|
|
|
|
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/29/2004 1:44:49 AM | | hrm ok the quote thing didnt work right but im sure everyone is smart enough to know what i did me and my typos:) | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/29/2004 4:12:27 AM | Another point perhaps overlooked.
I would'nt be the least bit surprised if at least 1,000 - 2,000 murders are planned in the U.S. every year. I believe that might still be conservative.
Now, supposing these murders are done with guns and the bodies left for the authorities to find, all of a sudden the Gun-Death Statistic goes up and guns become a very dangerous Public Menace.
Let's say though, that only a fraction got murdered with guns because something else more popular came along, all a sudden the Statistics are down, and "guns" are no longer such a big threat to Society.
And, should these Murderers dispose of the bodies so the authorities cannot find them, all of a sudden the crime rate is down. And if the majority of these bodies are left for the authorities to find, the crime rate goes up and we suddenly need more police. I don't know, maybe there is such a thing as murder trends ... who knows?
Murder is Murder!
Granted, a reasonable amount of gun control is needed. No argument. But let's not take our rights to bear arms away from us over arbitrary statistics.
And who decides what are too many Deaths caused by guns anyways? Is there a certain number in the Statistics that have to be reached before someone says: "Ok. That's it! No more Guns for you guys"
And does anyone think for one second making gun posession even more restrictive or illegal is going to eliminate murders? Try blocking off the Mexican border first before such ridiculous legislation is even brought to the table. People will still be killed by illegal guns. And the positive net effect of all this is? You guessed it, a law-abiding citizen can no longer defend his home because he is no longer allowed shoot back, playing right into the hands of those using illegal guns. Makes the job of murdering so much easier.
All too bogus and wishy-washy! | |
|
yna6
|
Joined: 5/2/2004
Msg: 103 | |
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/29/2004 1:33:38 PM | | yes there is trends in crime. right now, the ontario police feel there may be as many as 3-5 serial killers operating in that province alone. makes you wonder about higher populated areas, doesn't it... | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 11/3/2004 5:10:12 PM | | WE NEED BUSH CONTROL | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 11/4/2004 8:08:55 PM | JUST IN !!
68% OF THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR BUSH OWN A GUN
34% OF THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR KERRY OWN A GUN INTERESTING | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 11/5/2004 2:47:25 AM | Good!
Why have an election, when you can have an O.K. Corral-style shootout?
 | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 11/6/2004 2:09:35 AM | Guns are the most evil thing ever invited... like seriously...if you have one your bound to get yourself killed one way or any other Because if you kill somebody...then a police officer will want to kill you...and probly will...Or you just get spun into the circle of hate ...where everybody has guns and everybody wants to kill you and you want to kill everyone ... you understand? I'm glad there are laws that want guns to be banned... I dont want anybody to have guns... Not police officers, not criminals...not anybody...<---------------alright HUGE PROBLEM HERE, even if the police officers cannot have guns, your criminals are...... what world do you live in........OMG the thought of not having our officers have the ability to protect us or themselves......... you need to do a little more studying, and I have a few books you can borrow.
Alright I do not think I am going to waste anymore time answering these remarks, they were made by someone who is not understanding of how things really go. And I hve to remember these are opinions...... and you are not going to be able to change anything with your views........ Thank God. | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 11/10/2004 7:57:20 PM | I believe the US should not re-invent the WHEEL. We are not so great as Rome yet the greatest republic since Rome. We should do as the Romans: keeping their swords at hand.
The praetorian cohort that guarded the imperial palace and accompanied the emperor in the city of Rome was known as the cohors togata. As their duties were performed within the pomerium, the sacred boundary of the city, these soldiers could not wear full armour and equipment and therefore dressed in civilian togae, though keeping their swords at hand.
The praetorian guard
Under the republic Roman generals had usually formed a guard unit named cohors praetoria after the praetorium or HQ. Under the empire such units became a privilege reserved for the emperor under whose auspicia all military operations were conducted. Augustus originally formed nine numbered cohortes praetoriae consisting of both infantry and cavalry billeted at Rome and some other Italian cities. This number was later raised to ten units and the cohorts were concentrated in a large base adjacent to Rome. Command of the praetorian guard was entrusted to one or two equestrian praefecti praetorio. Three additional cohortes urbanae with a similar structure were also present at Rome, but not under the direct control of the praetorian prefects.
A praetorian cohort consisted of approximately 500 infantrymen organised in manipuli and centuriae and under the overall command of a tribunus. This strength was doubled in the course of the first century AD. The majority of praetorians fought as heavy infantry with smaller numbers acting as light infantry lancearii and archers. Added to these foot soldiers each cohort contained a number of cavalrymen. The combined equites praetoriani numbered at least 400 men and may even have been a thousand strong. Other troopers were known as equites speculatores and served as bodyguards to the emperor. The praetorian cohort that guarded the imperial palace and accompanied the emperor in the city of Rome was known as the cohors togata. As their duties were performed within the pomerium, the sacred boundary of the city, these soldiers could not wear full armour and equipment and therefore dressed in civilian togae, though keeping their swords at hand. | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 11/11/2004 5:43:38 AM | | I had a laugh about what Brundle said about "nothing to find". Had a cop friend mention frozen paint balls.................. | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 11/11/2004 1:41:07 PM | | Do you guys honestly think terrorists will buy legal guns in the united states or enywhere in the world? do you guy think the AK47s in the california shootout was legal? terrorists will always get a hold of guns one way or the other and the people who realy suffer are the law abiding citizens. | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/13/2005 5:13:17 PM | Also bear in mind a phrase which dates back millenia; "who will guard the guards". Basically, if we trust all of our defense and security needs to police or other "authorities", who will guard them to make sure THEY are in line?
Maybe it's only made bigtime media here in Houston, but over the last few years there has been an absolute epidemic of cops shooting people who are *completely* innocent. Try getting on a search engine and type in the name Pedro Oregon.
A few months back police stopped an SUV on foot. The stupid cop used a pistol to tap on the window, which (as he said on TV) "got hung" in the window's weatherproofing and "accidentally" went off, killing the driver. The officer's reason for stopping the SUV was because the driver was a young hispanic male who appeared "too young" to be driving an expensive vehicle.
A few weeks later, cops busted the door down to an apartment (without a warrant) because of an anonymous drug-related tip. All of the occupants inside were fatally shot; they were all in their early teens, playing video games, unarmed, sober, and not in posession of anything illegal.
There are hundreds more examples in this town alone, just in the past couple years. I happen to personally know the mother of a mentally retarted girl who was shot just walking down the street.
=====================
=====================
THIS, my friends, is why we have the 2nd Amendment. Cops get to murder people freely, and at the worst they get a temporary paid suspension should something make the news. As to "who will guard the guards", the answer is US. I am now just as likely to be shot by a renegade cop as I am a renegade criminal. NOW tell me that we should take guns out of the hands of citizens/civilians and only let police have them. | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/13/2005 5:39:27 PM | | Gun control means using both hands. Ain't no more to it than that. | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/13/2005 8:58:24 PM | | Great Subject and many good opinions and thought's. I read one guy say his aiiiieee would be his defense and I agree with that since I am a excelent fighter that would be my first line of defence. Then I read someone has a crossbow and I read about a sword, now for the crossbow I think that one is pretty useless cause you would have to hit a vital place on the body or head. The sword would be nice except someone like me may be able to take it away from you and put in somewhere that would not be very comfortable. Now please dont put words in my mouth cause I did say might, or you might slice me up. NOW listen very carefully and this goes to all the ones that think that it's a redneck rightwing gun toting lunatic that is the problem and only they are wrong and bad. As soon as the government comes knocking at too many doors or confiscating too many guns I guarantee at that point you will be right about the redneck rightwing gun toting lunatic will come out of the woodwork and do the right thing and kill the fascisct comminist socialiast pigs. | |
|
mauser
|
Joined: 1/3/2005
Msg: 114 | |
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/13/2005 9:34:44 PM | I am probably about as big of a gun nut as there is on this sight. I'm an NRA member and an active hunter and outdoors man. I also own 15 firearms ranging from a simple 22 to a 300 win mag with a variety of assault rifles and shotguns mixed in.
But I feel that there should be some common sense legalization that would keep more guns out of the wrong peoples hands. I would be a stanch supporter of instant background checks. As long as they don't infringe on a law abiding citizen to obtain the firearm of there choice. I would also support closing the gun show loophole as long as private citizens were allowed the same access to the ATF as gun dealers are.
However I don't support any far reaching gun control laws like we under that socialist Clinton's term in office. I believe that law abiding citizens have a right to bear arms and any government body that doesn't respect that right neither represents myself or the rule of law that this country was formed upon. | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/13/2005 9:40:45 PM | | actualy the terrorists weapon of choice is the bomb. simple, easy to make, can be assembled enywhere even in good ole canada, concealable and can be fuzed or remote detonated so noone knows it was you allowing you to plant another bomb another day. | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/14/2005 9:26:41 AM | One of the most striking differences between the U.S. and other countries when it comes to gun control is the assumption that ownership of a firearm is a "right" versus a privilege. The 'right' to gun ownership puts the onus on the government to show why someone is not responsible enough for gun ownership, while the alternative makes the opposite true.
Here is where the liklihood of abuse comes in. Gun control, often mistaken for a left-wing consipiracy to 'disarm' the people, is successful only when the process for ownership includes enough hurdles to make it somewhat difficult to simply obtain one.
Instant background checks, for example...I have yet to come up with a reason why someone could have a problem with waiting 48-72 hours for a weapon. However, this waiting period (which has shown to prevent crimes of passion, for example, as the wait allows cooler heads to prevail) is roundly dismissed as unconstitutional.
Limiting of calibre or capacity. A 9mm handgun...12 gauge shotgun...fully automatic machine gun...rocket launcher...I'm not sure, what comes next...ICBM? There seems to be this unquestioned assumption that military hardware is necessary for a citizen to own. Why? I don't know, perhaps deer hunting those pesky buggers in their reinforced armour hideouts? The elusive Delta Force Pheasant? Again, with little rationale use for these guns (and please, I know there are laws about fully automatic weapons, but so weak that they are laughable and easily over-ridden) they are still somehow held as sacrosanct by the NRA.
The fallacies of self-defence. More children kill themselves or other children with a gun found stored improperly in a home than citizens killing intruders or other self-defence situation. In fact, the liklihood is much greater that a gun in the home will be used against its owner than it will to defend someone. This fact alone should put the onus on the gun lobby to prove itself as a safe alternative. But the NRA fights desperately against measures such as fingerprinting safety locks and other technologies to ensure a gun is used only by its owner.
The outlandish argument of crime levels making gun ownership necessary. The most circular argument possible, since it has been shown time and again that as guns are made more numerous in a society, and more easily accessible, violent crime rises. Most countries that recognize this take the approach that fewer guns will lower crime rates...and the statistics seem to indicate this is what happens. The U.S. approach has been..."rising crime, you're in more danger, buy a gun to protect yourself..." which means more guns available, and crime in the U.S. seems to be much higher as a result.
No one argues that guns should be absolutely removed from society (although, it seems an interesting cost exchange...fewer children killing themselves versus being able to hunt a moose) but the fact is the overall benefits of strong control measures are hardly such that anyone really is going to miss out too much. | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/14/2005 2:33:31 PM | | Yes and any or that and the more that others want will totally defeat the intention of the founding fathers. That is why the second admendment is written the way it is and why it is there. This was to be a country of the people not the government, police, or military. So, here in the USA, it is a right and not a privelege. Personally I hope it stays that way. On the other hand I would freely give up my right to keep and bear arms if it could be guarenteed that the police, and military would never abuse their power. And if it could be guarenteed that no criminals would ever be able to get their hands on a gun of any sort. Ain't gonna happen. | |
|
mauser
|
Joined: 1/3/2005
Msg: 118 | |
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/14/2005 3:02:27 PM | | woodrow I would love to know where you get your stats. Or are you just making this up as you go? | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/14/2005 3:02:29 PM |
On the other hand I would freely give up my right to keep and bear arms if it could be guarenteed that the police, and military would never abuse their power. And if it could be guarenteed that no criminals would ever be able to get their hands on a gun of any sort. Ain't gonna happen.
No, of course, you're right those things aren't going to happen...here are some other things that aren't going to happen, though...
1. Should the police decide to abuse their power, from which I gather you mean in such a way that they're coming after you...they'll win. No matter how many guns you own, no matter whether the guns you have are assault rifles and anti-aircraft guns, the police are gonna come out on top. Personally, that makes me feel just a little bit safer at night, but hey, that's just me.
2. Assuming for a second we aren't of the opinion that the U.S. military isn't already abusing its power (albeit in Iraq but let's not split hair triggers), and instead are talking about the military abusing its power in the U.S. (and again, I presume you mean abusing it and coming after you), then they will win. Not only will they win, but they'll make the ass-whupping the police gave you earlier look like a light spanking.
3. Stats are clear about criminals having the ability to access guns. They will continue to do so the more guns that are available. That being said, the stats seem to point to an outcome that favours the criminals when it involves a victim with a gun. Whether that is because the victim with the gun is not qualified to defend themselves with said weapon or because the victim is too busy making sure the criminal isn't in fact just the leading charge of an abusive police force or unit of U.S. Marines is unclear, but the end result is the same.
And here are a couple things that will happen...
1. While you're waiting for the army, police and marauding hordes of criminals to make your gun purchase worthwhile, there will literally be thousands of small children who take their lives or their playmates lives accidently. There will be thousands of adolescents who take their own lives on purpose, with the assistance of a gun their parents have for self-defence and there will be thousands of violent crimes committed with guns that were stolen from law abiding citizens.
2. Paranoia will remain an illusive but treatable mental condition. | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/14/2005 3:37:11 PM | Sure...stats it is...none of it is made up, although I haven't the time or the patience to go and find every bit of information that I've seen, heard or read over the years...
How about I just give you some stats, and you tell me which stat you find so alarming, and I'll do my best to either give you some information to find it yourself (if you're so inclined, and by that I mean that it will actually change your mind about any of this) or if it's reasonably easy for me to put my hands on it, I'll put it up here.
The link is underneath the text...please note some of the flaming liberal, entirely partisan sources, such as Scientific American, the New England Journal of Medicine and the FBI.
Here's a comparison of countries...homicide rates with and without guns...suicide rates with and without guns...per 100 000.
http://www.newsbatch.com/gc-intguns.html
Self defence:
But research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.(Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.) The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death(FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48).
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm#The%20problem%20with
This is for one year: 1994:
Of 1,356 accidental deaths by gunshot in 1994, 185 involved children 14 years old and
younger.[11] For each such fatality, there are several accidental shootings that cause serious
injury. Guns were also the means of destruction in 19,590 suicides, 210 involving children 14 or younger.
Private citizens sometimes use their guns to scare off trespassers and fend off assaults. Such defensive gun uses (DGUs) are sometimes invoked as a measure of the public benefits of private gun ownership. On the basis of data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data, one would conclude that defensive uses are rare
indeed, about 108,000 per year.
http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt
Here's a stat about suicide and it's higher rate with homes with guns
Residents of homes where a gun is present are 5 times more likely to experience a suicide than residents of homes without guns (Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 327, No. 7, August 13, 1992, pp. 467-472.) Although the reader may or may not disagree with the morality behind suicide being illegal, the fact remains that a gun makes it easier to commit suicide in a fit of rage, depression, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
(my note: sense of guns making it easier to commit suidide due to rage/drugs etc follows through logically on the idea of crimes of passion against a family member)
Also
Obviously, there is a problem with criminals having access to guns, which is why so many people feel they, too, need a gun for self-defense. But this is a vicious cycle: FBI Crime Reports sources indicate that there are about 340,000 reported firearms thefts every year. Those guns, the overwhelming amount of which were originally manufactured and purchased legally, and now in the hands of criminals. Thus, the old credo "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is silly. What happens is many guns bought legally are sold or stolen, and can then be used for crime.
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm#The%20problem%20with
A study of 743 gunshot deaths by Dr. Arthur Kellermann and Dr. Donald Reay published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that 84% of these homicides occurred during altercations in the home. Only 2 of the 743 gunshot deaths occurring in the home involved an intruder killed during an attempted entry, and only 9 of the deaths were determined by police/courts to be justified (FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48). The evidence revealed in the Kellermann study is consistent with data reported by the FBI. In 1993, there were 24,526 people murdered, 13,980 with handguns, yet only 251 justifiable homicides by civilians using handguns. (FBI, Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Reports 1994, 1995).
For example, a review of 13 countries showed that there was a strong correlation between gun ownership and both homicide with a gun and overall homicide rates (Killias excluded Northern Ireland from the analysis because of the level of civil unrest). In an analysis of 14 countries, the correlation between gun ownership and gun suicide was also significant, as was the correlation of gun ownership with overall suicide rates. Killias found no evidence of a compensation process whereby other means were substituted with firearms. (Killias, M. "International Correlations between Gun Ownership and Rate of Homicide and Suicide." Canadian Medical Association Journal. 1993;148 (10): 1721-5) | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/14/2005 4:11:52 PM | | I served our country 6 years in Marine Corps. I know what guns can do. A lot of bad things. But also a lot of good things. Our basic freedoms we take for granted were won by courage and guns. Your freedom to speak here for instance. And you have that right to voice and feel that way. You can thank guns partially for that. Yes accidents happen-because of ignorance and lack of education. Coincidently the same reason for any acidents that happen just about. Instead of banning, there should be education for those who want the right to have guns. Yes there should be some kind of monitoring/control. but never to eliminate. Lets say you succeed in eliminating the right to own and purchase guns. You'll be at the mercy of criminals-who will still have guns. Drugs are illegal-no shortage of them in the U.S. Thats because criminals still have them. As far as murder ans suicide-still will have them. Just as easy to kill someone with a blade as a gun. Still can pop some pills to end my life. It's cliche', but guns don't kill people-people do. Elimination of guns will only end the means by which people meet thier end. And you'll be at the mercy of anyone who has one. With the right to bare arms, at least you're on equal grounds with potential threats. You still can make the decision not to use it. Lastly, If you were were a criminal, would you attack the person with the gun, or without. | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/14/2005 4:30:43 PM | Kobold,
I entirely respect your opinion/outlook on that front. This seems to be a common attitude in the U.S. and not one that is going to change soon...
It's just the cost for that opinion is very high, and the currency is innocent lives. | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/14/2005 6:15:25 PM | Kobold gets it and it is very easy to get. If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have them or previously law abiding citizens. Should guns actually be removed then people that want to kill or lose their temper or are unstable mentally, kids fit in there too, or have you forgotten your childhood, then people would use knives. Eliminate knives they would use a screwdriver, or a sword, or a pencil, or a stone. People kill using what ever they can convienently get. Most crimes and deaths come by means of other types of weapons instead of guns and 1 in ten crimes that is attempted, where the victim merely displays a gun, is averted. National crime statistics quoted by the NRA. Should the government, police, terrorists, or any other group of power run amok and be in the general area then they should bring lots of body bags. Believe me there are a lot of other people that feel that way too. That is why the second amendment states something to the effect that freedom should be guarded by a well armed militia, which is the people. And at the time that it was written the people, most that had firearms, had the same sort of weapons as the military.
I was living about two blocks from the federal penitentiary in Atlanta when the Cuban riots broke out. I was really glad that I was ready in the event that they escaped the prison. Say what you like but private gun ownership commands respect and does help in the check and balances of this country. I know that you would not believe it but one reason that an invasion of this country would be so difficult to carry out is that so many people do own firearms. Those innocent lives you are talking about being taken shold be attributed to careless gun owners, bad parents, or criminals, not the guns themselves. Guns are neither good or bad but rather the people that use or abuse them as the case may be. So it is with any other inanimate objects. | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/14/2005 6:31:20 PM |
National crime statistics quoted by the NRA
Oh, well, if they're the stats quoted by the NRA...
However, as you see from some stats offered from outside of everyone's favourite non-partisan think tank on the issue of guns...not many of your points are necessarily cut and dried.
With all due respect to Charlton Heston...asking the NRA to provide you with statistics to back up gun rights is like putting Enron in charge of tax collection. | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/14/2005 7:24:12 PM | | Those are the stats of the US Government and cities around the nation. They were quoted by the NRA but not gathered or created by the NRA. That is my voice in Washington. It is a big one and has to be to quiet the jellyfish that constantly swarm the capitol. | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 50
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
|
Home
login 
