|Gun ControlPage 2 of 50 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)|
|Pending US GUN CONTROL ligislation is based almost word for word upon NAZI law. You may verify this with the rabi at JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARM OWNERSHIP. I think they have some fun reading called Grandpa Jack. |
PS-- NAZI's have been my PERSONAL friends. I once passed on the opportunity to have the decorations of Ritter Hans Ulrich Rudel. NAZI's hate citizen private firearm ownership...
Posted: 10/21/2004 2:06:15 PM
|This is a moot academic issue. Rank and File Paladin Policeman all over Mayberry support the 2 Amendment and ARMED CITIZENS. They will fight. They have already picked their Big Brother targets if it comes to that. I have heard some speak. All this hot air is meaningless in the face of that resolve including PDD 25.|
Posted: 10/23/2004 5:24:22 PM
|People are crazy about their guns. In South Africa the government wanted to install a law that restricted people to no more than 3 guns. A politician in parliament threatened to emigrate if the law was passed. What the hell are you going to do with so may guns. Are you going to start using your feet to shoot the things. I just find the whole thing very funny. Another incident: A guy shot his daughter dead late at night in their home because he though she was an intruder. People with guns are just as crazy as criminals. How can you just shoot at someone without even checking who they are.|
Posted: 10/23/2004 11:20:19 PM
has anyone brought up the fact that the phrase "the right to bear arms" ACTUALLY meant that the original US colonies had the right to have an organized army for defense? it's been interpreted to mean "I have the right to sleep with a gun under my pillow and point it anyone who threatens me".
actually it was not for the colonies to have an army. "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined "militia of the United States" to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. This statute, incidentally, remained in effect into the early years of the present century as a legal requirement of gun ownership for most of the population of the United States. There can by little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard. The purpose was to create an armed citizenry, which the political theorists at the time considered essential to ward off tyranny. From this militia, appropriate measures might create a "well regulated militia" of individuals trained in their duties and responsibilities as citizens and owners of firearms.
keep in mind we had just broken away from british rule, the founders wanted to make sure that later down the road the people would still be free. all you have to do is read some of their quotes.
To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)
"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)
"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." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)
Samuel Adams, a handgun owner who pressed for an amendment stating that the "Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms," would be shocked to hear that his native state today imposes a year's sentence, without probation or parole, for carrying a firearm without a police permit.
His purpose was to incorporate, not distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania minority, Sam Adams, or the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among other rights that "That right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." I n the House, this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were then trimmed in the interests of brevity. The conscientious objector clause was removed following objections by Elbridge Gerry, who complained that future Congresses might abuse the exemption to excuse everyone from military service.
The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In this form it was submitted into the Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "For the common defense".
The earliest American constitutional commentators concurred in giving this broad reading to the amendment. When St. George Tucker, later Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, in 1803 published an edition of Blackstone annotated to American law, he followed Blackstone's citation of the right of the subject "of having arms suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law" with a citation to the Second Amendment, "And this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government." William Rawle's "View of the Constitution" published in Philadelphia in 1825 noted that under the Second Amendment: "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." The Jefferson papers in the Library of Congress show that both Tucker and Rawle were friends of, and corresponded with, Thomas Jefferson. Their views are those of contemporaries of Jefferson, Madison and others, and are entitled to special weight. A few years later, Joseph Story in his "Commentaries on the Constitution" considered the right to keep and bear arms as "the palladium of the liberties of the republic", which deterred tyranny and enabled the citizenry at large to overthrow it should it come to pass.
They argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" — apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. These commentators contend instead that the amendment's preamble regarding the necessity of a "well regulated militia . . . to a free state" means that the right to keep and bear arms applies only to a National Guard. Such a reading fails to note that the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.
it is your right to not have a gun, and it is my right to have one, or several as the case may be.
Posted: 10/23/2004 11:24:34 PM
Posted By: GUITARMAN100 on 06-09-2004 06:43 PM
Subject: Gun Control
Message: OK ALL YOU PRO GUNNERS
LOOK AT THE STATITICS FOR YOURSELF
HOW MANY PEOPLE DIE BECAUSE THEY GET SHOT IN
1)- THE USA
IN A GIVEN YEAR?................................
PLEASE, GO RESEARCH THIS.............................
IF YOU CAN COMEBACK WITH A LOGICAL EXPLANATION WHY PEOPLE SHOULD OWN GUNS
AFTER YOU READ THAT..................THEN COME SHARE YOUR "LOGIC"
WITH THE REST OF THE ROOM...........I WILL BE WAITING HERE TO RESPOND.
evening gman, im compiling stats for a post for ya gimme a few
Posted: 10/24/2004 12:12:54 AM
|these stats are mostly for the us... im having probs finding cdc-esque reports for ther countries|
firearms kill 28,663 1.2% in the us (this figure include police shootings, self defense,
accidental, gang, everything)
In 2000, there were 28,663 firearm deaths in the United States,
including 16,586 (58%) suicides, 11,071 (39%) homicides
(including 270 deaths due to legal intervention),
and 1,006 (4%) undetermined/ unintentional firearm deaths.
as for the mother whose kid was just shotr in a drive by, there were 181 firearms deaths of
children under the age of fourteen. this includes suicides, homicide, and accidental. you're more
likley to die in the hospital than by a gun. now remember when we get to a point when people
are saying "yeah tell that constitution crap to (insert whatever here)" that can be said about anything,
if taken to the extreme. "OMG look what happened to the twin towers... tell the families about
that freedom of religion crap' (yes i know they were not citizens but you see where this could go?"
Fires, burns 833
Mechanical suffocation 459 (what the hell is mech. suff. anyway??)
Ingestion of food, object 213
Source: Figures are for 1995.
National Safety Council,
Accident Facts: 1998 Edition, at 10, 11, 18
wow, i guess its just not safe for mom to drive you to the pool. death by falling kills
more people in the us than guns do. how do we legislate that i wonder? anywho, this is part one
it took me a while to start finding stuff didn't want you to think i'd run out on a good debate
get back with ya in a few more
Posted: 10/24/2004 12:19:37 AM
|these are per 100k|
Country Suicide Homicide Total
U.S. 12.2 7.59 19.79
Finland 24.4 2.86 27.2
Switzerland 24.45 1.13 25.58
France 21.8 4.36 26.16
W.Germany 20.37 1.48 21.85
Japan 20.3 0.9 21.2
these are not just gun death statistics but stat in general that include guns.
in france, germany, and japan they have almost total gun control. ready for the kicker
Israel 6 2 8
and people are constantly getting blown up in israel!!
Posted: 10/24/2004 12:26:36 AM
heres a page to look at, a friend has just showed up and i wouldn't want to be rude to her.
catch ya tomorrow
|calm down buckwheat|
Posted: 10/24/2004 12:48:18 AM
|whoa, easy boy... debate not flame, i'd hate to get banned for rippin you.|
anywho couple of things.
1) you asked me (pro-gun) to look up the statistics had i not done this and stated pure opinion you would have said i was pulling this all out of my a$$.
2)i haven't tried to "wriggle" (btw i think you mean wiggle) around anything. i am simply giving you access to the same information that i was pulling. hell i haven't even answered any questions yet.
as far as opinion goes i do not believe everyone has a right to their opinion, i believe everyone has a right to their INFORMED opinion. makes for better arguments and conversations.
Posted: 10/24/2004 3:25:17 AM
|Its twice that of Canada, since the U.S. has 10x the population.|
Someone have some stats for how many were killed by legally Registered weapons vs. Illegal ones?
The U.S. has far more smuggling into the Country through Mexico, loosely stated 20x higher than that between Canada & the U.S.?
The Statistics above are an indicator, but by no means the complete story.
Furthermore, what percentage of death was cause by handguns vs. rifles, since handgun regulations are different in Canada than the U.S.?
Next item, there is a far higher percentage of poverty in the U.S. than in Canada, since the Canadian Social System picks up the slack, making crime not as essential to survival.
As such, without these considerations, the above Statistics are yet relevant to other matters.
Its not that Black & White.
Posted: 10/24/2004 11:00:08 PM
|We should talk LAND MINES ! These are the real killers. Schu Mine ! Bouncing Betty ! TOE POPPERS ! If the US disarms we'll be like all those other worn-torn countries like Germany, France and Asia etc. Land Mines, D/U, and Toe Poppers ! I don't want that in the US.|
Posted: 10/28/2004 11:35:57 PM
|One key element to look at is the relevancy of the facts/stats. Maybe there's 10x more people killed in country A than country B. And lets say there's a difference in the gun laws between the 2 countries too. This does not mean that every one of those persons killed was shot by a pistol-totin' drunk ending an argument with the neighbors the easy way. Sometimes people getting killed by guns is a good thing. Home intruder catches a .38 in the skull? Probably a good thing. Man runs through playground with chainsaw, slashing children and takes a hollowpoint through the heart.... good thing. Yet some seem to be saying that "hey, there's two more people murdered with a gun; so all guns are bad."|
And what was that about "try quoting all that Constitution garbage to someone who just lost their child to a drive-by shooting."? Let me see if I get this straight, your opinion is automatically correct because someone in a highly agitated mental state *might* not want to hear some historical truth? Seriously, if you think the Constitution -- "Constitution" meaning the very FOUNDATION of the country -- is garbage, then basically you hate the US and/or all it stands for.... so why are you here? You hate those who love their country, and hate those who support the defense thereof? Tell me again who's the hippocrit?
Allow MasterBart to pitch an analogy. Headed east on I-10 through Texas, shortly before the Louisiana border you come to a small town called Vidor. This place has a reputation for being basically the largest concentration of Klansmen (KKK) per capita in the state, and probably the country. Yet, I'm sure there are a few people there who really aren't racist. Would it be wise for a black family to move there, because "not everyone there is bad?" No, heck no, absolutely not. Just as much as a few good apples don't freshen the barrel here, a few bad apples shouldn't spoil the bunch amongst gun owners. Sure, there will be people that do stupid things with guns. This doesn't mean that owning a gun automatically turns someone stupid. If you want a real solution, outlaw stupidity. MMM, sarcasm intended.
If you want less violent crime in this country, outlaw the FDA. You can't go to the grocery store and buy fruits or vegetables that haven't been contaminated with a governmentally set minimum of fertilizers, fungicides, pesticides, herbicides, preservatives etc etc etc. Meats come with growth hormones, antibiotics and God-knows-what-else. And that's only on "pure" things. Most people drink "fruit-flavored beverage" instead of juice. Most of the meat we consume comes in the form of mechanically separated, processed meat by-products, with added chemicals. Yup, read the ingredients on your hot dogs, folks. In fact, read the ingredients on everything, then ask "what effect will this have on my brain, over years of consumption?".
Then tack on the number of people who smoke, drink and do drugs. Let's say you don't; still, how much time do you spend below hi-voltage power lines? How many radio stations are there in your city? -- do you realize those radio waves are passing through your body 24/7, for every station? Uh-huh, same goes for several million cell phone conversations -- the cellular radiation is going through your body too. How much time do you spend absorbing cathode ray tube radiation? Do you realize that every time you pass through a radar trap, there's over 150x the amount of X-rays passing through you than at the hospital having your bones photo'ed?
How much chlorine do you absorb through your skin when you take a shower in a city with a municipal water supply (filtered sewage)? Lead? Etc? Do you know how many chemicals leech out of a plastic bottle into liquid of any kind? -- yeah, and how many times a day do you drink something out of a plastic bottle?
And you wonder if ADD is something we have the "insight" to diagnose more often, or if the epidemic is growing. "Did people have behavioral problems like we do now 100 years ago" you may ask. I doubt it.
Now that we've taken a look at what goes into our brain chemically, let's look at other input. What do we get when we watch TV, read the paper, a magazine, a book, see a movie, listen to the radio or an album? We have a media that thrives on constantly outdoing the competition in a contest for maximum shock value. The ghetto gangsta criminal is now becoming the standard default social icon.
People are going to go nuts. Some will use guns. Blaming guns is looking in the wrong direction, and this kind of ignorance is downright dangerous. Yes, the Constitution has been overruled, ignored, underrated, misinterpreted, misrepresented and outright ignored for so long. Those who understand it's principles cannot ever manage to convince society to understand them, much less follow those principles. Still, saying that banishment of the tool will prevent bad things is dissillusionment, and dangerously so.
Posted: 10/29/2004 1:34:09 AM
|guitarman100, Hi! If the US citizens surrender their arms anyone could mine the place. We already have our own military conducting covert NBC warfare here and we're armed !|
Posted: 10/29/2004 4:12:27 AM
|Another point perhaps overlooked.|
I would'nt be the least bit surprised if at least 1,000 - 2,000 murders are planned in the U.S. every year. I believe that might still be conservative.
Now, supposing these murders are done with guns and the bodies left for the authorities to find, all of a sudden the Gun-Death Statistic goes up and guns become a very dangerous Public Menace.
Let's say though, that only a fraction got murdered with guns because something else more popular came along, all a sudden the Statistics are down, and "guns" are no longer such a big threat to Society.
And, should these Murderers dispose of the bodies so the authorities cannot find them, all of a sudden the crime rate is down. And if the majority of these bodies are left for the authorities to find, the crime rate goes up and we suddenly need more police. I don't know, maybe there is such a thing as murder trends ... who knows?
Murder is Murder!
Granted, a reasonable amount of gun control is needed. No argument. But let's not take our rights to bear arms away from us over arbitrary statistics.
And who decides what are too many Deaths caused by guns anyways? Is there a certain number in the Statistics that have to be reached before someone says: "Ok. That's it! No more Guns for you guys"
And does anyone think for one second making gun posession even more restrictive or illegal is going to eliminate murders? Try blocking off the Mexican border first before such ridiculous legislation is even brought to the table. People will still be killed by illegal guns. And the positive net effect of all this is? You guessed it, a law-abiding citizen can no longer defend his home because he is no longer allowed shoot back, playing right into the hands of those using illegal guns. Makes the job of murdering so much easier.
All too bogus and wishy-washy!
Posted: 11/5/2004 2:47:25 AM
Why have an election, when you can have an O.K. Corral-style shootout?
|Re: Gun Control|
Posted: 11/10/2004 7:57:20 PM
|I believe the US should not re-invent the WHEEL. We are not so great as Rome yet the greatest republic since Rome. We should do as the Romans: keeping their swords at hand. |
The praetorian cohort that guarded the imperial palace and accompanied the emperor in the city of Rome was known as the cohors togata. As their duties were performed within the pomerium, the sacred boundary of the city, these soldiers could not wear full armour and equipment and therefore dressed in civilian togae, though keeping their swords at hand.
The praetorian guard
Under the republic Roman generals had usually formed a guard unit named cohors praetoria after the praetorium or HQ. Under the empire such units became a privilege reserved for the emperor under whose auspicia all military operations were conducted. Augustus originally formed nine numbered cohortes praetoriae consisting of both infantry and cavalry billeted at Rome and some other Italian cities. This number was later raised to ten units and the cohorts were concentrated in a large base adjacent to Rome. Command of the praetorian guard was entrusted to one or two equestrian praefecti praetorio. Three additional cohortes urbanae with a similar structure were also present at Rome, but not under the direct control of the praetorian prefects.
A praetorian cohort consisted of approximately 500 infantrymen organised in manipuli and centuriae and under the overall command of a tribunus. This strength was doubled in the course of the first century AD. The majority of praetorians fought as heavy infantry with smaller numbers acting as light infantry lancearii and archers. Added to these foot soldiers each cohort contained a number of cavalrymen. The combined equites praetoriani numbered at least 400 men and may even have been a thousand strong. Other troopers were known as equites speculatores and served as bodyguards to the emperor. The praetorian cohort that guarded the imperial palace and accompanied the emperor in the city of Rome was known as the cohors togata. As their duties were performed within the pomerium, the sacred boundary of the city, these soldiers could not wear full armour and equipment and therefore dressed in civilian togae, though keeping their swords at hand.
|Re: Gun Control|
Posted: 1/13/2005 5:13:17 PM
|Also bear in mind a phrase which dates back millenia; "who will guard the guards". Basically, if we trust all of our defense and security needs to police or other "authorities", who will guard them to make sure THEY are in line?|
Maybe it's only made bigtime media here in Houston, but over the last few years there has been an absolute epidemic of cops shooting people who are *completely* innocent. Try getting on a search engine and type in the name Pedro Oregon.
A few months back police stopped an SUV on foot. The stupid cop used a pistol to tap on the window, which (as he said on TV) "got hung" in the window's weatherproofing and "accidentally" went off, killing the driver. The officer's reason for stopping the SUV was because the driver was a young hispanic male who appeared "too young" to be driving an expensive vehicle.
A few weeks later, cops busted the door down to an apartment (without a warrant) because of an anonymous drug-related tip. All of the occupants inside were fatally shot; they were all in their early teens, playing video games, unarmed, sober, and not in posession of anything illegal.
There are hundreds more examples in this town alone, just in the past couple years. I happen to personally know the mother of a mentally retarted girl who was shot just walking down the street.
THIS, my friends, is why we have the 2nd Amendment. Cops get to murder people freely, and at the worst they get a temporary paid suspension should something make the news. As to "who will guard the guards", the answer is US. I am now just as likely to be shot by a renegade cop as I am a renegade criminal. NOW tell me that we should take guns out of the hands of citizens/civilians and only let police have them.
|Re: Gun Control|
Posted: 1/14/2005 9:26:41 AM
|One of the most striking differences between the U.S. and other countries when it comes to gun control is the assumption that ownership of a firearm is a "right" versus a privilege. The 'right' to gun ownership puts the onus on the government to show why someone is not responsible enough for gun ownership, while the alternative makes the opposite true. |
Here is where the liklihood of abuse comes in. Gun control, often mistaken for a left-wing consipiracy to 'disarm' the people, is successful only when the process for ownership includes enough hurdles to make it somewhat difficult to simply obtain one.
Instant background checks, for example...I have yet to come up with a reason why someone could have a problem with waiting 48-72 hours for a weapon. However, this waiting period (which has shown to prevent crimes of passion, for example, as the wait allows cooler heads to prevail) is roundly dismissed as unconstitutional.
Limiting of calibre or capacity. A 9mm handgun...12 gauge shotgun...fully automatic machine gun...rocket launcher...I'm not sure, what comes next...ICBM? There seems to be this unquestioned assumption that military hardware is necessary for a citizen to own. Why? I don't know, perhaps deer hunting those pesky buggers in their reinforced armour hideouts? The elusive Delta Force Pheasant? Again, with little rationale use for these guns (and please, I know there are laws about fully automatic weapons, but so weak that they are laughable and easily over-ridden) they are still somehow held as sacrosanct by the NRA.
The fallacies of self-defence. More children kill themselves or other children with a gun found stored improperly in a home than citizens killing intruders or other self-defence situation. In fact, the liklihood is much greater that a gun in the home will be used against its owner than it will to defend someone. This fact alone should put the onus on the gun lobby to prove itself as a safe alternative. But the NRA fights desperately against measures such as fingerprinting safety locks and other technologies to ensure a gun is used only by its owner.
The outlandish argument of crime levels making gun ownership necessary. The most circular argument possible, since it has been shown time and again that as guns are made more numerous in a society, and more easily accessible, violent crime rises. Most countries that recognize this take the approach that fewer guns will lower crime rates...and the statistics seem to indicate this is what happens. The U.S. approach has been..."rising crime, you're in more danger, buy a gun to protect yourself..." which means more guns available, and crime in the U.S. seems to be much higher as a result.
No one argues that guns should be absolutely removed from society (although, it seems an interesting cost exchange...fewer children killing themselves versus being able to hunt a moose) but the fact is the overall benefits of strong control measures are hardly such that anyone really is going to miss out too much.
|Re: Gun Control|
Posted: 1/14/2005 3:02:29 PM
On the other hand I would freely give up my right to keep and bear arms if it could be guarenteed that the police, and military would never abuse their power. And if it could be guarenteed that no criminals would ever be able to get their hands on a gun of any sort. Ain't gonna happen.
No, of course, you're right those things aren't going to happen...here are some other things that aren't going to happen, though...
1. Should the police decide to abuse their power, from which I gather you mean in such a way that they're coming after you...they'll win. No matter how many guns you own, no matter whether the guns you have are assault rifles and anti-aircraft guns, the police are gonna come out on top. Personally, that makes me feel just a little bit safer at night, but hey, that's just me.
2. Assuming for a second we aren't of the opinion that the U.S. military isn't already abusing its power (albeit in Iraq but let's not split hair triggers), and instead are talking about the military abusing its power in the U.S. (and again, I presume you mean abusing it and coming after you), then they will win. Not only will they win, but they'll make the ass-whupping the police gave you earlier look like a light spanking.
3. Stats are clear about criminals having the ability to access guns. They will continue to do so the more guns that are available. That being said, the stats seem to point to an outcome that favours the criminals when it involves a victim with a gun. Whether that is because the victim with the gun is not qualified to defend themselves with said weapon or because the victim is too busy making sure the criminal isn't in fact just the leading charge of an abusive police force or unit of U.S. Marines is unclear, but the end result is the same.
And here are a couple things that will happen...
1. While you're waiting for the army, police and marauding hordes of criminals to make your gun purchase worthwhile, there will literally be thousands of small children who take their lives or their playmates lives accidently. There will be thousands of adolescents who take their own lives on purpose, with the assistance of a gun their parents have for self-defence and there will be thousands of violent crimes committed with guns that were stolen from law abiding citizens.
2. Paranoia will remain an illusive but treatable mental condition.
|Re: Gun Control|
Posted: 1/14/2005 3:37:11 PM
|Sure...stats it is...none of it is made up, although I haven't the time or the patience to go and find every bit of information that I've seen, heard or read over the years...|
How about I just give you some stats, and you tell me which stat you find so alarming, and I'll do my best to either give you some information to find it yourself (if you're so inclined, and by that I mean that it will actually change your mind about any of this) or if it's reasonably easy for me to put my hands on it, I'll put it up here.
The link is underneath the text...please note some of the flaming liberal, entirely partisan sources, such as Scientific American, the New England Journal of Medicine and the FBI.
Here's a comparison of countries...homicide rates with and without guns...suicide rates with and without guns...per 100 000.
But research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.(Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.) The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death(FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48).
This is for one year: 1994:
Of 1,356 accidental deaths by gunshot in 1994, 185 involved children 14 years old and
younger. For each such fatality, there are several accidental shootings that cause serious
injury. Guns were also the means of destruction in 19,590 suicides, 210 involving children 14 or younger.
Private citizens sometimes use their guns to scare off trespassers and fend off assaults. Such defensive gun uses (DGUs) are sometimes invoked as a measure of the public benefits of private gun ownership. On the basis of data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data, one would conclude that defensive uses are rare
indeed, about 108,000 per year.
Here's a stat about suicide and it's higher rate with homes with guns
Residents of homes where a gun is present are 5 times more likely to experience a suicide than residents of homes without guns (Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 327, No. 7, August 13, 1992, pp. 467-472.) Although the reader may or may not disagree with the morality behind suicide being illegal, the fact remains that a gun makes it easier to commit suicide in a fit of rage, depression, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
(my note: sense of guns making it easier to commit suidide due to rage/drugs etc follows through logically on the idea of crimes of passion against a family member)
Obviously, there is a problem with criminals having access to guns, which is why so many people feel they, too, need a gun for self-defense. But this is a vicious cycle: FBI Crime Reports sources indicate that there are about 340,000 reported firearms thefts every year. Those guns, the overwhelming amount of which were originally manufactured and purchased legally, and now in the hands of criminals. Thus, the old credo "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is silly. What happens is many guns bought legally are sold or stolen, and can then be used for crime.
A study of 743 gunshot deaths by Dr. Arthur Kellermann and Dr. Donald Reay published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that 84% of these homicides occurred during altercations in the home. Only 2 of the 743 gunshot deaths occurring in the home involved an intruder killed during an attempted entry, and only 9 of the deaths were determined by police/courts to be justified (FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48). The evidence revealed in the Kellermann study is consistent with data reported by the FBI. In 1993, there were 24,526 people murdered, 13,980 with handguns, yet only 251 justifiable homicides by civilians using handguns. (FBI, Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Reports 1994, 1995).
For example, a review of 13 countries showed that there was a strong correlation between gun ownership and both homicide with a gun and overall homicide rates (Killias excluded Northern Ireland from the analysis because of the level of civil unrest). In an analysis of 14 countries, the correlation between gun ownership and gun suicide was also significant, as was the correlation of gun ownership with overall suicide rates. Killias found no evidence of a compensation process whereby other means were substituted with firearms. (Killias, M. "International Correlations between Gun Ownership and Rate of Homicide and Suicide." Canadian Medical Association Journal. 1993;148 (10): 1721-5)
|Re: Gun Control|
Posted: 1/14/2005 4:30:43 PM
I entirely respect your opinion/outlook on that front. This seems to be a common attitude in the U.S. and not one that is going to change soon...
It's just the cost for that opinion is very high, and the currency is innocent lives.
|Re: Gun Control|
Posted: 1/14/2005 6:31:20 PM
National crime statistics quoted by the NRA
Oh, well, if they're the stats quoted by the NRA...
However, as you see from some stats offered from outside of everyone's favourite non-partisan think tank on the issue of guns...not many of your points are necessarily cut and dried.
With all due respect to Charlton Heston...asking the NRA to provide you with statistics to back up gun rights is like putting Enron in charge of tax collection.
|Re: Gun Control|
Posted: 1/14/2005 9:40:53 PM
|To follow up on this...|
If there's a population segment in America who you'll find hugely in favour of strict gun control laws, it's cops. That job is hard enough to do without having to worry that every traffic stop for running a red could turn deadly.
|Re: Gun Control|
Posted: 1/14/2005 10:26:40 PM
|Uh huh. If the Jews had guns, they wouldn't have been sent to the gas chambers without a fight. Back in the 1700's England wanted to rape our asses with their taxes, and bullsh*t. We (being Americans with courage) told England to go **** themselves. England didn't like that. BUT! We had guns! And we won. Canada, on the other hand, doesn't dare to stick up for itself. Thus, the Queen Mum stares back at them from their currency. How sad....|
|Re: Gun Control|
Posted: 1/14/2005 10:37:44 PM
|masonic symbolism.....total control of the american sheeple, its in your face everytime you wip out some cash to supersize that combo...btw, its the queen...not the queen mom....and thats because were part of a commonwealth...an exclusive club of civilized nations....sorry bud...no yanks....chairs just arnt big enough|
50 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)