US and a country without so many arms. If there are more guns available legally, more guns will be obtained illegally. I missed the part where you destroyed that with logic...
Ohhh... descending into juvenile namecalling. How thoughful.
No... you ~actually~ said "The facts are undeniable: more guns = more gun deaths". You can read for yourself just by scrolling back a moment. I pointed out there are many (millions) more guns/ammo in the hands of Americans over the past 18 months without all the "more gun deaths" that you stated as a "fact."
You have no answer to that other than to whine and change the subject to one hardened, violent criminal doing a hardened, violent criminal act and pretending as if he is representative of gunowners everywhere.
Do you believe YOU would shoot someone over a "grudge"? Are you projecting your known weakness and lack of morality on to the greater population in an effort to feel that you are not to blame for your inability to control yourself?
- ralwusposted 15 years ago0
Jefferson's days? There were the Over the mountain boys ie: rednecks, and there were the city slickers and mostly farmers. They all kicked asses and will do it again if need be. I am gunless, but....
I don't own a gun either, but I would never vote to take away the right to bear arms from another US citizen.
From what I understand, more than one-half of the shooting deaths in the US each year are suicides. The majority of the other shootings are gang-related -- and I certainly doubt they're holding permits!Which of you anti-gun posters can guarantee that if we law abiding gun owners give up our weapons, no criminals can obtain firearms themselves?
Learned how to shoot a rifle and then a hand gun...own both and have no problem pullig the trigger if my family, home or property is threatened.
Like Daddy said, if you want to mame aim for the kneecap, if your concerned him coming back...aim for between the eyes.
Both my guns are in a locked box and in a place the Grandkids can't get to...safety 1st.I was around guns from a young age; shot my first shotgun (Dad laughed cuz it was a 12 gauge) & uzi at 8 years old, even had a silencer on it (Uncle was a gun dealer). Never really liked them, never truly trusted how uncontrollable, and irreversible, a situation could become with a gun. My son now, he likes to shoot and I train him with a smaller caliber rifle, with the understanding that it is never to be pointed at another person, under any circumstances. There are always other ways, more personal ways, to deal with a situation circumventing the use of firearms.
A story about someone being shot, or killed by a firearm, is like a switch being flicked on to start one more debate on how many people are killed by guns in America. I can't argue the fact that too many people die from gun related deaths each year. All I ask is that you don't engage in someone else's rhetoric about guns. Too many stories in the media are slanted on the end result. That guns are the root of all evil, and they should be eliminated from our society. What your not hearing, is that the person who used the weapon, in most cases, obtained it illegally. The mantra on the news is, guns are bad. They concentrate more on their agenda, and rarely on the victims. The victims are only incidental to the story and not the focus. Whether its handguns, or anything else, listen to the person telling you the story and not the kneejerk emotional response their trying to sell. The fact is, that most people in America, who own firearms, obatined them legally and use them within the laws of their respective states.
- lyricsingrayposted 15 years ago0
just the wrong people holding them. guns are a necessity.
Someone further up this post said that guns are a necessity (in the US) because so many guns exist (in the US); in other words, it is too late to turn back the clock.
This makes some sort of sense to me. However, having lived in Britain, which, on balance is a relatively violent society, I have experienced a culture where gun ownership is equated with insanity, nevertheless.
I now live in Canada where, if Michael Moore is to be believed, we have thousands of guns, yet almost no gun crime. (Certainly, the only people that get shot in Canada seem almost always to be connected to gangs - this is true in Britain too).
So, perhaps, as indeed Bowling for Columbine seems to ask, the real question is not "why are there so many guns in America", it is "why are there so many MURDERS in America"?
I don't know the answer to this, but given that other Western democracies have less than 200 murders a year, and America countless thousands, there's a problem...
- Scott.Lifeposted 15 years ago0
1. Guns are not out of control, people are out of control.
2. Criminals do not follow the law that's why they are criminals. Gun Laws do not keep guns off the street or the black market, however they do make it more profitable for those who sell them, look to the drug trade if you disagree.
3. People are killers, not an inanimate object made from steel. Take away the gun and they will use something else, this is a fact.
4. How many people die from car accidents every year? When we we outlaw those? Saving lives and the environment not to mention lowering American dependence on oil.
5. Guns do Kill and they also save lives, everyday, in homes all across the country...Fact!It's true that it is too late in a sense: it is absolutely true that a black market always grows up when you ban something: look at the results of drug policies in America....
It's also true that cars are the real danger. Maybe we should ban them, in fact. I would be more afraid of cars than criminals any day of the week - far more dangerous.
One thing that is a worry though is the "common culture" surrounding guns in America. in the US it is fairly common to believe that it is "normal" to have a gun. In Canada, the UK, and Germany (three countries I have lived in) it is considered, well, weird (except for hunting rifles).
This "cultural" factor is a problem because it increases the chances of guns actually being used, in general. (Maybe this is true, maybe it isn't - I am simply suggesting it is possible).I don't think America is a gun culture, but more accurately a violent one. We thrive on competition, war, strife, and upheaval. Our nation was born from war and grows by it. I think American in general are better examples and reminders that though we may try to distance ourselves from nature, we are still animals, and predators to be exact. If you think that you don't use that predatory nature and instinct to excel and prosper in life then you are lying to yourself, Americans and mankind as a whole that is.
- Germany and Japan have a dreadful legacy for war, as do Britain and France.
- We all contain predatory natures, and we all contain natures that favour family and community ties and love, and we all contain natures that favour self-defence, and community defence.
Personally, I don't particularly want to live in a state of nature -- it was cold at night, difficult to find food, and there was no TV :-). So I am not sure that, just because we have predatory natures therefore we "should" be predatory... To be sure, we got eaten a lot too, I have no doubt -- so should we embrace our "victim" natures?
(Though clearly, it is more advantageous in many cases to seek to win in a competitive environment than to lose... It is also more advantageous to cooperate sometimes too; depends on the situation - easier to build a house if you cooperate, for example).Well I guess it comes down to this do you want to be the prey or the predator. Once again look deep into this, banking is a predatory industry, profit is predation. Most of what we see as successful and profitable habits are those same things that make lions great killers. Many nations do indeed have violent histories but we weren't talking about them were we, we are talking about the US. And the US is indeed a violent and predatory nation of people. The only issue is that some can not see beyond the NatGeo images of the Serengeti to understand just how good it is that we are so predatory. It's not an insult, its a attribute.
I brought up Germany and Japan because they now no longer have a violent culture -- I was making a comparison (though you are right, just because one country follows a certain pattern, why should a different country, in this case the US, follow the same pattern...).
I agree that in some areas competition and winning are the best thing, and it is an advantage to have a strong tradition of these things, that is true.
But it is not true for all situations. However, I do agree with the more general point that "liberals" (and, in fact, I guess I am more liberal than conservative in some ways) are too soft -- for example, when people do great harm to society, it is not enough to send them a "strongly worded letter", they should feel some pain -- specifically, I am thinking of the bankers who ripped your country off so disastrously.
- sneakorocksolidposted 15 years ago0
The Europeans are "Nancy's" you can't go on anything they do or you'll end up another lost liberal in the forest of life. When you're in the forest lost and confused you'll be eaten by a bear. That's all I have to say.
I guess you've never seen footage of football crowds. I guess also, you never heard of Margaret Thatcher, who privatized everything that moved, and was Reagan's best friend. Oh, and ever hear of the Nazis -- real nancy boys, those guys
(Incidentally, thousands of Europeans are involved in various kinds of hunting... with guns)
I grew up with guns. My dad was a gun dealer, and he and my brother were avid hunters. I learned to respect firearms at an early age. I would never have even thought about playing with them. When I got old enough, I learned to handle a gun properly. I became a hunter and a skeet-shooting champion.
Years ago, my husband was working the graveyard shift when 3 men tried to enter my home. I met them at the door with my shotgun, and they left...in a hurry. I never saw them again. I sleep with that same 12-guage by my bed, along with 2 Great Danes. I feel pretty safe!- Ghost32posted 15 years ago0
If a few civilians had been packing when the four police offers were slaughtered in the coffee shop, they wouldn't still be looking for the shooter. He'd be dead. And a cop or two might very well be alive.
Eeek. Your faith in the average person's ability to aim straight in a high pressure situation seems a bit optimistic. Weren't there other people in the coffee shop, potentially in the line of fire?
I would have total faith in the aim of folks from around here. Ever try to shoot a dove in flight??
You may have a point; I will admit I was judging by my own ability and by the abilities of most fellow firearms owners I know...and most of us could (and would) get the job done correctly.
As for the crack-under-pressure folks, though, even a shot that missed the bad guy but distracted him could have given a "straight shooter" an extra second or two to plug him properly. Little things do make a difference. One of the "old west" style shootouts in Virginia City, Montana illustrated that dramatically. They only had single action revolvers (the two combatants), and the procedure was to pull the hammer back with your thumb, then pull the trigger with your index finger.
Gunfighter #1 (don't recall their names) got off the first round. It wasn't fatal but tore off Gunfighter #2's thumb on his gun hand. He (the thumbless one) tried a border shift--flipping the pisol to his left hand--but too late. That extra second was too much time, and his carcass got filled really full of lead.
Moral of the story: If a nervous civilian shot for the guy's torso but only tore off his thumb, that could have been a really good thing!
Guns are my friends.You are so funny but your point is seriously true...I like the way you think mon chere'
- Scott.Lifeposted 15 years ago0
Here's the thing thats really sad. The most common argument I have heard for Gun control is only the police and military should have them. Problem is , and anyone who's called 911 will testify to this, the police are reactive, not proactive. They get there after the crime happened so for those seconds to minutes until they get there you are on your own. Defending your life falls to you, and sadly but true these days most criminals will not even pause to think about killing you or worse. So you can have a gun and defend yourself or hope the Cops get there before the killer in this case gets away while you bleed out.
I know its an over simplification but true nonetheless.It hits me in the gut to say this as a "nancy boy" European (
) but this sounds like reasonable argument.
Perhaps I'll spice things up by asking this: if there were higher rates of (tax-payer funded) public funding for the police, so that they might actually be effective, wouldn't this help things?The Police can not be everywhere all the time. That's how it is and should be. People have to take responsibility to reasonably defend themselves and their lives. Americans in general have become hugely over reliant on the government to fix everything at the cost of self reliance and ability. People will commit crimes and you as the individual owe it to yourself and family to fight back with whatever means you can get.
Throwing money at the problem won't fix it. Look at our banks, auto industry, and economy. Or even more accurately the drug wars. Which are worse then ever.And, in any case, unless they have Star-Trek-style transporters, they will pretty well always arrive late: it's basic physics
The main problem is that there are too many loopholes in current laws. Perhaps we need to move up the food chain to the gun manufacturers and regulate what they are allowed to make, how many and to whom they are allowed to sell them, i.e., handguns, especially those with large magazines and assault weapons who have no other purpose than killing people. Hunters and target shooters wouldn't be affected. Sales of these non-hunting types of weapons at gunshows should be prohibited or tightly regulated.
Ralph, don't you realize that people can make their own guns? The idea that there are manufacturers and you can get to them and stop everyone from having guns is part of the dependency mentality. Corporations don't make guns. People do. Prohibit sales and manufacturing, and the guns will still find their way into the hands of whoever wants them. Only now, the makers of guns will be criminals, too.
there was a Show on DSC awhile back by a Female Pakistani reporter. who revealed a cottage industry there. Back room Weapons Manufacturing. these guys ware making AK's, M16's, and any other type of assault rifles and pistols using nothing more than stock blanks of Metal, Vice clamps, Files, drill presses and other odds and ends tools. they were so good, that the only difference between their weapons and the manufactured ones were serial numbers.
and making gun powder is actually easy, making modern powder is only slightly harder.
as for the police protecting us. The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals. In Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Dept.,
444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: 'Courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.'
and as far as passing more weapons laws. please.. as of 1992 there were 22000 gun laws on the books from Local to Federal Government. one more law should make the difference. NOT
Why stop there? Why not make it a crime to fight, to hate, to kill, to engage in violence, and war! Yes! The solution is so simple! I can't believe no one has thought of this yet!
Please point out where the 2nd amendment talks of "hunting and target shooting". There was a ten year long "assault weapons" ban. Can you find real statistics showing that it had a positive affect? It might help if you were told that "assault weapons" are used in less than 2% of violent crimes. Incremental restrictions with the goal of total bans are what the antis want. Nothing less. Gun owners should give no ground.
UK is a good example. They decided that registration was the way to go, and on the surface it may seem like a good idea. If you can track the gun, then it would be less likely to be used criminally, right? Maybe, but can you trust gov't? Apparently not. Not long after the guns were registered, UK forced citizens to give up their handguns. I believe this was promised not to happen. The same thing happened in NYC with the Sullivan Laws. Promises were made not to abuse the list of gun owners, and those promises were broken. Nope, no reason to trust another person or politician with our rights...any of them.Ralph knows that what he calls "assault weapons" are used by tens of thousands of hunters every year. He knows that as well as he knows the sun rises in the east.
Yet he posts this nonsense anyway. He is fundamentally no different from a flat earther.
Here is a quick history of the modern hunting rifle and how it has evolved over the decades...
http://www.nssf.org/msr/history.cfm
Unless you're willing to pay enough taxes to give every person a cop to carry around in his/her coat pocket, no.
Do ~you~ want a cop stationed in your home every moment of the day for protection, or would you rather be the person responsible for defending your family?Indeed, if anything, totalitarian states are usually recognized by their having too MUCH police -- the trick is to strike a balance, I guess... how much is too much, etc...
And anyway, as stated above, the police can't arrive in a split second, no matter what the situation -- physically impossible.
Kind of like the fire department; good to have a smoke detector and fire extinguisher in your home anyway -- not sure how many people need a semi-automatic fire extinguisher, all the same.
Actually, it would be interesting to know how many Americans who have guns in their homes also have a fire extinguisher -- for me, as a non-American (so allergic to guns) a fire extinguisher is every bit as important... be good to do a poll...And ~that~, my transAlantic friend, is part and parcel of the wonders of America. Our freedoms are not based upon what someone else things we "need" and my freedom and everyone else's here is the same...
I choose to provide for my family one way... another may provide another way. I am content with the way he chooses since it is none of my business... but he best keep his nose out of my choice.
Which is the perfect lable for those who want to restrict firearms... anti-choice.Just for the record, I am in Canada
so am not totally Trans-atlantic...
But having lived in three democracies, I assure you that other Western nations are pretty similar to America when it comes to freedoms -- in fact, as America was the first, I imagine European systems are usually, at least in part, *copied* from America.
As for anti-choice, well there are lots of things Americans are not free to do -- you can't defecate on the street, or punch someone in the face, or drive at 300 mph down a crowded city street, or on the sidewalk... But that's normal. As to firarms spefically, as I say, I don't see how you could restrict them, practically speaking, in any case...Guns are not easy to control, but many countries do so more effectively than the U.S. I'm under the impression that gun control in Canada is stricter and more effective than in the U.S. and that gun violence is less of a problem there????
I think the issue is that Canadians have a tradition/culture towards guns that is different from America's. There are, in fact, thousands of guns in Canada, it's just, for some reason, we don't tend to use them on each other -- it would seem weird to us, like, you know, paying for health care
That's because all you Canadians are stoned, eh?
I once heard someone say that Canadians say thank you to their ATM's when it gives them their money ... I'm not sure that's true... but.... you never know
Would if its more of an attitude towards life itself? See too often we try and blame everyone and everything before looking into the mirror.....Maybe Canadians value life more than Americans?
I'm sure most Americans value life in general. And I would imagine that 99 percent of Americans who own a gun have never killed anyone... I don't know: these things are bound to have complicated causes...
Does Canada allow assault weapons and large magazine handguns? Does Canada require registration of handguns? Are handguns prevalent in Canada or is it hunting guns, i.e. hunting rifles and shotguns?
Do Canadian cities and/or provinces have gun registration and control laws? In the U.S. most of the gun violence occurs in urban areas. In that sense Canada and the U.S. aren't very comparable. We don't hear a lot about gun violence in Nebraska, the Dakotas, Wyoming, etc., but it is a huge problem in Detroit, L.A., Chicago and other urban areas.I am no expert on these matters. I have personally never met a Canadian who owns either an assault weapon or a handgun, (and I have lived in three cities in three provinces, including a city of three million) but I imagine they exist (though I don't know).
As for gun registration, there was a huge controversy about this in Canada a few years ago -- but I was not here, so cannot comment; I am sure Google can enlighten however.Toronto has a population of 4 million. Montreal of 3 and a half million. This is a similar size to most American cities. (Calgary and Ottawa are about a million each, Vancouver about 2 million)
Don't forget.....DC, DC and Chicago had/has handgun bans. Its the lawless culture that is running rampant in the large cities. The economic downturn hasn't helped either. Michigan, for instance is in probably the biggest financial mess when compared to the rest of the Union. Low and behold, high crime rates.
1) Europeans, and I count canuks in this group, have a totally different idea of the very concept of "freedom" that we do. You say, I can do what the government allows. We believe that we can do what we want unless it is specifically forbidden. There is a great difference there, and one that Euros rarely can wrap their minds around. A thousand years of serfdom has not completely been thrown off your shoulders yet.
2) As for your examples.... a prime example of someone who has no clue about freedom trying to write about it.
Let's look at them closely...
defacating on the public street...
first... it is public... owned by the public. doing what is normally considered a private act and forcing it upon the public is not generally considered appropriate. secondly, the act is one that presents a number of clear and present dangers/hazzards to that same public. Whether you count airborne diseases, or groundwater contamination, there is specific problems that the act itself creates.
next, your punch in the nose. One doesn't have to stretch the imagination to see that anyone punching anyone else in the nose without cause is clearing committing an act that gives instant and real problems for the punchee.
and last, driving 300 mph on either the street or sidewalk puts innocents in immediate risk of danger. The act itself is dangerous.
So you put three ACTIONS, each with danger associated directly with the ACTION, as comparable to the right to keep and bear arms?
Please tell me where my owning a gun and keeping in it in my home puts you, or anyone else, in immeidate and clear danger. Please tell me where my carrying a handgun on my person puts you, or anyone else, in immediate and clear danger.
You gotta think about these things before you post. A moments thought in advance will probably go a long ways to making you sound a little less inept.
To suggest our freedoms are "outdated" is beyond outrageous. There are lots of places with far fewer freedoms where someone of such a mind might be happier living.
And 'public funding' would make the police psychic? Sounds expensive.
Sarcasm is not an argument
(though your point is taken)
First off the Second amendment is a right regardless of Anti gun opinions.
heres a few facts... I have pages. but Ill spare you.
After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearm.
0.1% of all deaths for children between the ages 0-14 are from firearms, 0.6% are from motor vehicles, 5.3% are from being struck in beatings or bludgeoning, 6.0% from poisoning, and 42.6% from suffocation.
* 1997 National Center for Health Statistics National Vital Statistics Report
82% of homicides to children age 13 and under were committed without a gun.
* 1997, FBI Uniform Crime Statistics
18-20 year olds commit over 23% of all gun murders. None of these criminals are allowed to purchase a handgun due to their age under current law.
* U.S. Treasury and Justice Dept. Report, 1999
There are more than 22,000 gun laws at the city, county, state, and federal level.
* BATF estimate, 1992
During the Clinton administration, federal prosecutions of gun-related crimes dropped more than 44%.
* Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse Univ. 1992-1998
90% of all violent crime in the U.S. does not involve any gun of any type.
* 1998 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
Two-thirds of the people that die each year from gunfire are criminals shooting other criminals.
* FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994
Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 per day.
* Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State Univ.
Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminals) is shed.
Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes per day are prevented just by showing a handgun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually ever fired.
* Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State Univ.
Of the 250,000,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
* U.S. Dept. of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration,
Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, 1979
Crime rates in states with out concealed carry laws have a higher percentage of the following crimes
Violent Crime ……………………81% higher
Murder ………………………….. 86% higher
Rape …………………………… 25% higher
Assault…………………………… 82% higher
Robbery………………………….. 105% higher
Auto Theft……………………….. 60% higher
* John Lott, David Mustard: This study involved county level crime statistics from all 3,054 counties in the U.S. from 1977 through 1992. During this time, ten states adopted right-to-carry laws. It is estimated that if all states had adopted right-to-carry laws, in 1992 the U.S. would have avoided 1,400 murders, 4,200 rapes, 12,000 robberies, 60,000 aggravated assaults- and would have saved over $5,000,000,000 in victim expenses.
92.7% of law enforcement officials believe that citizens should be able to purchase firearms for self-defense and sporting purposes.
* 1999 Police Survey, National Assoc. of Chiefs of Police
MYTH: Police are our protection, and people don't need guns.
FACT: The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals. In Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Dept.,
444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: 'Courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.'
After Canada's 1977 gun controls prohibited handgun possession for self defense, the "breaking and entering" crime rate rose 25%, surpassing the U.S. rate.
* Pat Mayhew, Residential Burglary: A Comparison of the United States,
Canada and England and Wales (Nat'l Inst. Of Just., Wash., D.C., 1987)
In Japan, the murder rate is about 1 per 100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 each year by weapons other than firearms.
* United Nations data
over 95% if gun related crime is caused by gang activity. ( FBI Uniform crime statisticsm 1976-1998)
in 1976 Washington DC passed one of the most restrictive gun control laws in teh nations. since then the citys murder rate has risen 134 percent. while the nations dropped " FBi uniform crime statistics"
20% of US homicides occur in four cities, with just six percent of the Population. New York, Chicago, detriot and washington DC. each have restrictive gun control laws.
Trigger locks
California has a trigger lock law and saw a 12 pecent in crease in Fatal Firearm accidents in 1994
Texas has no such law and has seen a 28 percent decrease . " national Cetner for Health statistics"
now you not liking firearms is fine, but I am tired of people trying to get their opinions enforced as law on every one elseTo address the argument that making it harder to get guns will only take them away from law-abiding citizens:
If there are less guns in circulation, it will be harder to get them, legally or illegally. The gun that a gang member buys on the street might have been bought legally, since buying them is so easy, then taken to the street to be sold to a 16-year old. I'm not saying that no law-abiding citizens should be allowed to have a gun. I'm saying that it should be a difficult, more secure process to obtain one, because there are far too many guns in American society.I have no problem with restrictions on WHO can purchase firearms - as long as law-abiding adults without criminal records can get them.
Well, that's true, Rhamson. It sounds like a good idea, though. I suppose it would be practically impossible to enforce.
- thetruthhurts2009posted 15 years ago0
"Blaming the gun for murder is like blaming the spoon for being fat!"
I think I prefer the Old West method, if everybody had them there might be a big shootout to start with, but in the end the Good guys out number the Bad guys.
Now imagine if each law-abiding citizen, owned, carried and was trained in the use of a gun and educated to all the laws and punishments pertaining to guns, how many criminals would be left.
Lets take for example any of the shootings that have occurred of late, at Fort Hood for example, if all of the soldiers in that area were carrying a side arm, there is no way this terrorist could have shot so many before being killed himself by what I would imagine would have been an onslaught on bullets.
I sincerely doubt had this been the practice he would have had the courage to even consider an attack. The attack was viable because the assailant knew no one else would be armed.
Or lets say in Washington, had there been other armed citizens in that coffee shop the perpetrator more than likely would not have made it out the door after the attack. Certainly this guy was intent on killing and never should have gotten his hands on a gun, hell he shouldn’t have been out of jail, (but that’s another argument for the effectiveness of parole), but in this situation he may have still ambushed and killed 4 cops or maybe not. Once the first shot was fired, or a gun was seen brandished he might have been shot and/or killed by someone else using the same ambush technique for certianly his attention was focused on his victims.
Getting rid of the guns is not the solution, more responsible people with them and better enforcement of existing gun control and punishment laws is.I live in illinois, it has some of the strictist gun control laws out there. But yet we also have some of the highest crime rates because the criminals with guns know that the average citizen is not allowed to carry a firearm. Guns help control the crime rates in states that allow open or concelled carry because the criminals never know who has a gun on there person. I personally think that illinois is in violation of the 2nd ammendment and that not allowing people to defend themselves and their homes against an attacker is the dumbest thing ever. If someone were to break in my house I am supposed to try and flee, No offence but thats bull and I would never leave my family behind to defend themselves like the law states, my dogs and my kids deserve better than that. And so does every family in this god forsaken state.
That's one of the reasons I live in Florida
Give a read to my hub on Castle Doctrine, or as the antis like to refer to it: The Make My Day Law. Illinois is one of only two states, WI is the other, with no provision for carrying a gun for self defense. Definitely a "progressive" state.
Sorry...
- Poppa Bluesposted 15 years ago0
It is a free people's RIGHT to defend themselves. Any law that impinges upon that right is unjust and should not be obeyed!
Now there's a song that needs to be sung loud and true.
Way to go Poppa BlueThat's true, but does he have the right to defend himself by ANY means necessary whatsoever? I mean, let's say (this will never happen, I presume, but let's just say for a moment) that all guns were banned (which would be a bad idea, because the market might just go underground... although maybe most people are uncomfortable making illegal purchases of things...) EXCEPT hunting rifles. A hunting rifle is big enough to scare someone off, is harder to bring to school, harder for a six year old to manipulate, and is not designed specifically to kill human beings.
Even in theory, would this be an acceptable arrangement?Why do you believe that 120 pound secretary walking across the parking lot late at night should have to submit to the rapist without having the most effective means of fighting back?
Why do you believe that a rifle capable of shooting thru my walls, my neighbor's wall, and his neighbor's walls is the most effective firearm for home defense?
You are aware, are you not, that virutally all traditional "hunting rifles" used over the past century are based upon military rifles developed from the 1880s to about the 1950s? What was the orginal design of such rifles other than to "kill human beings" and why would now labeling it a "hunting rifle" lose that design feature?I am not sure about the relevance of your last paragraph, but I like your arguments, I must say.
This, I suspect, is a complicated problem, because when you have a large country of 300 million people stretching over a vast territory, then surely *all* social problems are going to be complicated.
The bottom line is that I cannot imagine reasonably that guns can be gotten rid of from American soil anyway, no matter what.
They are there now, period. There is no option to "get rid of them" -- it would be practically impossible.
Actually, an interesting parallel comes from Iraq (and I realize a lot of examples that use Iraq are bound to be subjective): I have heard one theory that the gentleman who took over the administration of Iraq after Saddam fell ignored the pre-decided strategy, and instead unilaterally fired the entire Iraqi army. But, of course, as anyone knows, soldiers have pretty easy access to guns... result? Thousands of young Iraqi men, newly unemployed, and with access to weapons... greeaaattt...
Anyway, the point is, in Iraq too, you're going to have a job rounding up all the weapons running about the place, and the US is the same in this regard.
So, why there are tens of thousands of homicides in the US every year... frankly I don't know why (but the reasons are bound to be more complicated than simply pointing a finger at gun possession).
- worried manposted 15 years ago0
putting the responsibility for violence on an inanimate object is senseless.People were murdering thousands of years before guns were developed.People are responsible for their actions,not their guns or their cars or their addictions.If you want to remove danger from society remove dangerous people.
- sneakorocksolidposted 15 years ago0
I'm not a fan of military style guns but I do like my hunting rifles and since we can't seem to close our borders, I am for all to be available to the law abiding public.
- sneakorocksolidposted 15 years ago0
For those of you who don't like guns there are lessons available. Go try them out you will soon see it's not the gun that is evil and those who own them legally are careful responsible people. Plus, believe it or not target shooting, trap and skeet are alot of safe fun. The more you work with them the better you handle them, just like driving a car.
- Madame Xposted 15 years ago0
Gun control: the theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
And ~that's~ the very best poor Ron can do, eh...
I don't think it's so much the guns THEMSELVES that need more legislating; I think it's the manner in which one is able to attain them. I'm a Texas native and a Tennessee resident, so I've been around guns since I was a kid. The first thing you learn as a kid in Tx is gun safety: How to load it, how to clean it, how to disassemble it and put it back together, always keep the safety on, never point it at anything you don't mean to shoot, etc. My buddy's dad would take us hunting and we could carry guns, but we couldn't load them. He made us hunt for 6 months learning hunting safety before we were ever permitted to chamber a single round.
Here in TN, you have to go through a 10 hour class to get certified to carry. It's classroom work, range time, tests on both, etc. People who are going through these courses are NOT the people out there shooting others. They're learning discipline in addition to marksmanship. Just like it's not your black-belts that are out in alleys beating people up when the club lets out, it's not you disciplined, experienced gun owners causing any of the problems.
The vast majority of gun-related violent crimes are done with either illegally obtained guns, unregistered guns, or by people who've never had any proper training. Don't disarm all of us because of a few bad seeds. Besides, it not like murder and crime were invented with the gun. Take away ALL the guns and the bad apples will just revert back to sticking you with a sword. We need more discipline. Not more control.- sneakorocksolidposted 15 years ago0
Give us a reason to not own military style weapons. Close the borders, clean up our poor neighborhoods and call things like they are not like you dream they should be.
Give no quarter sneako. There is no reason that if I can own a Hummer or Corvette that I shouldn't be able to own an AR-15. It operates just like those hunting rifles, but it looks so scary! Hunters who are okay with these meaningless incremental bans like the so-called "assault weapons" ban signed by Clinton are called Fudds, and they don't realize that their complacency on firearm restrictions does more harm than good. Just because shotguns aren't on the agenda now doesn't mean they aren't fodder for a different day. Just wait until some crazy person busts into a school with one again.
In the unlikely event that firearms are ever needed for the reasons the founders intended, then gun owners will need every high capacity, high performance firearm they can get their hands on.My friends have AR-15s and they shoot real nice and very accurate. I'm a hunter so I mostly have shotguns and a deer rifle. I'm with you on the law, I would rather buy a nice hunting rifle and the assault weapons are expensive.
I own a mini 14 rifle, not too much kick back...but the accuracy is sooooo perfect, get to target shoot in the desert a couple times a month!
Related Discussions
- 57
Do you believe modifying the Second Amendment is going to prevent mass acts of v
by flacoinohio 11 years ago
Do you believe modifying the Second Amendment is going to prevent mass acts of violence?This questions is for all of those situational or sunny day anti-gun advocates. Pro-gun advocates spend a lot of time and effort, not mention millions of dollars protecting the Second Amendment. If...
- 29
Should guns be restricted to military, police and security guards?
by Cindy Vine 13 years ago
Should guns be restricted to military, police and security guards?
- 4003
The outdated 2nd amendment.
by Mike Russo 8 years ago
Let's face facts people. The 2nd amendment was written for another time and another place. It has no place in today's world. It is causing mentally ill people to commit mass killings. The gun enthusiast who think they are going to protect themselves from government tyranny are...
- 16
Has the National Rifle Association gained too much power and influence in Americ
by Xenonlit 11 years ago
Has the National Rifle Association gained too much power and influence in America?Is it time to force the NRA to step out of the business of dictating our laws in ways that allow mass shootings? If no one pulls out the gun that they are allowed to carry and defends a crowd, then what good is the...
- 300
Guns: good or bad?
by Thaddeus Byron Bullock Jr. 11 years ago
There has always been debate and contention about whether or not people should own guns. There are many people who are firmly anti-gun, and there are equally as many people who believe that when used responsibly, there is nothing wrong with owning a gun. What do you think?
- 35
What are your thoughts on gun control?
by Josh Ratzburg 8 years ago
What are your thoughts on gun control?With the recent mass shooting in Oregon, it makes me think that there needs to be better gun control laws. "But criminals are still going to break laws and get guns, so you're really just controlling law-abiding citizens" ... maybe, but how many of...