Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 maxx44
Joined: 8/19/2006
Msg: 82
gun control in the usaPage 2 of 102    (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)
Freedom of speach? too many words in the USA, maybe they should limit what you can say. Does that sound good to you too? Everyone is always wanting to change what this country was based on, get a life would you!
 sweetie425
Joined: 5/24/2005
Msg: 85
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 3:33:30 PM
I can't understand how people think gun control is the answer. Someone explain the reasoning behind it. Don't give me statistics, statistics can be used to prove any point someone wants to make. Give me a common sense argument on how gun control is going to save lives when there are so many other ways to kill people if that is someones goal. If not with a gun then something else will be used. A homemade bomb, a car bomb, a deliberately set fire, a knife, a club, a broken bottle, a knife, even a pair of fists, any of these things will work as good as a gun.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun, a bomb, a knife, a broken beer bottle, or fists, what's the difference how violence is committed ? Those who want to do violence, create mayhem will always find a way.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 88
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 3:56:47 PM


Do people in the US really feel that unsafe that they feel the need to own a gun?


The US has a fairly high crime rate. However, studies have shown that violent crime increases when gun control laws are put in place. It has also been shown that Americans use firearms in self-defense over a million times each year. The vast majority of gun owners do not use them in the commission of a crime.
 sweetie425
Joined: 5/24/2005
Msg: 92
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 4:52:46 PM
So what you're openly saying here is you don't want facts, you want something that sounds good. Unfortunately public policy is usually best when it involves facts rather than emotional pandering.


No charlesedm,

What I'm saying is that it gets to the point were on person posts stats to back up his point and then someone else posts stats to back up their point and you have post after posts of statistics instead of debate.

My point is what is the difference if you kill someone with a knife or a gun or by any other means. Many point to the VT incident and say if only there were gun control. My point is if he couldn't have gotten his hands on a gun he could have used a home made bomb or set a fire or poisioned the water, air or food.

Would it have been any less tragic if he would have killed 35 people by bombing the building or setting it on fire or by some other means ?

That is the point I was trying to make, and would like to hear why that's not a valid point. The fact that people can use other things to commit mass murder besides guns. Years ago someone blew up a school using dynamite killed more people than VT. The airplane that flew into the WTC killed thousands.

I'm saying we cann't protect ourselves from somone that is intent to cause harm. That person will find away. That is the point I was trying to make, and was looking for someone to explain to me how that isn't the case.
 maxxoccupancy
Joined: 2/5/2007
Msg: 94
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 5:22:10 PM
The state legislatures of New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Missouri, and other states have made it difficult for law abiding citizens to carry firearms, and all have seen their violent crime rates increase. When criminals realize that their prospective victims are unarmed, they have been much more likely to victimize people. The stereotype of Americans having easy access to firearms compared to the rest of the world is only true in a few "shall issue" states, which consequently attract a strong gun culture, a deter criminals.

Florida and Texas both reversed strict gun control laws--i.e., laws disarming citizens with no criminal offenses--and saw violent crime rate decline. New Hampshire, Vermont, Montana, and other states that are so called "shall issue" states tend to have more heavily armed populations.

Cities like Washington, D.C., Boston, Baltimore, New Orleans, New York City, San Francisco, and other cities have disarmed their people, and crime rates have skyrocketed. Australia, Jamaica, Britain, and, to a lesser extent, Canada have enacted strict gun control laws, and all have seen their crime rates increases. The gun buyback fad ended in the States after it became apparent that gun buyback cities also saw crime increases. They became havens for criminals.

If you are undecided about gun control, I strongly recommend that you pick up a copy of More Guns Less Crime, by John R. Lott. The book is thoroughly researched and well written. It is an objective and widely respected book that has opened a lot of eyes on the issue.

Today, a majority of rank and file police officers, police chiefs, and criminal justice policy experts no longer support gun control, having seen its negative effects.
 sweetie425
Joined: 5/24/2005
Msg: 106
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/23/2007 1:00:07 AM
You have no idea what he was capable of.


Exactly, You nor I have any idea of what he was capable of, there is not way to say that if he didn't have a gun 30 people won't have died.

Pro-gunners in the USA just don't like how every other first world nation has better crime statistics.


Now that's funny. rotfl That statement reminds me of some little kid going around saying na na na na na you're just jealous cause my countries crime stats. are better than your countries crime stats. rotfl . It has nothing to do with jealousy, it's a difference of opinion, in a way of thinking.
 Pyro74
Joined: 4/23/2006
Msg: 112
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/23/2007 3:17:22 AM
Back to main topic "gun control in the usa"
This argument is dead. It is far too late to control the amount of guns we have in the USA.
 LoonyTunz
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 121
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/23/2007 1:05:25 PM
^^^^^^ the post above lists exactly the people that I'd prefer not to have easy access to anything dangerous to others Man you might want to make driving tests tougher while you are at it and DUI sentences stiffer.
Mature and responsible people cause very little problems with firearms or much of anything else for that matter but, the desciption above doesn't denote a mature and civilized society.

BTW Arizona improved from 2005 to 2006, they are now only the 47th state for resident safety(where 1 is safest and 50 is least safe), the year before they were 48th.
 livefire
Joined: 2/3/2007
Msg: 124
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/23/2007 2:15:34 PM
Do other countries all have more restrictive gun laws and lower violent crime rates than the U.S.? How do U.S. and other countries` crime trends compare? What societal factors affect crime rates?

A recent report for Congress notes, "All countries have some form of firearms regulation, ranging from the very strictly regulated countries like Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Sweden to the less stringently controlled uses in the jurisdictions of Mexico and Switzerland, where the right to bear arms continues as a part of the national heritage up to the present time." However, "From available statistics, among (the 27) countries surveyed, it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes. . . . (I)n Canada a dramatic increase in the percentage of handguns used in all homicides was reported during a period in which handguns were most strictly regulated. And in strictly regulated Germany, gun-related crime is much higher than in countries such as Switzerland and Israel, that have simpler and/or less restrictive legislation." (Library of Congress, "Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998.")

Many foreign countries have less restrictive firearms laws, and lower crime rates, than parts of the U.S. that have more restrictions. And many have low crime rates, despite having very different firearms laws. Switzerland and Japan "stand out as intriguing models. . . . (T)hey have crime rates that are among the lowest in the industrialized world, and yet they have diametrically opposite gun policies." (Nicholas D. Kristof, "One Nation Bars, The Other Requires," New York Times, 3/10/96.) Swiss citizens are issued fully-automatic rifles to keep at home for national defense purposes, yet "abuse of military weapons is rare." The Swiss own two million firearms, including handguns and semi-automatic rifles, they shoot about 60 million rounds of ammunition per year, and "the rate of violent gun abuse is low." (Stephen P. Halbrook, Target Switzerland; Library of Congress, pp. 183-184.) In Japan, rifles and handguns are prohibited; shotguns are very strictly regulated. Japan`s Olympic shooters have had to practice out of the country because of their country`s gun laws. Yet, crime has been rising for about the last 15 years and the number of shooting crimes more than doubled between 1997-1998. Organized crime is on the rise and 12 people were killed and 5,500 injured in a nerve gas attack in a Japanese subway system in 1995. (Kristof, "Family and Peer Pressure Help Keep Crime Levels down in Japan," New York Times, 5/14/95.) Mostly without firearms, Japan`s suicide rate is at a record high, about 90 per day. (Stephanie Strom, "In Japan, Mired in Recession, Suicides Soar," New York Times, p. 1, 7/15/99.)

U.S. crime trends have been better than those in countries with restrictive firearms laws. Since 1991, with what HCI calls "weak gun laws" (Sarah Brady, "Our Country`s Claim to Shame," 5/5/97), the number of privately owned firearms has risen by perhaps 50 million. Americans bought 37 million new firearms in the 1993-1999 time frame alone. (BATF, Crime Gun Trace Reports, 1999, National Report, 11/00.) Meanwhile, America`s violent crime rate has decreased every year and is now at a 23- year low (FBI). In addition to Japan, other restrictive countries have experienced increases in crime:
England -- Licenses have been required for rifles and handguns since 1920, and for shotguns since 1967. A decade ago semi-automatic and pump-action center-fire rifles, and all handguns except single- shot .22s, were prohibited. The .22s were banned in 1997. Shotguns must be registered and semi-automatic shotguns that can hold more than two shells must be licensed. Despite a near ban on private ownership of firearms, "English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981. . . . In 1995 the English robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America`s. . . . the English assault rate was more than double America`s." All told, "Whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than England." (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and in Wales, 1981-1996," 10/98.) An English doctor is suspected of murdering more than 200 people, many times the number killed in the gun-related crimes used to justify the most recent restrictions.

"A June 2000 CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain `one of the most violent urban societies in the Western world.` Declared Dan Rather: `This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting a civilized island free from crime and ugliness. . . (But now) the U.K. has a crime problem . . . worse than ours.`" (David Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From Bad to Worse," America`s First Freedom, 3/01, p. 26.) Street crime increased 47% between 1999 and 2000 (John Steele, "Crime on streets of London doubles," London Daily Telegraph, Feb. 29, 2000.) See also www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/okslip.html, www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment071800c.html, and www.nraila.org/research/19990716-BillofRightsCivilRights-030.html.

Australia -- Licensing of gun owners was imposed in 1973, each handgun requires a separate license, and self-defense is not considered a legitimate reason to have a firearm. Registration of firearms was imposed in 1985. In May 1996 semi-automatic center-fire rifles and many semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns were prohibited. As of Oct. 2000, about 660,000 privately owned firearms had been confiscated and destroyed. However, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, between 1996-1998 assaults rose 16 percent, armed robberies rose 73 percent, and unlawful entries rose eight percent. Murders increased slightly in 1997 and decreased slightly in 1998. (Jacob Sullum, "Guns down under," Reason, Australia, p. 10, 10/1/00) For more information on Australian crime trends, see www.nraila.org/research/20000329-BanningGuns-001.shtml.

Canada -- A 1934 law required registration of handguns. A 1977 law (Bill C-51) required a "Firearms Acquisition Certificate" for acquiring a firearm, eliminated protection of property as a reason for acquiring a handgun, and required registration of "restricted weapons," defined to include semi- automatic rifles legislatively attacked in this country under the slang and confusing misnomer, "assault weapon." The 1995 Canadian Firearms Act (C-68) prohibited compact handguns and all handguns in .32 or .25 caliber -- half of privately owned handguns. It required all gun owners to be licensed by Jan. 1, 2000, and to register all rifles and shotguns by Jan. 1, 2003. C-68 broadened the police powers of "search and seizure" and allowed the police to enter homes without search warrants, to "inspect" gun storage and look for unregistered guns. Canada has no American "Fifth Amendment;" C-68 requires suspected gun owners to testify against themselves. Because armed self-defense is considered inappropriate by the government, "Prohibited Weapons Orders" have prohibited private possession and use of Mace and similar, non-firearm means of protection. (For more information, see www.cfc- ccaf.gc.ca and www.nraila.org/research/20010215-InternationalGunControl-001.shtml.

From 1978 to 1988, Canada`s burglary rate increased 25%, surpassing the U.S. rate. Half of burglaries in Canada are of occupied homes, compared to only 10% in the U.S. From 1976 to 1980, ethnically and economically similar areas of the U.S. and Canada had virtually identical homicide rates, despite significantly different firearm laws. See also www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120700.shtml

Germany -- Described in the Library of Congress report as "among the most stringent in Europe," Germany`s laws are almost as restrictive as those which HCI wants imposed in the U.S. Licenses are required to buy or own a firearm, and to get a license a German must prove his or her "need" and pass a government test. Different licenses are required for hunters, recreational shooters, and collectors. As is the case in Washington, D.C., it is illegal to have a gun ready for defensive use in your own home. Before being allowed to have a firearm for protection, a German must again prove "need." Yet the annual number of firearm-related murders in Germany rose 76% between 1992-1995. (Library of Congress, p. 69.) It should be noted, HCI goes further than the Germans, believing "there is no constitutional right to self-defense" (HCI Chair Sarah Brady, quoted in Tom Jackson, "Keeping the Battle Alive," Tampa Tribune, 10/21/93) and "the only reason for guns in civilian hands is sporting purposes" (HCI`s Center to Prevent Handgun Violence Director, Dennis Henigan, quoted in USA Today, 11/20/91).

Italy -- There are limits on the number of firearms and the quantity of ammunition a person may own. To be issued a permit to carry a firearm, a person must prove an established need, such as a dangerous occupation. Firearms which use the same ammunition as firearms used by the military -- which in America would include countless millions of rifles, shotguns, and handguns -- and ammunition for them are prohibited. Yet, "Italy`s gun law, `the most restrictive in Europe,` had left her southern provinces alone with a thousand firearm murders a year, thirty times Switzerland`s total." (Richard A. I. Munday, Most Armed & Most Free?, Brightlingsea, Essex: Piedmont Publishing, 1996.)

Foreign Country Cultures, Law Enforcement Policies, and Criminal Justice Systems
While America is quite different from certain countries in terms of firearms laws, we are just as different from those countries in other respects which have a much greater influence on crime rates. Attorney David Kopel explains, "There is little evidence that foreign gun statutes, with at best a mixed record in their own countries, would succeed in the United States. Contrary to the claims of the American gun-control movement, gun control does not deserve credit for the low crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations. Despite strict and sometimes draconian gun controls in other nations, guns remain readily available on the criminal black market. . . . The experiences of (England, Japan, Canada, and the United States) point to social control as far more important than gun control. Gun control (in foreign countries) validates other authoritarian features of the society. Exaltation of the police and submission to authority are values, which, when internally adopted by the citizenry, keep people out of trouble with the law. The most important effect of gun control in Japan and the Commonwealth is that it reinforces the message that citizens must be obedient to the government." (The Samurai, The Mountie, and The Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1992, pp. 431.)

Kopel notes that crime is also suppressed in some foreign countries by law enforcement and criminal justice policies that would run afoul of civil rights protections in the U.S. Constitution and which the American people would not accept. "Foreign gun control comes along with searches and seizures, and with many other restrictions on civil liberties too intrusive for America," Kopel observes. "Foreign gun control . . . postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government and society fundamentally at odds with the individualist and egalitarian American ethos. In the United States, the people give the law to government, not, as in almost every other country, the other way around." Following are details for two countries which anti-gun activists often compare to the U.S.:

Britain -- Parliament increasingly has given the police power to stop and search vehicles as well as pedestrians. Police may arrest any person they "reasonably" suspect supports an illegal organization. The grand jury, an ancient common law institution, was abolished in 1933. Civil jury trials have been abolished in all cases except libel, and criminal jury trials are rare. . . . While America has the Miranda rules, Britain allows police to interrogate suspects who have asked that interrogation stop, and allows the police to keep defense lawyers away from suspects under interrogation for limited periods. Britain allows evidence which has been derived from a coerced confession to be used in court. Wiretaps do not need judicial approval and it is unlawful in a British court to point out the fact that a police wiretap was illegal." (Kopel, 1992, pp. 101-102.)

Recently, London law enforcement authorities began installing cameras overlooking selected intersections in the city`s business district, to observe passers-by on the sidewalks. The British Home Office has introduced "`Anti-Social Behaviour Orders` -- special court orders intended to deal with people who cannot be proven to have committed a crime, but whom the police want to restrict anyway. Behaviour Orders can, among other things, prohibit a person from visiting a particular street or premises, set a curfew or lead to a person`s eviction from his home. Violation of a Behaviour Order can carry a prison sentence of up to five years. Prime Minister Tony Blair is now proposing that the government be allowed to confine people proactively, based on fears of their potential danger to society." (Kopel, et al., 2001, p. 27.)

"The British government frequently bans books on national security grounds. In addition, England`s libel laws tend to favor those who bring suit against a free press. Prior restraint of speech in the United States is allowed only in the most urgent of circumstances. In England, the government may apply for a prior restraint of speech ex parte, asking a court to censor a newspaper without the newspaper even having notice or the opportunity to present an argument. . . . Free speech in Great Britain is also constrained by the Official Secrets Act, which outlaws the unauthorized receipt of information from any government agency, and allows the government to forbid publication of any `secret` it pleases. . . . The act was expanded in 1920 and again in 1989 -- times when gun controls were also expanded." (Kopel, 1991, pp. 99-102.)
 dalek1967
Joined: 1/20/2007
Msg: 127
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/23/2007 3:36:58 PM
Just so you will know, we don't "hide" behind our constitution, we fight to protect it. We protect it from anyone who threatens to take our rights away. The terrorists want to change our way of living, back to the stone age like they live. We not only say no to that, but we say hell no!!

Since people think outlawing guns will help, look at how outlawing drugs has worked. They are still being made or brought in here. People are still killing themselves with them. People can get drugs in every town in the nation. Yup, works so far.

 readyfordating
Joined: 7/25/2006
Msg: 131
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/23/2007 4:51:39 PM
Hey Chuckie, I noticed you didn't reply to Livefire.......couldn't find any damning evidence on Snopes this time?
 hank_jr68
Joined: 6/2/2006
Msg: 136
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/23/2007 6:27:48 PM
I thought Gun Control was the ability to hit your target
 readyfordating
Joined: 7/25/2006
Msg: 137
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/23/2007 6:29:30 PM
LMAO @ nightcowboy, he's a political science graduate, he's used to toying with the numbers!
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 141
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/23/2007 8:00:34 PM

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " Ben Franklin


Interesting quote.

I don't know the context in which it was uttered, but it strikes me that about the same time a certain document was produced that proclaimed certain rights to be self-evident: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If someone is pointing a gun at me my life is certainly in question, my liberty sorely limited, and happiness in short supply. Having a gun of my own to point back may purchase me a bit of temporary safety, but I'd much prefer the essential liberty to live a life free of such threats.

I understand that simply passing a law making gun ownership illegal wouldn't help a lot, with all the guns scattered about the countryside that would then only be in the hands of those breaking the law.

But here's a radical thought: suppose we took, oh, half the money we've spent making a mess in Iraq fostering far more anti-american terrorists than existed before we went there, divided that sum by the estimated total number of guns in the U.S., and offered cash rewards for every gun turned in to be melted down. I haven't done the math, but I wouldn't be surprised if the cash value for any weapon would then be far greater to destroy it than to sell it on the black market, we'd stimulate the economy far more than the Bush tax breaks ever did, and even black marketeers can recognize a higher profit when they see it.

Maybe then I'd have a far bigger chunk of essential liberty than my grandfather's 12-gauge buys me in temporary safety.

Just a thought,

Dave
 feanor3791
Joined: 4/17/2007
Msg: 143
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/23/2007 8:32:04 PM
Excellent post, Livefire.

If you want to get pedantic, charlesedm, let's look at your argument. Quoting the one Latin phrase you remember from rhetoric class doesn't make you smart, it makes you pretentious.

You say that there is no causative link between the gun control measures and the oppression that followed, and it is true that no causative link is posted in the quotes. But let's take a look at each situation and see if we can make some logical hypothesis.

Guatemala, 1964-1981: A series of dictatorships in power by questionable elections and military coups.

China, 1948-1952: Communist

Germany, 1939-1945: National Socialist

Uganda, 1971-1979: Islamic dictatorship

Cambodia, 1975-1977: Communist

USSR, 1928-1953: Communist

Turkey, 1914-1917: Islamic dictatorship

What kind of pattern do we see emerging here? To me it appears that certain types of governments seem to be disproportiately represented in this list. They are all either dictatorships or socialist states. But beyond that there's something even more significant: they are all totalitarian. And disarming the citizens is one of the first steps to forming a totalitarian state. If you are going to oppress the people and take away their civil rights, you don't want them to be armed.

No one is claiming here that gun control is the sole causative factor in genocide and mass murder of citizens by government. The point is that it is one of the early warning signs of coming totalitarianism, and something that Americans (and it seems still a few Canadians) want to avoid. And just because it hasn't happened in certain countries yet, doesn't mean it can't or won't. We Americans look with horror on reports (as mentioned above) of innocent homeowners, business owners, and other citizens being sent to prison in places like Australia and UK because they used guns to defend their lives and property. That IS the beginning of totalitarianism, as is the suppression of free speech (for example, you can be sent to prison in UK and France for "hate speech" which basically means saying things that are politically incorrect). And for the Englishman above, whose name I don't remember, sometimes you have to take a guilty life in order to spare an innocent one. I would rather kill a thousand intruders in my home than allow one of them to hurt or kill one of my children.

It's easy to cast aspersions on America from up there in the security of our shadow. How about we separate, and you become responsible for your own defense from now on? And for all of you liberal Canadians, Australians, British, French, and the rest: don't lecture US about freedom and democracy. WE INVENTED IT. I know the French like to claim that honor, but they are liars. U.S.A., democracy 1776; France, democracy (sort-of) 1789, democracy (actual) 1870. None of you would be free if not for us. You weren't complaining of "U.S. military aggression" in 1944. We were the first nation of free men in the modern world, and we will be the last, as one by one the rest of you sink into the mire of socialist totalitarianism. But remember this, before you start the America-bashing up again. More Americans have died in defense of the freedoms and lives of foreigners and strangers than any other nation in history. And once the war is won, what do we do? Do we build an empire and rule the world from Washington? No, we help the nations reconstruct, at the cost of our own blood, sweat, and money, and then we politely give the people back their countries, when they are able to run them as responsible citizens of the free world. So, all of you America-haters, including the traitorous ones within our own borders, can take your Marxist rhetoric and choke on it.
 feanor3791
Joined: 4/17/2007
Msg: 145
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/23/2007 9:53:26 PM
You are engaging in the usual liberal tactic of misquoting, editing, and, to use your own words, "appeals to emotion". One of the favorite tricks of the accomplished liar is to accuse his enemy of the thing which he is, himself, guilty.


"maby" I do, or maybe I read very quickly, and maybe this is a field in which I studied. But I guess you probably hold my education against me. Your type usually does.


If this isn't a personal attack, what is?


The french beat you by several years. (Despite you calling them liars, oddly enough)


In which calendar does 1789 come before 1776?


and the greeks beat you by several thousand years.


You decided to overlook the fact that I clearly said "in the modern world". And Greek democracy was much different from American democracy. You speak of ours as a hegemony of white males, but the Greek democracy was a much narrower hegemony, with only certain social classes being entitled to its freedoms.


of course the actual laws don't corespond to the years you're putting forward, they're off by several decades. Many of those restrictions were put on by democratic instutions.


Again, you cannot argue my actual point, so you take a piece of it out of context and act like you're saying something original. The gun control laws would have to be passed by democratic (or otherwise pre-totalitarian) institutions, because the gun control is a step ON THE WAY to totalitarianism. It's quite simple logic, really, and since you've apparently studied logic, I'll assume that you're being intentionally obtuse in order to be dishonest in your arguments.


You claim there is a pattern, well I showed you a counter pattern. The simple fact is is that many countries have existed in democracies with firearms restrictions for many decades and none of these countries have suddenly become totalitarian.


Your logic contradicts itself here. You point out that the gun laws predate the oppressions, sometimes by over a decade, then derisively say that none of these countries have "suddenly" become totalitarian. But your own argument shows that it is a PROCESS, not a sudden event. You also, again, choose to ignore the part of my post that acknowledges that the gun-control is not THE immediate and only causative factor in this process, but rather a symptom and one of its enabling steps.


Also don't blame me that some logical fallicies are refered to by their latin names, it's not my fault you suffer from ant-intellectualism, I hardly named the things.


No, you didn't name them, but that wasn't my point, was it? My point was that your conspicuous and vain use of the term (including a link for us poor, undereducated buffoons and a condescending explanation) shows that your opinion of your own intellectual ability is much higher than your actual command of logic (and grammar) justify, and that you are an arrogant, pretentious ass. As for "ant-intellectualism" as you call it (is that some sort of anti-formian remark?) I hardly need to respond to such childish and unsupported insults. By the way, if you make fun of other people's spelling and grammar, you should probably check your own writing before you post it.


You're appeals to emotion and personal attacks don't make your possition any stronger. They just indicate your own inability to deal with statistics.


Where, exactly, did I make an appeal to emotion? I expressed some of my own, at the end, but that's hardly part of my argument. And, pardon me, statistics? To what statistics are you referring? Do you need me to point you to a Wikipedia article with the definition of the word? And, again the personal attacks that you act as if you are above.


Well except for the blacks. and women, and well you know....


See comments on hegemony, above. Also, I notice that you don't mention the Indians. Is that because you are all too aware of your own nation's shortcomings in that area? And, in case they've edited it out of your history books, Canada practice African slavery until 1833. As for women, white women (and free blacks and others) were free. I won't get into feminism here, you can read about it in other threads.


Yes I remember in nazi germany and cambodia how it started, first they came for the people who defended themselves against home invaders..... PLEASE. Some perspective here.


Once again, you're engaging in an imaginary argument. To paraphrase your snotty remark (but with better grammar) "Your snide sarcasm and personal attacks don't make your position any stronger." Why don't you address my ACTUAL argument, that disarming citizens is necessary to make oppression workable, because you can't engage in the kind of mass arrests and murder in the streets that the Nazis and Khmer Rouge did if all of those citizens are armed. Or at least, not so easily.


You know how they started? By appealing to fear, and the hatred of minority groups, and abusing groups they blamed for their problems.


Yes, exactly. And this time, the minority groups are fundamentalist Christians, conservative Catholics, Republicans, and white males in general. That's why we're concerned.


Look at wiretaps and guantanamo bay buddy, your priorities and fears are all mixed up.


Those of us who actually love America and care about our national security (and whose business it is) are willing to make some temporary sacrifices during time of war to further the cause. Is there potential for abuse? Absolutely. Our government is by no means perfect, and there are many things that we're not happy about. But wiretaps aimed at rooting out our enemies are relatively low on that list. And as far as Guantanamo, what P.O.W.s in history have been treated half so well? Those people are enemy combatants, and I, personally, don't give a **** whether they're comfortable or not.

And I am by no means your buddy. I am your enemy.

Why is it that people from all over the world believe that they have the right to meddle in our internal politics? Seriously, if you're not an American, you have no business commenting in a thread on gun control in the U.S. In other words, butt out.
 livefire
Joined: 2/3/2007
Msg: 146
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/23/2007 9:55:03 PM
That report was assembled from many sources, all of which are included in their respective paragraphs.



of course the actual laws don't corespond to the years you're putting forward, they're off by several decades. Many of those restrictions were put on by democratic instutions.


You are correct in your assessment of the dates in question. However, without these laws having already been in place, even if there had been 100 years lapse, these people may have had a better chance of fighting back and surviving. We could have Mother Teresa in the White House at the time we pass a new restriction, however, who will be there in 20 years? 50 years? 100 years? Laws rarely[read never] get repealed once they are signed.

Why do Americans fight so hard for their right to bear arms? Why do we fight tooth and nail over every restriction, no matter how petty? Becuase we know how the system works, that's why. "If you only allow us to ban this/that, we will all be much safer." And when that doesn't work??? "Well, if we could just add this to the list, that will solve everyone's problems." I am sure you get the idea. That is why we will not budge another inch without kicking and screaming the whole way. If you count each firearm law currently on the books in the U.S. as 1 inch on a ruler, the anti-gun groups have already gained 2000 feet. Ever heard of the saying, "if you give an inch, they will take a mile", at 2000 feet they are nearly there. To save everyone the math, there are 24,000 firearm laws already. And each time, that new law is the answer to everyone's problems. I am a slow learner at times, but even I know that if I tried 24,000 times to nail jello to a wall and it didn't work, I would find another approach.

The Bill Of Rights was not added to the Constitution to grant those rights to the people. The Bill Of Rights was added to prevent the government from RESTRICTING those 'inherent rights' FROM the people. These are rights that are not given by any government or entity, these are rights that every human being is entitled to.

In addition, all able bodied male Americans between the ages of 18 and 65, have the responsibility, the duty as a citizen of the United States under the Constitution, to be 'at ready' (described as owning a firearm appropriate for the day with ammunition to match and must be proficiant in the use of that firearm) to defend the Constitution, the country, and it's citizens from "enemies, both foreign and domestic." This is why we still have the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP).

I do not fault you for your opinion, nor do I attack you for holding that opinion. Your views are obviously different than mine, that's what makes us individuals. Also, I hold no hopes of ever changing that opinion, as it is not up to me to do so. There are many people on this issue that keep throwing out information they have heard here and there, but never really researched it for themselves - and unfortunately this goes for both sides. (I am not signaling anyone out as I really don't pay attention to who posts what)

I have a great respect for the Canadian people, I have been there several times and enjoyed every minute of those vacations. They have indeed been involved in most of the worlds conflicts defending freedom. I respect your choice to leave your life and liberty in the hands of your governement, so why is it so difficult for some to let me make that choice for myself? I don't feel that it is too much to ask for.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 147
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/23/2007 10:20:45 PM

Doubtful since most criminals wont turn in their firearms. After all they use them to make their living. However they will certainly be happy to see you turn in yours.


OK, I did the math. Cost estimates of fanning the flames of terrorism in Iraq are about 2.6 trillion before it's over. There are an estimated 200 million guns in the country. So if we only use half our Iraq expenses we'd be able to offer $6500 per weapon. How many criminals who dropped fifty bucks for a hot weapon would turn down the chance to make an easy $6500?

I know, a useless academic exersize. I just marvel sometimes at our priorities, preferring to concoct problems elsewhere rather than address real ones here at home.

I guess it makes sense though. Since it's official policy to shoot first and ask questions later as a nation it's only logical that we encourage the same behavior in our citizens.
 livefire
Joined: 2/3/2007
Msg: 150
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/23/2007 11:44:13 PM

OK, I did the math. Cost estimates of fanning the flames of terrorism in Iraq are about 2.6 trillion before it's over.


Not sure where you got that number, but since you know when this war will be over, can you please let the rest of us in on it? Thank-you. (take that tonque in cheek as I am sure you arrived at that number from some other source)


There are an estimated 200 million guns in the country.


It is actually closer to 270 million LEGAL firearms in this country. In addition, this number does not include illegal ones smuggled in, only ones that have either been manufactured here are have passed through customs since the BATFE began keeping records.


How many criminals who dropped fifty bucks for a hot weapon would turn down the chance to make an easy $6500?


I would have to agree with you that most, if not all, criminals, given immunty from prosecution, would sell their firearms for $6500 each. And then they would take that money and buy 130 more $50 weapons to resell to the government for an additional $845,000....and so on.

I have no problem with your underlying logic on this issue. The problem is, this will not stop other countries/foriegn companies/governments from still producing firearms. And, with this scenario, you would guarantee them huge profits for their products, even larger than the drug trade. This is not to mention that there have been over 100 million AK-47's built since it was introduced in 1947 - and this only represents 1 model of firearm.
 LoonyTunz
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 154
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/24/2007 12:17:57 AM

Why is it that people from all over the world believe that they have the right to meddle in our internal politics? Seriously, if you're not an American, you have no business commenting in a thread on gun control in the U.S. In other words, butt out.

now that ^^^ is the best paraphrased quote from Hilter (since you all seem to so love using him for comparison), or any other tyrannical dictator.
"It is an internal matter"
Ok so no one outside of Rwanda should worry about the tribal violence, or Somalia (wait you meddled there didn't you), or Vietnam (my bad you meddled in their "internal affairs" aswell), or Iran or Iraq (Oh wait you are still meddling in Iraq and were gearring up for Iran until the bested you in a poker hand with the Brits).

Gun control is needed, doug has the right idea that enforcement is critical. Gun control despite what the NRA pamphlets say does not mean taking everyones guns away. It means using your head and preventing the wrong people from easily acquiring them. It also needs to be federally mandated. If laws and enforcement are lax in a neighbouring state your efforts will not have near the effect they should.
 LoonyTunz
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 157
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/24/2007 2:53:11 AM
The Weimar Republic Passed the Firearms law in Germany in 1928.
Germany being "disarmed" has d1ck all to do with guns, unless you mean those on tanks, ships, planes and artillery.


{added} I did NOT say that gun control is needed......I said that laws on the books
should be enforced and violators punished. It's already against the law to kill
someone........you don't have to make having a gun when you do it against the law.

1st read it again, maybe I need to add an "and. See that comma thing? It was agreement that enforcement really needs serious improvement.
2nd regarding this "It's already against the law to kill
someone........you don't have to make having a gun when you do it against the law. ". Hate to burst a bubble but it already is that way. Assault vs Assault with a weapon, Robbery vs. Armed Robbery ........If anything the difference between those crimes should be noted and armed crimes have significantly higher sentences. If a crook knows that if he is picked up on a smash and grab he could face X years in prison but by having a gun whether used or not while committing that same crime he will face X + 10 years a few of them may think twice before doing it the goal is the same in both to steal something. Change the risk versus reward ratio and it can pay off.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 158
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/24/2007 6:00:49 AM


OK, I did the math. Cost estimates of fanning the flames of terrorism in Iraq are about 2.6 trillion before it's over.


Not sure where you got that number, but since you know when this war will be over, can you please let the rest of us in on it? Thank-you. (take that tonque in cheek as I am sure you arrived at that number from some other source)


Honestly, I just did a quick couple of google searches to see what the math might produce. Not surprisingly there was quite a lot of variation for both war costs and gun totals, so I just grabbed a couple and went with it. Frankly living in a society willing to invest so much in violence while NOT investing in things like universal health care and other purely beneficial endeavors is a bit disturbing, but it's what we're stuck with. I was mostly just curious to see if my original instinctive thought would come up with credible numbers.

My real point was that if we actually DID do an about face and decide not having guns all over the place would be a good thing that there could be effective strategies to get there. I'm actually not too worried about the "cold dead hands" crowd, as they aren't really a bother to others, but feed their own insecurities by keeping their own personal a***nal for defensive purposes for whenever Big Brother comes knocking at their door. Let them keep their guns, which tend to be so heavily protected they aren't likely to fall into mischievous hands.

Your average gun-toting criminal, on the other hand, is not generally prone to taking hard and fast philosophical positions, but much more likely to live for the moment, and thus more likely to take advantage of a program that would hand them hard cash to address their other instantaneous desires.

But it's really a moot point. We don't have and won't have in the forseeable future the political will to head down this path. You get elected in this country by concocting external threats and promising to go get the bad guys who aren't like us and are just out to get us and destroy the American Way Of Life. Actually addressing internal problems that we can't blame on anyone else but ourselves rarely draws a vote.

So it goes.

Dave
 readyfordating
Joined: 7/25/2006
Msg: 159
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/24/2007 6:21:42 AM
Americans have fought for the freedom of speech along with many other rights, on the other hand if canadians voice too much of their opinion opposing their government, they can be arrested? ..........Maybe this explains the reason canadians appear so much in forums voicing the same opinions that could get them arrested in their home country.
 readyfordating
Joined: 7/25/2006
Msg: 160
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/24/2007 6:28:35 AM
If a crook knows that if he is picked up on a smash and grab he could face X years in prison but by having a gun whether used or not while committing that same crime he will face X + 10 years a few of them may think twice before doing it the goal is the same in both to steal something. Change the risk versus reward ratio and it can pay off.


We already have that law in Maryland. 5 years extra tacked on the crime if a felony was done with a handgun. Hasn't helped our state, the rate of crime continues to escalate............next idea?
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >