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
 sweetie425
Joined: 5/24/2005
Msg: 162
gun control in the usaPage 3 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)
Maybe someone can set me straight on this if I'm wrong, but from what I understand the guns involved in most robberies or shootings are obtained illegally, not registered. If that's the case I don't understand how stricter gun control laws are going to help stop gun related violence or crime ????
 LoonyTunz
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 163
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/24/2007 12:57:51 PM
Read the newspapers then sweeti, NY has started suing out of state gun dealers. "Straw" purchases, sales to ineligible people, etc. This is where your illegal guns come from. That and theft due to storage issues. They don't come in by the boatload from foreign countries.

It is a fallacy that the NRA is perpetual sharing that gun control means no guns. It is simply devising rules and regulations to ensure that:
1 Guns are purchased by eligible people.
2 Defining who is eligible.
3 The system by which the above criteria are to be verified.
4 Measures to ensure compliance and prevent theft.

^^^^ That is control of who has "easy" access to firearms. Given the sheer number of illegal arms available(due to years of poor gun control) it may take time before the impact is measurable unless law enforcement makes a concerted effort to get the illegal arms and dealers off the street. It doesn't stop a reasonable person from obtainning a gun, it just makes it more difficult for those that shouldn't have them............ Remember the whining when the 7 day waitting period was introduced? Having to wait 7 days honestly is not a large infringement and if it prevents one guy from coming home and finding his best friend banging his wife from running off the the store for a gun to get payback before he cools down and realises it isn't worth it or right to take that action ..... is it really that bad?
 livefire
Joined: 2/3/2007
Msg: 165
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/24/2007 2:52:45 PM
1 Guns are purchased by eligible people.
2 Defining who is eligible.
3 The system by which the above criteria are to be verified.
4 Measures to ensure compliance and prevent theft.


All of these things are already in place, they are included amungst the 24,000 firearm laws already on the books. I will break it down.


1 Guns are purchased by eligible people.
3 The system by which the above criteria are to be verified.


I have grouped these together as they are the same statement. Every FFL in the country must perform an FBI background check (NICS) on every firearm transaction. in 2005, 8.3 million background checks were conducted (this number includes checks done on both the state and federal level). Of these, 1.6% were declined.


2 Defining who is eligible.


Congress has microdefined who is eligible and who isn't (remember the 24,000 laws?)


4 Measures to ensure compliance and prevent theft.


Well, this would be a sticky situation now wouldn't it? Amongst those laws include ones that mandate the proper storage of firearms in any individuals posession. How, pray tell, would you suggest that we ensure compliance? Would we give our government the right to come in our homes, oh say twice a year, to verify this at their disgression?(and yes, that was a reference to the Canadian law that is already in place) I for one would not be willing to give up my 4th ammendment rights [against illegal search and seisure] for this. And, as I have posted before, less than 1% (I believe the exact number was .12%, but don't have it in front of me, so I will round it up) of all accidental discharges of firearms involve individuals that actually own firearms, or have grown up in homes that contained them. (John R. Lott - More Guns, Less Crime) Using this method of enforcement means that the people who make up the other 99% will never be checked, as these searches are only of homes that contain a registered firearm. Every firearm that is sold in the U.S. comes with a trigger/action lock free of charge, and every FFL must have additional firearm locks available at their place of business (2 more of those laws).

My opinion? This money (let's take the $1.3 trillion amount that was used earlier) would be much better spent building more prisons, or better yet, more detention centers like the one set up by Sheriff Joe Arpiao (the Maricopa County Sheriff) in Arizona. If criminals faced a true sentence when convicted (you get 20 years, you do 20 years, not a day less), then many of these people would give more thought to their actions. Prisoners, in my opinion, have chosen not to be a productive part of society, and therefor are not entitiled to have us pay for their cable tv, air conditioning, and the likes. They made a consious choice to be a burden on society, to be a thorn in the side of their fellow man, and deserve to break rocks for the extent of their sentence. (can't wait to see the flames on this one).

Oh, and guncite.com is anything but unbias - it is their mission to repeal the 2nd Ammendment.
 feanor3791
Joined: 4/17/2007
Msg: 167
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/24/2007 4:19:50 PM

Oh, I see your indulging in the classic I know what you are but what am I defense. Brilliant.


You seem to believe that sarcasm lends weight to your arguments, but it really only supports mine: that you are an insufferable prig. What you are engaging in is the classic "If I throw out an accusation first, then engage in that very behavior, then I can't be accused of it in return because it will look like he's just copying me" offense. Yes, I am mocking you. And it's "you're" not "your", Mr. Intellectual.


Way to throw the "liberal" term around like it's an insult.


I'm glad to see you actually understood something I said. "Liberal" is an insult exactly as are its synonyms "Socialist," "Communist," and "Marxist," as well as the related terms "Totalitarian," and "Tyranny".


Hmmm maybe this?


That was a rhetorical question. I assume you know what that is?


You know, where he seems to hold my knowledge of statistics against me? Don't let get in the way of you rant however. Lets continue.


You included that in one of your attacks on me. Get your facts straight. And it's "your", not "you", and "let's", not "lets". And you said "Don't let get in the way..."


Your constitution came into operation in 1789.


Yes, and before that we were operating on a provisional democratic government, beginning in 1776. The French democracy didn't reach its final, permanent form until 1870. And I wouldn't exactly call the tyrannical despotism of post-revolutionary France a democracy, either. Unless you're using the term "democracy" in the same sense that it was used by the German Democratic Republic, i.e., as a euphemism for socialist tyranny. Is it just plain denial, or are you really having that much trouble with chronology? 1776 came 13 years before 1789. And even if you weren't skipping the 13 years of provisional democratic government before the adoption of the Constitution, you'd still be wrong. The U.S. Constitution went into effect March 4, 1789. The storming of the Bastille was July 14, 1789. Perhaps you are the one who needs to study history.


Like white land owning free males? Oops! that was your countries requirement. Both of you massively restricted the franchise. The Greeks had the excuse that they did it thousands of years earlier. Nice try though. (also restricting it to "modern" times doesn't change the fact that you were not the first)


I didn't say we didn't have a hegemony, just that the Greeks' was narrower. You're still using the same tired tricks. And it's "country's", not "countries", and you missed several commas and capitalizations.


Simple logic doesn't make it true logic, you can't show causation, because as I said many countries have banned firearms (and some for literally decades) without becoming totalitarian. While other rather nasty regimes have a massive gun culture. Iraq, Iran. Afghanistan. For somebody who states logic, you don't seem to understand the post hoc fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html

Just because it came before in some cases, doesn't mean it's a step towards it. No more than massively chaotic failed states require a lack of weapons control.

Plus, I'm not taking it out of context, if I'm making you look like a fool, it has to do with what you're saying, you don't need any help.


For the third time , I'm not claiming to show direct causation. Again, you're trying to put words in my mouth that you can contradict, rather than addressing my actual thesis. Anger is a step toward, and a warning sign of, murder, but it doesn't ALWAYS lead to it. Lust is the same for adultery, but doesn't always lead there. But anger and lust should nevertheless be viewed with caution and sometimes alarm. I've made this point abundantly clear, and I think everyone reading this who's not in denial (like you) can see that, so I will not make it again.


See above. You don't actually make your argument any stronger by repeating yourself. Gun control no more leads to totalitarianism than lack of fire arm control is a step on the process to the USA becoming a chaotic hell hole such as Sierra Leon in the late 90s, or Afghanistan as it is now. (Read the link to the logic page)


"Massively chaotic failed states" are an entirely different matter, since they suffer from too little government rather than too much. But I guarantee I'd also want to own guns if I lived in one of those. Private gun ownership, alone, does not ensure domestic tranquility. It is simply one element in the equation, and same is true of restricting private gun ownership and totalitarianism. "Firearm" is one word, and it's "Sierra Leone".


Ok you don't like my posting style, that’s your right, although for somebody who was just ****ing about personal attacks, you sure don't have a problem with throwing them around, but conservatives are all about the hypocrisy these days. I personally appreciate links when somebody makes a claim, or statement. I'm sorry that me showing sources and information on why a person is wrong offends you so much.


I'm not "****ing" about personal attacks, just pointing out what a hypocrite you are for criticizing someone else for them while engaging in them yourself. And you didn't post a reference or citation to support your argument, you posted a link to explain to everyone a term you used, and which you assumed that no one else would understand, to show how clever you are.

As for anti-intellectualism by the way...

Anti-intellectualism describes a sentiment of hostility towards, or mistrust of, intellectuals and intellectual pursuits. This may be expressed in various ways, such as attacks on the merits of science, education, or literature.

It's a well-known phenomenon. Glad I could educate you about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism

Your mistake here is in assuming that you are intellectually superior and more educated than anyone else in the discussion. You are a fool, and an arrogant fool at that, to make such an assumption. You have no idea who any of us are, or what our education or I.Q.s may be, nor how well-read and informed we are. I'm guessing here that, in your smug naïveté, you are equating "intellectualism" with liberalism, following the rhetoric with which you were indoctrinated which speaks of Marxists as "enlightened", and those who reject it as uninformed.


Oh I don't claim our history is perfect by any means, although we did end slavery decades before you, (and peacefully, no nasty civil war for us) White women were free not to vote or have any political office. Free blacks were free to be treated horribly and not to vote.

As for natives? Well there is a reason that the native population is a concern in Canada and not in the USA. While we have mistreated them (and it is tragic) we didn't take to exterminating them with quite the gusto your country has. This is a tu quoque logical fallacy by the way. My country could have shot democracy loving, African American Jews in the face and it wouldn't make your history any better than it is, or change the fact that the Greeks beat you to democracy.


Free to live and pursue happiness, and free to vote are not the same thing. My point here is not that your mistakes make ours any better, but "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."


Hmmmmm seems to me I responded exactly to what you said. That people being put in prison for using guns to defend their lives and property is the beginning of totalitarianism. Don't blame me if when I reflect that back to you it looks foolish or stupid. *I* was being sarcastic.


Again, you are either dishonest or stupid. In the very text that you quoted from my post, I stated that my argument is:

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.

Yet, you insist that my argument is:

That people being put in prison for using guns to defend their lives and property is the beginning of totalitarianism.

As I pointed out before, you have to try to change my words into something that you can respond to, because you cannot refute my actual argument.


Supreme court, Majority white male. Every president, White male. Congress and Senate, Majority white male. Wealthiest group in North America? White male.

Feel free to be concerned.


http://www.foxnews.com/column_archive/0,2976,13,00.html

Or run a search on the Duke Lacrosse case. Just a few examples among the many.


I love how you falsely imply that anybody who doesn't agree with the current administration doesn't love America. Here is a link to the fallacy you're using in this segment by the way, because I know how much you appreciate them.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html


I imply no such thing. Once again, you are putting words into my mouth. My statement is much more general than that, encompassing the sacrifices we've made during previous wars as well.


I guess the right to due process and facing your accuser and not being held without charge isn't considered a pressing issue for you. Also, lack of due process is what has led to innocent people being mistreated in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.


Due process is for citizens, residents, and guests, not for enemy combatants. Enemies of the U.S. are not entitled to the protection of its laws. They are under a different set of rules, called the Geneva Convention. They don't need to be charged with anything, because they are captured in the act of bearing arms against, or aiding and abetting the enemies of, the United States. But since you don't recognize the right of individuals to defend themselves, why would you recognize the right of nations to do the same?


I find it interesting that the same groups that have been doing their best to reduce the excesses of various horrible regimes throughout the world such as Amnesty International and the Red Cross, are now expressing concerns about your own treatment of prisoners. Apparently your love of your country is best expressed through the gradual destruction of your freedoms through the patriot act.


The Red Cross and Amnesty International are both liberal organizations. Although they both do some good work in the world, they also have a political agenda. And neither of those organizations has freed as many people as the U.S. Army. As for the Patriot Act, I do have some concerns about it, but not as many as about RICO, "hate crime" legislation, and gun control.


awwww I'm your enemy? Wow you take posts in web forums rather seriously. I find it amusing that you complained about other countries restricting free speech, but now apparently you think we don't have the right to be critical of your country? Sorry, but your on a Canadian owned companies webpage, and the Internet is a great venue for international communication. Maybe you should ask yourself if you love your country so much, why do you think it's so fragile it can't take a little foreign criticism?


I am not your enemy because of a forum post. I am your enemy because you represent a worldview and political philosophy which is a threat to the things that I hold dear: my faith, my family, my country, and my freedom. In my estimation, liberalism (aka Marxism, socialism, communism, or whatever euphemism you want to use) is a bigger threat to us than radical Islam is now, or National Socialism ever was.

On another note,


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).


Vast difference here. We act to aid those who need (and want) our help, because we have the strength to do so. But, like Livefire said above, we're not telling you that Canada needs to repeal its gun control legislation. Keep it, if you want. Just don't try to tell us we've got to do the same. It's not your business.

And, speaking of Livefire, he has better kept his emotions in check than I have, and makes some good points. I am justly rebuked. I do not hate Canada, the U.K., Australia, France, etc. I have visited all of them except Australia, and have lived in Europe on three different occasions, and loved them all. They are our brothers in democracy, as is the rest of Western Europe and Japan. Furthermore, the British, Canadians, Australians, and French have stood beside us in some of our hardest and most desperate battles. My anger is directed, not towards the people of those nations, but towards the Marxists in all of them, as well as our own. Unfortunately, they seem to constitute a majority in most of those other countries, and that concerns me, not only because it isolates us, but because I care about the people in those countries. We may have been first in modern democracy, but our culture, our religion, and the ideas upon which our democracy is based all came from Europe, as did we. And, of course, how could I be anti-European, when I am myself of European descent? Their history is our history, and if I am a bit hard on France, it is because I am of French descent, and am disappointed in the direction they have now taken. But, no excuses; I extend my apology to those who were the undeserving targets of my anger.

And, of course, those of you who have pointed out that you have a right to express concern are correct. I was hasty and general in what I said before. What you don't have the (moral) right to do, although you do have the legal right, is to engage in the type of smug, superior, self-important, condescending attacks that are coming from the idiot to whom most of this post is addressed. If you want to discuss these things rationally and in good fellowship, you are welcome. But if you are a 27-year-old snot-nosed brat of a loser who is so foolish as to consider himself the smartest person around, then you should really go learn some wisdom and humility to go with your modest knowledge of the liberal arts.
 livefire
Joined: 2/3/2007
Msg: 168
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/24/2007 8:13:33 PM
Dave - I would have to agree with you on many of your intentions as I get the feeling that just want to find an answer to the actual underlying problem - whatever that answer turns out to be. I also want to compliment you on your honesty and your ability to keep emotions out of the discussion. Thank-you.

If a buy back program would actually work the way it was intentioned, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, the ones that have been put into practice were, well, less than successful. Most of the firearms turned in didn't even function properly(and I'm not speaking of safely, I mean they wouldn't even fire), people used these buy backs as an opportunity to dispose of junk they had laying around the house. Say we raised the buying price of these buy backs to a point where criminals would actually turn in functioning firearms for cash (and I know that you used the $6500 number for emphasis). This would inadvertanly form a new market for stolen firearms, raising their value and increasing the number of players in the market. Now, rather than that stolen firearm only being worth $50 on the street, it's now worth $500 (grabbing a $ amount out of the air here). I think we could be safe to say that there would be a dramatic increase in home invasions and armed robberies in an attempt to aquire these hot new commodities. And I hope no-one would think for a minute a criminal is not a businessperson. They WILL have a firearm that they won't turn over. Anyone who understands anything about business knows that there are 'tools of the trade' that you must invest in to conduct that business. What would a cab driver be without a car? What would a plumber do without his pipe wrenches?

I am all for finding a way to curb the violence, unfortunetaly, most of the energy and resources are being directed at the symptoms, rather than the infection. I would bet that these resources, if directed at better education and creating more opportunities for young people growing up, would make a much larger difference.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 172
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/24/2007 10:06:41 PM

Let me see now. You think you can wave some sort of magic wand , And all the guns will just go away?


Oh, if I only had such a wand. Pardon me while I dream for a moment. Not to be greedy, but could my wand make all weapons of any kind go away? What a fascinating quandry that would put everyone in. Never mind. That's a good one for the philosphy category.

Back to reality, I know it's next to impossible to have a discussion about how one might try to remove guns from a society so used to them. Every other post is punctuated by the standard NRA fare: 'cold dead fingers', 'only criminals will have guns', etc...

I'm often struck how many of us divide ourselves into two distinct worlds we choose to live in. There are many who assume humans are incapable of peaceful living, evil lurks around every corner, and the only reasonable course of action is to lock every lock, trust no one who hasn't proven themselves worthy, and arm ourselves against the inevitable attacks to come on our 'liberties'.

Then there are those of us who dare to choose to work to help create a better world. We refuse to resign ourselves to eternal strife and instead choose to believe that all those extra brain cells we cart around just might be able to one day create a society where violence is as socially unacceptable as slavery has become. Personally I see a whole lot more liberty in that world.

Of course without a magic wand such a world won't happen overnight. Realistically not in our lifetimes. But that's no reason not to at least point ourselves in that direction, despite all the loud cries of 'it'll never happen'. The same cries were heard in the struggles for civil rights, gender equity, human flight, breaking the sound barrier, and a long list of never before attained objectives we've realized in just a very short period of time.

Maybe my buy-back concept won't work. Or maybe it will only work if coupled with a number of other initiatives I haven't come up with yet. I know previous buy-back programs haven't worked very well, but I believe all of them were limited to a small geographic area and didn't offer all that much cash per gun. Expand the scope so you wouldn't be able to just run out of the city limits to replenish your weaponry and things might be different. Sure the big time criminals would still keep their weapons. But the average drug addict wouldn't. And guns are already a prime target for house thieves. I'm not sure I buy the idea that there would be a sudden rise in home robberies.

Most crime happens in the criminal's own neighborhoods, and I would expect that trend to continue. Low level criminals honestly don't put a lot of thought into their crimes, and aren't very comfortable leaving their own territory. I had to laugh at an earlier post advocating stiffer penalties under the assumption that criminals would think twice - most criminals don't even think once. We can't apply our logic to the brains of the typical mugger or violent gang member. Whatever strategies we were to come up with would have to make sense to them, not us. Hence my high dollar buy back concept.

I'm perfectly willing to pitch that concept if some other way to foster a more peaceful society would work better. I'm NOT willing to settle for an uneasy truce created by equally arming everyone though. I just happen to be one who believes we've still got room for improvement in our efforts to create a peaceful world, and I know I'm not alone.

Dave
 TxTinCup
Joined: 3/24/2005
Msg: 173
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/24/2007 10:26:43 PM

In my state, Texas-YEHAW, I WILL NOT go to jail if an intruder breaks into my home and I shoot him. Can I get an amen?


Here's your AMEN disaronno

Those gun control types may be onto something though. If we could just ban spoons, maybe we could end the obesity problem.

"Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O’Donnell fat."
 feanor3791
Joined: 4/17/2007
Msg: 174
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/24/2007 10:38:56 PM

You have nothing to add to the conversation, and frankly its not worth going through your arguments point by point. Instead, I'll just report you for your (see I know which your to use) direct personal attack, and you can deal with any consequences, in the meantime, this snot nosed brat of a loser is doing the mature thing, and ignoring your posts.


Good, because your arguments are becoming increasingly inane as you desperately grasp at straws trying to prove how smart you are. And, frankly, I'm becoming quite bored with you. And, in case you want to learn something from this, it was your insulting behaviour towards other people that made me go after you like I did.
 jamminjeff
Joined: 2/20/2006
Msg: 176
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/24/2007 11:00:46 PM
If you really are a law abiding citizen why are you so afraid of losing your "privilidge" to own a gun? HUH?
Nobody is talking about a gun ban. We are talking about making it harder to get guns, ie. background checks, etc. You gun nuts always misread the 2nd ammendment. It says "to be used in a well-regulated militia". That means National Guard. As the fine and upstanding citizen you claim to be you should support gun control. Every nation with stricter gun laws has less violence and murder. Look it up!
 jamminjeff
Joined: 2/20/2006
Msg: 177
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/24/2007 11:09:03 PM
Canadians ARE Americans. Mexicans are Americans too! So are Venezuelans, Brazilians, Argentinians, etc. America is a continent, not a country. I think you possibly meant United States which is only a very small area of America.
 bob0colo
Joined: 4/9/2006
Msg: 178
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/24/2007 11:37:08 PM
This is so sad, reason is gone. The debate will be, a person ruled a nut case, has the 2nd right to buy guns, hand guns with hi-cap clips.
I lost support for the NRA when they became so radicial.
Reason is gone.
Defend a nut purchase of anything.........................
That is what the NRA stands for.............
No one is coming to get your or my gun.........
The NRA defends

Cho (charged as a danger to himself and others) right to buy a 9mm with hi cap/clips.........

This is what the NRA stands for???????
 feanor3791
Joined: 4/17/2007
Msg: 180
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/24/2007 11:53:52 PM
"Americans" is the name by which we call ourselves, and we don't care to have dictated to us by others what we may or may not name our people and our country. It has always been America and Americans, and we are not changing it now. Canadians and Mexicans can rightly be called "North Americans", but we are not going to change our name at this late date because the rest of you have now decided that you want in on it, too. What do you suggest? U.S.ians? United Statesians? North America and South America are continents. America is the short form of the name for the U.S.A.

You misquoted the Bill of Rights. Here is what it actually says:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It does not say that the militia is the only reason for the People to keep and bear arms. And the reasoning is closely linked to the language of the Declaration of Independence which says, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The militia is not just the National Guard. The militia is the call-up of every able-bodied man in the country for national defense.

"Total Mobilization: Once a state of national emergency exists, Congress can extend full mobilization by activating and organizing additional units beyond the currently approved force structure. Total mobilization brings the industrial base up to full capacity to provide the additional resources, equipment and production facilities needed to support the armed forces of the nation, as done in World War II. Total mobilization involves not only the A(ctive) C(omponent) and R(eserve) C(omponent) but the entire Militia of the United States. The Militia of the United States consists of the Organized Militia and the Unorganized Militia. The Organized Militia consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia. The Unorganized Militia consists of every able-bodied male citizen or person wishing to be a citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 as well as female members of the National Guard. Exceptions to this are: The Vice President, Judicial & Executive officers of the United States, territories and Puerto Rico; postal employees/contractors; custom house agents; workers in armories, a***nals and naval shipyards; pilots on navigable waterways and mariners in the sea service of a citizen, or a merchant in, the United States"
--http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/usar-mob.htm

This means that every able-bodied man in the United States has a responsibility to be armed and prepared to act in national defense. Yes, it's highly unlikely that it will happen in the near future, but it's part of our heritage, and there may come a time when it is needed. Does the government have enough obsolete M16A1s, M16s, M14s, and M1s to arm every able-bodied man in America? Maybe. I don't know how many have been warehoused and how many have been sold or destroyed. But in a true emergency, how will they be distributed? And just knowing that this provision and tradition exists is a deterrent to any would-be aggressor. Very much like in Switzerland. Why does everyone leave Switzerland alone? Because they've learned, through history, that the people are too stubborn and it's not worth the cost in lives, manpower, and money it would take to conquer and occupy the country. And everyone knows that every able-bodied man in the country is a militiaman waiting to be called up.


Yes a very christian attitude you have there.

but hey, if you think that insults from a sexist, overweight, neonazi really hurt my feelings you misunderstand. Anybody who equates tyranny to liberalism (it's root word is liberty) and then states that amnesty international is a liberal organization (and therefore tyrannical) obviously lives in some alternate dimension, we can't communicate because I don't think the words I'm using and you're using mean the same thing.


I thought you were ignoring me? Don't stop now, I was just starting to enjoy it.
 Skurdis
Joined: 12/14/2005
Msg: 183
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/25/2007 1:50:44 AM
I recall from my high school days, learning something of the works of the renowned 17th century English philosopher, John Locke, who, in his famous treatise on government, stated that individuals, when they enter a society, need to give up certain freedoms and liberties in order for that society to frame a solid, altruistic government that would protect all of the citizens in that society. That theory would ban gun ownership, as proven by the murder rate in this country which is out of control for a "civilized society." Locke wanted to protect the individual from those who would form a threat to his cherished liberties and, instead, have government be his protector. The NRA, of course, stands contrary ot this belief, because not only for they still ascribe to "cop-killer bullets ( yes, it's a real fact), that undermines the role of government, i.e. our police departments, to form our protective shield, but they embrace every weapon imaginable - even grenades and rocket launchers, as insane as it appears. Their rationale is, to paraphrase, "any weapon banned that takes away the right of the citizen to bear arms is unjustified" - and they mean every word! The NRA was formerly a hunters lobby, rarely getting into the public spotlight. Now look at the "monster" they've become. Look, I'm not out to impress the die-hard gun advocates out there - I realize that "Dodge City" and "Shootout at O.K. Corral" is too ingrained in the psyche of millions of gun owners - but I'm telling you - this country is in big trouble when Bush relaxed all the major gun control laws, including semi-automatics. The homicide rate is not limited to those with criminal records. How many times do we read of children playing with their fathers "toys" and blowing themsleves away, tragically destroying families? When did you ever see so many mass murders at schools - from Columbine, on to now - and don't worry, statistics cite many more to come that will allow newscasters plenty of fresh headlines. How many times do we read where a man or woman, in a fit of rage, goes home to get his gun and blows away his friend, his family even, anyone who argued with him for nonsensical stuff. The courts will say that he was temporarily insane, but just look at the suffering he or she caused. The more guns in our society, the more they will be used. It happens time, after time, after time. Not a single day goes by where every major daily in the USA is not filled with heart-breaking news of this sort. How can anyone justify this travesty - this horror - as compassionate human beings?

And to defend oneself against intruders? Is the average person - man, woman, children, the elderly, the infirmed, the not so agile - going to stand up to intruders with heavy weapon experience when typically the victims are accosted at lightening speed, spontaneoously? Are the weapons within their immediate grasp, ready to defend at a split second? Friends - it doesn't work unless we all don uniforms, holsters and ammo.
And you don't need Locke to tell you that when that happens, we're finished as a society.

The outlook is gloomy - even Democrats have abandoned gun control because of the might of the NRA, and the willingness of Americans who abhor guns and who never want to see a gun anywhere within their sight, to relinquish control to the "heavies." It's not enough civilized thinking to understand that England and Japan, for example, with strict gun laws, have far, far less homicide rates than this country. You can't argue with these statistics. Placing strict controls on gun possession, reinstating the Brady Bill, making locks mandatory on guns so that kids don't 'waste each other, outlawing semi-automatics and more' - will definitely, definitely save many lives. And is there not every person out there, including the most fanatical gun advocate, who does NOT WISH TO SAVE LIVES?
 harviej
Joined: 12/18/2006
Msg: 188
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/25/2007 6:25:35 AM

ROFLMAO At the time that the second amendment was written there was no national guard. LOL
A well regulated militia refers to every able bodied man of mature age.



Gee, I thought a well regulated malitia meant just that-well regulated.

Yes there was no national guard at the time. Does that make one unconstitutional? Or not the "well regulated militia" governments are wont to support.

Of course slaves, or for that matter, free blacks, were not allowed to be in that malitia were they?


Then we get this bit of drivel



No I think that you need to go back and check the vality of your source. Per capita every nation with stricter gun laws has seen a marked increase in violent crimes.


The increase in crime where there are stricter gun laws pales beside that in the U.S.
 harviej
Joined: 12/18/2006
Msg: 190
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/25/2007 1:01:36 PM
Try going to this url

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html


Note it is from an ANTI gun control site.

Basically Americans are pikers compared to Brazil. You Murder each other with guns at only a third of their rate. Northern Ireland (What 2 milllion people, or ONE of your large cities?) has a big lead and Mexico and Estonia are also ahead of you. Great company to be keeping their kiddo.

Point is you can rationalize anything. Gun control is not a cure-all. But it is part of a puzzle and until you stop listening to the silly nonsense about the world wanting to invade you and take all your rights away, therre is no real hope of you ever ending the violence you purpetrate on each other. My reason for having an interest is this madness is creeping across the border and our kids are adopting your stupid ideas.

How ironic, all the yabbos who wail about 'protecting their freedom' seemed to be pretty eager to let your government take all your civil liberties away in reaction to a terrorist attack. Seems to me the terrorists won. You can't complain about much the government does without your loyalty being questioned. Just like Sadaam and Hitler.
 LoonyTunz
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 194
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/25/2007 1:37:46 PM

How many school shootings are they going to have to go through before they wake up.


^^^^^ 5 so far this school year alone.

And get off the "swiss" thing already. Switzerland hasn't been invaded because of the "awesome power" of it's army of old men with guns, a good carpet bombing will take care of that. They haven't been invaded because they have stayed neutral and facilitated questionable banking for both sides. So both sides have alot to lose by invading.
 feanor3791
Joined: 4/17/2007
Msg: 196
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/25/2007 2:19:15 PM

Gee, I thought a well regulated malitia meant just that-well regulated.

Yes there was no national guard at the time. Does that make one unconstitutional? Or not the "well regulated militia" governments are wont to support.


You should read the posts that have already been made. The militia includes, by law, all able-bodied males.


and until you stop listening to the silly nonsense about the world wanting to invade you and take all your rights away, therre is no real hope of you ever ending the violence you purpetrate on each other. My reason for having an interest is this madness is creeping across the border and our kids are adopting your stupid ideas.


How about a prisoner exchange? You can have all of our liberals, and we'll take all of your people who have "adopted [our] stupid ideas".
 LoonyTunz
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 198
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/25/2007 2:27:46 PM
feanor I must point out that "liberal" is not an insult it is only an ideology different from your own. Conservative or "neo-con" is actually more of an insult denoting a person that sticks to a flawed thhinking for no better reason than "this is the way it has always been", which would leave you with slaves and women with no vote still.
Your points lack
1 facts to back them up
2 even a modicum of a semi-informed view
3 sound reasonning (which you seem to try to cover up by attacking anyone that opposes your view)

Where oh where are ibechuck and moondog, they atleast are intelligent pro-gun advocates.
Someone e-mail me if this thread gets past its' "dumbed-down" phase.
 feanor3791
Joined: 4/17/2007
Msg: 212
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/25/2007 6:05:54 PM

feanor I must point out that "liberal" is not an insult it is only an ideology different from your own. Conservative or "neo-con" is actually more of an insult denoting a person that sticks to a flawed thhinking for no better reason than "this is the way it has always been", which would leave you with slaves and women with no vote still.


1. a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

2.a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties.


Arguing the semantics of the word liberal is getting off-topic. Suffice it to say that I am using the word in its current, political sense; i.e., someone with a Marxist or pseudo-Marxist political ideology, usually espousing such things as feminism, gay rights, gun-control, abortion, weak foreign policy, and weak law enforcement/corrections. I am aware of its other meanings. In 1776, I would have been a Liberal, because it meant something completely different, in political and moral terms, than it does now. If you want to continue this debate, start another thread and I'll engage you on it if you wish.


Your points lack
1 facts to back them up


What are all of those historical facts I included, then? What about the direct quotes from the Constitution and Declaration of Independence? Or the summary of American militia law from a world-respected military website?


2 even a modicum of a semi-informed view


Translation: "I don't agree with your philosophy, therefore you are not informed, because my philosophy is correct, and anyone who disagrees with it must be ignorant."
Charles can probably tell you which logical fallacy you are engaging in here.


3 sound reasonning


Continuation of the same reasoning as #2.


(which you seem to try to cover up by attacking anyone that opposes your view)


No, I only attack people who are insufferably rude and arrogant, and cannot debate civilly and rationally. Sometimes people take direct refutation of their positions as attack, when it is not so intended. Just because I attack your position does not mean I am attacking you personally.


I have never seen a gun or know of anyone that has one. Can you say the same???


You say this as if it is indisputable evidence of your moral superiority. No, I cannot say the same, nor would I want to. I have carried and used guns while I was putting my life in harm's way in defense of liberty and freedom, and in defense of the innocent and the victimized. Have you ever hazarded your life for anyone else's sake? That also goes for those who would label me as neo-nazi, fascist, etc. I value liberty enough to give my life for it, even if it's not my own, or even that of my own people. Do you?

In the end, JerryinTampa is absolutely correct. Without the protection of men with guns, none of you would be enjoying the luxury of sitting at your computers talking about how bad men with guns are.


Then there are those of us who dare to choose to work to help create a better world. We refuse to resign ourselves to eternal strife and instead choose to believe that all those extra brain cells we cart around just might be able to one day create a society where violence is as socially unacceptable as slavery has become. Personally I see a whole lot more liberty in that world.


I think you've found the heart of the matter, there. Those of you who think that everyone is basically good, and would live in peace and harmony if given a chance, are naïve, unrealistic dreamers. It sounds nice, and I acknowledge that many of you have good motives, but the evidence from 6,000 years of recorded history contradicts your position in no uncertain terms. There will always be bad men who wish to hurt, to kill, to take, and to conquer, and so there must always be good men who are willing to fight them. And the good men must be armed. That utopian society thing has been tried many times before, and has always failed. Remember the Soviet Union?
 feanor3791
Joined: 4/17/2007
Msg: 216
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/25/2007 7:38:12 PM
Except you do attack people personally, and are now a liar on top of everything else. You're so blinded by your neo conservative/racist/sexist views, that anybody who disagrees with you is insufferable rude and arrogant


No, I freely admit that I was attacking you personally. Insufferably rude and arrogant means someone who says things like this:


You see all countries have these "borders" so Canada's southern border is your northern border.

I can't believe I'm explaining this to an adult.

Ever wonder what all those little (per 100,000) things you see when you look at stats pages mean?

Anyway, I'm sick of refuting this inane post fact by fact. I can destroy this with one simple statement.

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

Just because it came after, doesn't mean a damn thing. Especially because it's so easy to list countries that this DIDN'T happen.

"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.

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. 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.

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.

Plus, I'm not taking it out of context, if I'm making you look like a fool, it has to do with what you're saying, you don't need any help.

As for anti-intellectualism by the way...


Anti-intellectualism describes a sentiment of hostility towards, or mistrust of, intellectuals and intellectual pursuits. This may be expressed in various ways, such as attacks on the merits of science, education, or literature.

It's a well-known phenomenon. Glad I could educate you about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism


And what happened to:


Fine, you know what? You have nothing to add to the conversation, and frankly its not worth going through your arguments point by point. Instead, I'll just report you for your (see I know which your to use) direct personal attack, and you can deal with any consequences, in the meantime, this snot nosed brat of a loser is doing the mature thing, and ignoring your posts.


?

You need to just let it go. I was going to leave you alone, but if you continue, we're going to get this thread deleted.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 219
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/25/2007 10:05:21 PM

It's a false dichotomy, and the latter group doesn't exist... at least not without the protection of the former.


No, it doesn't. But that doesn't mean it never will. How many elements of today's society are the same as those of a century ago? How many do you think will be the same a century from now? If you'll grant me the assumption that societal change will happen, why not try to direct it in a peaceful direction?


You claim that a social reform along the likes of equality and equal rights (I would point out that the sexual and racial divide still exists) is possible. Ok. Then enact a "don't use guns" social change. You need not take them away in order to do so.

As I've pointed out, and as you've not responded to, the issue is not the weapon but the criminal willing to use it. They have been around for melennia. Guns didn't make them.


Oh, I'm quite content to merge our positions. Part of the issue is the prediliction for violence of so many in our society. Part of the problem is the ease of access to dangerous weapons. I don't claim that eliminating guns alone will solve the problem. But I also don't accept that having a gun in my pocket is no different than having a rock in my pocket, as you asserted earlier. Killing or injuring someone is always personal, but it's a whole lot less personal if you can stand back and pull a trigger rather than engage in hand to hand combat.

I like your "don't use guns" concept, and it's consistent with the idealistic world I suggested we aim for. And I expected someone would challenge my civil and womens rights analogy, but my point is not that we've achieved nirvana in either case, but that we've made significant progress on both fronts, and it's time to start at least trying to make significant progress on the violence front, instead of falling back on the "that's just the way things are" argument racists and sexists tried to use not too long ago.

It's wrong to discriminate. It's wrong to commit violence. It's time our social norms regarding that latter started catching up to the former.

Dave
 LoonyTunz
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 221
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/25/2007 10:25:11 PM

The point I made regarding Switzerland had nothing to do with the fact that it is a nuetral country. Or to the fact that it has never been invaded.
The point I made with Switzerland is that they do have a very low crime rate and a lot of that IS attributable to the fact that each household has weapons and the citizens are trained in their use.

Yeah that really helps stop the guy that walked into their legislature and offed 14 people.


In each of those countries violent crime is and has been on the increase. The only reason that it hasn't surpassed the US is strictly due to the population levels. Per capita the US is actually at a lower level of violent crimes then any of those countries.

For the 30th or 5-th time..... NO!!!
Learn to read the basis of the posted crime rates, per capita means "per person" in essence. The statistics shown are per 100,000 people, therefore from the numbers shown the USA has a ridiculiously high violent crime rate for a G8 country.
China has a much higher population that the US and gun control yet lower crime, while India also has a much higher population density and no gun control and an outrageous level of crime. So any claim that "population density" is a factor do not stand up to scrutiny.

Seriously you need an advocate for common sense down there. The NRA has gone nuts supporting even things such as possesion of weapons that are much more than self-defence or hunting would require, and the backlash anti-gun lobbys tend to want all guns out of circulation.

Your current controls fail miserably and should be redressed with a bit of common sense. Face it the "pro" side is the one saying that it is fine that Cho even after his psych evaluations and reports filed by local law enforcement should be able to order his guns online out of state. Maybe he would have gotten illegal guns but if y'all were atleast half-assed carefully about who can get them even the illegal one would be more scarce, and more costly to come by. As shy and anti-social as he appears to have been it isn't that likely he would have even known where to go or who to see to obtain illegal arms.
 LoonyTunz
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 225
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/26/2007 2:36:30 AM
****Sigh****

Read it again, nowhere did I say be more like India or China, they are counter points to the claims that unlimited access equates to a safer society.

And for the record the German gun laws came into being un 1928 under the Weimar goovernment, not The Nazi party. This is very well documented and easily verified.

As for "hidden agendas" in gun control groups ... you mean like the ones in the NRA? Both have radical fools in them. The easiest way ti discredit the radicals in the anti-gun lobby is ti institute workable, well thought out and FEDERALLY mandated gun controls. With those in place their arguements concerning the ban of guns amounts to simple fear mongerring, the same tactic which is favourred by the NRA.
 dalek1967
Joined: 1/20/2007
Msg: 230
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/26/2007 12:12:02 PM
This is what get me, criminals can not legally possess a gun already. It has been that way for decades. If you are convicted of a felony, your right to bear arms has been removed. If a cop pulls you over and finds a gun, you can be arrested on the spot. So someone explain why they think taking guns from everybody is going to do some good? It doesn't make sense.

I wrote this somewhere before, I sat on a jury where the guy was on trial for capitol murder. He was also on trial for robbery too. Therefore, it was a death penalty case. Since he was going to jail for the rest of his life or going to die for what he did, you really think he was worried about adding a few more years to his sentence for a gun law? He could care less. Also note this, the gun was stolen and he bought the gun illegally too. He got it off the street. I think someone said he got it for $50.00. He had no criminal record before that so he could have went and bought one legally but hey, it was cheaper to get it illegally, so why go through all that mess.

If all guns were banned tomorrow, the only people that would have guns is the crooks. Courts have already said that even if a person has a illegal weapon, they are not required to answer any questions because of the 5th amendment. So the only people that would even abide by the law is the ones that should be able to have them, the ones that abide by the law. Go figure.

I think this has been said before, guns don't kill people, people do. We were doing it before guns even came along.

 feanor3791
Joined: 4/17/2007
Msg: 232
gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/26/2007 2:40:55 PM
I haven't bothered to do this so far, because it seems so obvious, but here goes.

Those of you who advocate gun control have told us that there is no correlation between gun laws and loss of liberty; "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". Then you turn around and quote questionable statistics saying that lower violent crime rates in countries with strict gun control laws prove that gun control works. However, you are committing the same, as well as other, logical fallacies here.

Comparing violent crime rates in different societies is apples and oranges. Unless you can isolate all other factors and compare the effect of the gun laws alone, the argument is invalid. Even in nations which are fairly close societally, like Canada and America, it doesn't work because there are too many other factors to take into account: things like societal homogeneity, general respect for law and law enforcement, poverty, social programs, etc. The best one can do in comparing statistics like this is to compare change in a single area when gun laws are put into effect, or compare areas of similar population within the same country. So; here are some statistics:



Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:

"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)


* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:







homicide rate
Florida: -36%
United States: -0.4%

firearm homicide rate
Florida: -37%
United States: 15%

handgun homicide rate
Florida: -41%
United States: 24%


(3)

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)

--http://www.justfacts.com/issues.guncontrol.asp



After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted."

--http://www.fraserinstitute.org/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=604



A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.

But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.
The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.

It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession.

Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime.

And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average.

--http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/1440764.stm



Sorting FBI data by violent crime rate uncovers some interesting results. The seven least violent states are all shall-issue right-to-carry (RTC). Of the seven most violent states, three are non-RTC (includes D.C.) Since about 75% of all states are RTC, 43% of the worst being non-RTC makes these states over-represented at the unpleasant end. The five states with the lowest murder rate are RTC, but two of the five worst are non-RTC. The eleven states with the lowest robbery rate are RTC, but of the eleven worst, 5 are non-RTC. Nine of 10 states with the lowest assault rates are RTC, while 3 of 10 with the highest rates are non-RTC. The only exception is in rates of rape, where three of the 10 lowest are non-RTC, while only one non-RTC state is in the 10 worst.

Overall, non-RTC states average 27.8% higher violent crime rates, most notably 43.8% higher murder and 85% higher robbery rates, than RTC states. (See Table 4) The exception is rape: non-RTC states averaged 21.1% lower rates, reversing a 9-year trend where 10 states with RTC laws enacted during 1995-1996 saw their rates of rape drop faster than non-RTC states.[8]

Table 4 – Violent Crime Rate Averages, 2005[9]

Population Violent Crime Homicide Rape Robbery Assault

RTC 394.4 4.8 35.6 93.6 260.4

Non-RTC 504.0 6.9 28.1 173.2 295.7

Pct Difference 27.8 43.8 (21.1) 85.0 13.6



Between 2004 and 2005, RTC states saw a 1.1% increase in their violent crime rate, compared to non-RTC states’ 2.1% increase. (See Table 5) The main influences in non-RTC states experiencing a greater increase in the violent crime rate is due to the first two categories noted in the CNN article: murder and robbery.



Table 5 – RTC Violent Crime Rate Trend Comparison, 2004-2005[10]
(Negative Percent = Decreasing Rate)

Population Violent Crime Homicide Rape Robbery Assault

RTC 1.1 0.3 (2.0) 1.6 1.4

Non-RTC 2.1 1.9 (4.4) 6.8 0.2



Separating community types by RTC status indicates a moderate benefit imparted by personal self-defense. Of the 15 different categories–five violent crime categories for each of the three community types–RTC states were better in 10 of 15. In all three community types, RTC states bettered the national rate change for overall violent crime, while non-RTC states saw larger increases in MSAs and non-MSA cities. The one exception is in rape, where non-RTC states led in two of three community type comparisons, though some counterbalance occurs because RTC MSAs saw a greater drop than the national one-year rate change and non-MSA cities without RTC saw a 19.2% increase in rape. (See Table 6)

Table 6 – One-Year Violent Crime Trends by Community Type and RTC Status, 2004-2005[11] (Percent Average Rate Change)

Community Violent Crime Homicide Rape Robbery Assault

MSA RTC 0.7 6.5 (2.1) 0.3 1.1

MSA non-RTC 2.8 2.9 (4.8) 7.7 0.7

Non-MSA RTC (2.1) (0.8) 4.7 (1.3) (3.1)

Non-MSA non-RTC 8.1 9.7 19.2 15.1 5.4

Non-Metro RTC 0.9 (6.6) 3.0 4.1 0.7

Non-Metro non-RTC 1.1 15.1 1.2 (10.5) 2.1

U.S. 1.8 1.9 (1.7) 3.8 1.5



It should be noted, however, that RTC communities remain less violent, leading their non-RTC counterparts in eleven of 15 categories, including the overall violent crime rate. (See Table 7)



Table 7 – Average Violent Crime Rates by Community Type and RTC Status, 2005[12]

Community Violent Crime Homicide Rape Robbery Assault

MSA RTC 417.3 5.2 37.0 110.3 264.9

MSA non-RTC 523.8 7.2 27.6 185.5 303.5

Non-MSA RTC 354.0 3.4 35.8 54.1 260.6

Non-MSA non-RTC 438.2 1.9 44.5 67.7 324.1

Non-Metro RTC 194.9 3.1 22.0 13.7 158.5

Non-Metro non-RTC 201.1 2.2 21.4 14.5 163.1

Conclusion
Yes, violent crime rates increased in 2005, especially in the categories of murder and robbery. Most of this increase occurred in large metropolitan areas and in cities not part of a larger metropolitan area that reside in non-RTC states. Right-to-carry communities are generally the safest places to live, and non-metropolitan counties in RTC states are the safest places for women. So the next time a gun controller says we need to ban guns because crime is going up, kindly give them this paper and remind them that they have already contributed enough, thank you very much.

About the Author
Howard Nemerov publishes with ChronWatch, News Busters and other sites, and is a frequent guest on NRA News. He can be reached at HNemerov [at sign] Netvista.net.

Endnotes




[1] Terry Frieden, Violent crime takes first big jump since ’91, CNN, June 12, 2006. http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/12/crime.rate/

[2] Ibid.

[3] Table 1 – Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986-2005. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/documents/05tbl01.xls


[4] Compiled from Table 8 – Offenses Known to Law Enforcement by State by City, 2005. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/documents/05tbl08.xls Email request for spreadsheet.


[5] FBI Crime in the United States, 2004, Appendix III – Uniform Crime Reporting Area Definitions, page 507. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/CIUS2004.pdf

[6] Compiled from Table 5 – Crime in the United States by State, 2005. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/documents/05tbl05.xls Email request for spreadsheet.


[7] Ibid.


[8] Rape rate trends compiled from FBI crime data 1995, 1996, 2004, and 2005. Email request for spreadsheet.

[9] Compiled from Table 4 – Crime in the United States by Region, Geographic Division, and State, 2004-2005. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/documents/05tbl04.xls and Table 5 – Crime in the United States by State, 2005. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/documents/05tbl05.xls Email request for spreadsheet.


[10] Compiled from Table 4 – Crime in the United States by Region, Geographic Division, and State, 2004-2005. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/documents/05tbl04.xls Email request for spreadsheet.


[11] Ibid.


[12] Ibid.

--http://newsbusters.org/node/9140

There is, of course, much more available for anyone who wants to do an unbiased search on the topic. Note here that, although the articles quoted are in many cases from pro-gun websites, the studies and statistics they use are from neutral sources, such as the U.S. government. This is in contrast to the only contradictory statistics I came across, (here http://www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/jan99/011899a.htm) where the study itself was performed by handgun control, inc. Highly suspect.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >