You want a debate on gun control?


PDA






perception
May 26, 2005, 09:20 PM
Blog (http://bigrickstallion.joeuser.com/ArticleComments.asp?c=1&AID=76073)

Found this on sigforum, and figured maybe some of you would be interesting in putting up your 2 cents worth. Probably won't change anything, but hey, how often do you really get to pick apart an anti anyway?

If you enjoyed reading about "You want a debate on gun control?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
geekWithA.45
May 26, 2005, 09:32 PM
but hey, how often do you really get to pick apart an anti anyway?

I see that you're new here.

Welcome!

Standing Wolf
May 26, 2005, 09:40 PM
You want a debate on gun control?

Nope. I'm sick of listening to the same old witless hysteria of the anti-Second Amendment bigots. Their idea of a "debate" is to tell lies, launch a few ad hominem attacks, and hide.

RavenVT100
May 26, 2005, 09:50 PM
If they don't like guns, they're welcome not to own one. They have no business being anywhere near mine. And it would be a waste of my time to come to their message board and attempt to outshout their whining, not to mention completely unproductive.

Graystar
May 26, 2005, 10:01 PM
Personally, I like Weaver but I know Isosceles is better.

DSRUPTV
May 26, 2005, 10:06 PM
I always wonder why people from other countries get so bent out of shape about our laws. Mind your own business and stay in your country!!!

The Rabbi
May 26, 2005, 10:21 PM
Yeah.
Anyone who owns a .45 is just trying to compensate for something. Nine is fine.
Anyone who thinks an AR is a battle rifle rather than a rabbit gun doesnt know what he's talking about. Get an AK.
Point-shooting=dumb idea
If you're serious about personal defense you carry a revolver, six for sure. If you just want to show off carry an auto.
Colt? If its a pony its a phony.
Anyone buying a Glock is just increasing our dependence on foreign oil. He sure doesnt know squat about handguns.
SIG=Stupid Idea of a Gun
Jeff Cooper is the ultimate authority on guns. Anyone else is just along for the ride.
Train as you shoot. Shoot as you train. Carry your load.

migoi
May 26, 2005, 10:56 PM
inclined to go wrestle in the mud for a bit might consider dropping the below copied information into the fray and ask how difficult is for a normal everyday citizen to obtain a gun in Brazil or Venzuela.

migoi

BRASILIA, Brazil, May 5 (Reuters) - Venezuela and Brazil have the highest gun death rates in the world, according to a U.N. study released on Thursday in Brazil as the country's legislators considered a referendum to ban firearm sales.

Gun murders are the leading cause of death in Brazil, which ranked second only to Venezuela in gun murders out of 57 countries studied by the United Nations report.

In Venezuela, 22.15 people out of every 100,000 are murdered with guns, while 21.72 are killed in Brazil.

Those rates were higher than for Israel, which has an armed conflict with the Palestinians. At the bottom of the ranking was Japan with a rate of 0.06 people, according to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) study.

Brazil's Congress is considering a national referendum this year to ask whether the sale of arms should be prohibited in a country said to have the world's highest number of murders.

Brazil imposed tough controls in 2003 that made it illegal for ordinary citizens to own guns and set tough prison sentences for people found carrying them illegally.

Latin America's biggest nation is still awash with as many as 20 million unregistered and illegal firearms.

Guns overtook traffic accidents as the leading cause of death in Brazil in the 1990s. Between 35,000 and 40,000 Brazilians are killed each year by firearms.

******

Kates on International Homicide Rates and Gun Laws/Ownership
RGriff9243
Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:59:23 -0700
Forwarding e-mail from Don B. Kates on international homicide rates.

Rich

Subj: INTERNATIONAL HOMICIDE RATES AND GUN LAWS/OWNERSHIP
Date: 7/18/2004 6:12:09 PM Eastern Standard Time

Those of you who are familiar with the paper Dr. Kohn and I presented at
the Tower of London symposium last year may remember its tables showing that despite wildly varying gun laws and rates of gun ownership most European nations have only slight variances in murder rates. In other words, gun laws did not reduce murder rates nor did widespread gun ownership increase it.

Those tables were for the 1990s and matched with two different
measurements of gun ownership. I have just run across some early 2000s figures for a wider variety of nations confirming this (though for many of these nations I have no measure of gun ownership.

These new murder rate data are given below. The asterisks indicate
clarifying discussion below the figures.

>From JURISTAT: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics pamphlet "Homicide in
Canada, 2002" by Josee Savoie at p. 3, Table titled Homicide Rates for Selected
Countries, 2002

Country Homicide Rate [per 100,000 population]

Russia 20.54 *
Luxembourg 09.01 *
U.S. 05.52
Portugal 02.57
England & Wales 02.01*
Denmark 01.99
Hungary 01.99
France 01.88 *
Canada 01.85
Australia 01.85
Tunisia 01.20 *
Switzerland 01.18 *
Germany 01.11
Austria 00.80 *

From JURISTAT: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics pamphlet "Homicide in
Canada, 2001" by Mia Dauvergne at p.3

Russia 21.18
U.S. 05.64
Finland 02.98
Hungary 02.48
Austria 01.95
Sweden 01.87
France 01.78
Canada 01.78
England/Wales 01.60
Ireland 01.00
Germany 01.05
Norway 00.81 *

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

RUSSIA: has banned handguns from the 1920s on. Over the last decade its
murder rate has been between 3 and 4 times that of the U.S.

The only reason the U.S. was once thought to have "the industrialized
world's highest murder rate" is because the Soviets suppressed and
misrepresented their rate. From 1965 to 1980 the Russian rates were slightly higher than the U.S. rate. Since then Russian murder has steadlly increased till today it is c. 4 times greater.

LUXEMBOURG: bans all guns. Its murder rate is often comparable to the western European average. But in many other years it is 2-4 times higher.

ENGLAND & WALES: used to have the lowest murder rate in Europe. But since the early 1990s its violent crime rates have steadily risen. In 1997 it banned
and confiscated all hadguns. By year 2000 its violent crime rate was double that of the US though its homicide rate is still less -- but growing steadily
closer.

FRANCE: every law abiding householder is entitled by law and policy to have a
handgun for home defense.

TUNISIA: I wouldn't trust this murder rate figure as far as I can throw it.

SWITZERLAND: Every law abiding adult is entitled to a permit to own a
handgun, and the rate of gun ownership is among the highest in Europe.

AUSTRIA: Every law abiding adult is entitled to a permit to own a handgun.
Four times more Austrians have permits to carry handguns than do Californians though California has four times more people -- and a murder rate 15 times higher.

NORWAY: has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe -- and the
lowest murder rate. Compare Holland w/ the lowest rate of gun ownership and a murder rate double Norway's.

gunsmith
May 26, 2005, 11:13 PM
for the most part it's a waste of time talking to those nitwits,I think we are better off writing to our politicians and telling them we are sending money and our votes to pro gun politicians.

beerslurpy
May 26, 2005, 11:18 PM
I think I did ok.
Reply By: beerslurpy from THR(Anonymous User) Posted: Thursday, May 26, 2005
"There's nothing wrong with killing people as long as the right people get killed."

Dirty Harry said this. He may be a fictional character but he was right. There are many situations in which using potentially lethal force is by far the lesser of many evils.

If someone tries to kill you, should you let them or should you fight back?
If someone breaks into your house, should you welcome them or should you defend yourself?
If someone wants to violate your orifices, is shooting them not preferable to suffering such an indignity (and probably worse afterwards)?

The only harm comes when people lack the ability to distinguish between a good reason and a bad reason for killing someone. Fortunately, history, both modern and ancient shows that the vast majority of people are well equipped to make this distinction and only rarely err on the side of violence, even when it might be perfectly justifiable.

The only benefit to disarming the law-abiding is that it makes it easier for criminals and governments to do bad things to them. Since I am neither a criminal nor a government, I oppose this.

thebucket
May 27, 2005, 12:05 AM
Oh yes, I think this will work nicely,
One thing I've always wondered. Everyone anti-gunner always pulls up the statistics of gun homocides to say that the US needs to ban guns. But how many of those murders would have happened anyway with knives, clubs, or other weapon? Is it okay to be killed with a knife but not a gun? Secondly, a gun is only a mechanical device. Obviously, to murder (as in, willfully and intentionally kill, not accidently kill) someone with it, the murderer needs a desire to operate the gun to kill the individual.

In 2003, the total murders were 14,408. The total firearms murders were 9,638. This data is from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. I would say there is a serious problem with the US in that many people have the desire to murder others. Europeans don't seem to have the same desire, thus the lower murder rates. However, what I cannot fathom is why so many people believe that banning guns would remove the desire to murder. I don't want to prevent gun murders, I want prevent any murder, regardless of the weapon. I don't think murders will end simply by banning guns. Murders will only end when the desire to murder is removed from the people.

In Switzerland, where people are required to own assault rifles, there isn't rampant gun crime. Across the US state gun laws vary widely as do the state murder rates. Maine was given a grade of D- by the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence for its lax gun laws and yet its murder rate was 1.2 per 100,000, the lowest murder rate in the country! Obviously, Maine residents aren't prone to killing each other, despite easy availability of guns. Idaho was given an F+, yet its murder was 1.8. California was given an A- and yet its murder rate is 6.8. The Brady Campaign grades each state according to how strict the gun laws are so you would imagine that higher grades would equal fewer murders. In fact, after charting all the grade levels with the murder rate of each state in that grade level, it's been shown that gun control laws have no effect on the murder rates. Some states in the low grade levels have high murder rates, some have low. Same with high grades, some murder rates are high, others are low. In fact, each grade level is split about 50/50 where half of the states have high murder rates, the other half have low rates.

Banning guns may reduce gun murders, but not total murders. People will continue to murder because they have the desire to do so. Or is murdering someone with any weapon but a gun just fine? Will banning guns really, truthfully prevent murders? Can anti-gunners say with absolute certainty that no one will decide to use a knife or club to murder someone since a gun is not available? Or is the goal of anti-gunners to simply reduce gun murders but not total murders?

jdberger
May 27, 2005, 12:33 AM
I took a different tack. Probably could have been more specific in examples but didn't really feel like doing research (getting lazy preaching to the choir):
America's tradition with guns is based in its tradition of liberal democracy and the concept of the inalienable rights of man (Hobbes, Locke, Calvin and Jefferson). According to this political philosophy, the governed consent to government. It exists only by their leave. They have the right to change or dissolve it at will. (see Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States)

The Bill of Rights in the American Constitution was written to codify that agreement. In it, certain right were expressly reserved for the people. Rights to practice religion and to not be bound by a state religion. Right to assemble. Right to political speech. Rights to disagree with the government. Quite a few others but most importantly, the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is particularly significant because it gives teeth to the other rights. What use is the right to protest your government if that same government is restrained only by its own sense of fair play?

The American founding fathers were distrustful of government. They framed checks and balances into the Constitution and gave the people the ultimate CHECK...an armed populace.

Throughout history armed people have been able to defend themselves against tyrants and free themselves. The English forced the Crown to sign the Magna Carta. The French deposed a despotic royal dynasty. The Americans dumped an oppressive colonizer. So did the Dutch. A handful of starving Jews were able to hold off the SS in Warsaw.

At the end of the Second World War, there was an explosion of wars of national liberation. Oppressed people, suddenly had guns and the power to say "NO" to the clenched fist of tyranny. Some exchanged their colonial oppressors for communist or fascist ones which quickly made it a point to round up the guns (Poland, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, Cambodia). Others were able to make the transition and recognized the right of the people to be armed (Israel). Both outcomes are the result of the government understanding that it is ultimately accountable to an armed polity.

Contrary to assumptions, America's gun owners are the most evolved of citizens. They are self reliant and don't rely on the strength of the tribe for safety. They are willing to take risks for the greater good. They are more likely to 'run to the sound of the guns' in order to secure safety for their fellow man. How many times has America offered up its sons and daughters to war for its exclusive benefit? In the 20th Century, America went to war twice in Europe and thrice in Asia for the benefit of others (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq). Americans as a culture prefer not to rely on others for protection. Our relationship with guns reflect that and our Constitution codifies it.

I own an interesting rifle that is illustrative of a ruler's distrust of the ruled. It is a Short Magazine Lee Enfield, standard issue to British troops in the majority of the 20th century. This one was originally manufactured in the 30's but was altered for use by Home Guard (civilians nominally attached to the military during WWII). The magazine that held the bullets was removed and replaced with a block of wood. The barrel was rechambered so it would no loner accept the marvelous and effective .303 round. Instead it was rebored to accept a .410 shotgun shell. The government was concerned that 'civilians and revolutionaries' (read Irish) might acquire such weapons and propose a threat to current rule.

There is an oft repeated saying among us gun folks, "Fear the government that fears your guns."

hillbilly
May 27, 2005, 12:56 AM
Oh no, not one of these threads again.... :rolleyes:

Don't waste time rasslin' in the mud with a damned dirty hog.

You only get mud all over yourself, and the hog likes it.

hillbilly

jdberger
May 27, 2005, 01:24 PM
Here is this little gem (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm) .

Doctors' kitchen knives ban call

A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.

The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs.

In contrast, a pointed long blade pierces the body like "cutting into a ripe melon".

The use of knives is particularly worrying amongst adolescents, say the researchers, reporting that 24% of 16-year-olds have been shown to carry weapons, primarily knives.

The study found links between easy access to domestic knives and violent assault are long established.

French laws in the 17th century decreed that the tips of table and street knives be ground smooth.

A century later, forks and blunt-ended table knives were introduced in the UK in an effort to reduce injuries during arguments in public eating houses.

The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.

"The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime.

"We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect."

Government response

Home Office spokesperson said there were already extensive restrictions in place to control the sale and possession of knives.

"The law already prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade not exceeding three inches.

"Offensive weapons are defined as any weapon designed or adapted to cause injury, or intended by the person possessing them to do so.

"An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place.

"The manufacture, sale and importation of 17 bladed, pointed and other offensive weapons have been banned, in addition to flick knives and gravity knives."

A spokesperson for the Association of Chief Police Officers said: "ACPO supports any move to reduce the number of knife related incidents, however, it is important to consider the practicalities of enforcing such changes."
:banghead: :banghead: I guess that they just don't get it.

Molon Labe
May 27, 2005, 02:22 PM
I'm tired of debating on gun control.

The bottom line is that I have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms, and I do not need to justify this opinion to anyone.

And if they come for my guns, I only have one thing to say. (See my user name.)

shermacman
May 27, 2005, 02:40 PM
I love it when the gun grabbers use homicide rates in Europe and Japan for comparison. I would like to see those murder rates include every death committed by their governments for the last hundred years, then divide by a hundred. Instead of cherry-picking the last couple of decades.

You know, so that we could include how peace loving those societies were during World War I and World War II. :what:

jdberger
May 27, 2005, 05:15 PM
I do not need to justify this opinion to anyone.

Keep in mind that it is a right, not an opinion... :D

Molon Labe
May 27, 2005, 06:01 PM
Keep in mind that it is a right, not an opinion...Many people (including everyone on this board) believe a human has the right to keep and bear arms. But when it comes right down to it, it is ultimately an opinion. If it were a fact, you could objectively and logically prove you have a right to keep and bear arms.

Some of us might say, "But the 2nd Amendment is proof!" Or the writings of our Founding Fathers are proof. But these sources cannot be used as proof; it was simply their opinion (as it is ours) that every human has the right to keep and bear arms.

There are people who insist that every human has a right to "free" housing. We are quick to point out that it is their opinion that every human has a right to "free" housing, and that we disagree with their opinion.

Now some of the people on this board may scoff at the notion that our right to keep and bear arms is an "opinion." But what they may not realize is that such a philosophy bolsters their argument. When some anti says, "Guns kill children, a gun in the home is dangerous, the 2nd Amendment only gives state militias the right to keep and bear arms, you do not have the right to keep and bear arms, yada yada yada…" you only have to respond as follows: "It is your opinion that I do not have the right to keep and bear arms. Fine. But it’s my opinion I do. And since it's my opinion, I do not need to justify it in any way. It doesn't matter what the crime statistics say... it doesn't matter what the 2nd Amendment says... it's my opinion I have a right to keep and bear arms. And just like all the other opinions I hold, I do not need to justify it to you or anyone else. Have a good day."

Think about it.

jdberger
May 27, 2005, 06:09 PM
Many people (including everyone on this board) believe a human has the right to keep and bear arms. But when it comes right down to it, it is an opinion. If it were a fact, you could objectively and logically prove you have a right to keep and bear arms.

Because some think that the Earth is flat doesn't make the spherical earthers any less correct.

Honestly, I believe that we have inalienable rights, granted by...God or whoever. Our whole concept of government and law and morality hinges on that fact.

R.H. Lee
May 27, 2005, 06:12 PM
Never argue with an idiot. People watching can't tell the difference.

javafiend
May 27, 2005, 06:21 PM
Give 'em hell, guys.

Nope. I'm sick of listening to the same old witless hysteria of the anti-Second Amendment bigots. Their idea of a "debate" is to tell lies, launch a few ad hominem attacks, and hide.

True, many of the antis are so ideologically blinded that they will never reconsider their premises, but that's OK. Argue with them knowing that your real audience ismade up of all the silent undecideds.

Migoi, great stuff. I didn't realize that France and Austria allow law-abiding adults to keep handguns at home.

Molon Labe
May 27, 2005, 06:23 PM
Honestly, I believe that we have inalienable rights, granted by... God or whoever. Our whole concept of government and law and morality hinges on that fact.I also believe we have inalienable rights, granted by God or whoever. But note in the first sentence that you used the word "believe." This means it is an opinion. Now you might claim it is a fact that has yet to be proven. But the problem is that it will never be proven via objective & logical means. Therefore it will always be rendered an opinion. In light of this, the last two words in your second sentence should be "this belief," not "that fact."

R.H. Lee
May 27, 2005, 06:26 PM
And furthermore, I won't lend any credence to the notion that gun control is somehow acceptable. Engaging in the argument admits that I think my unalienable rights are somehow negotiable.

orionengnr
May 27, 2005, 06:31 PM
Every time I come here I learn something new. And to those of you who say, "I'm tired of debating", look at it this way:
Reading these arguments and strategies strengthens our debating skills and our positions.
I, for one, will give further consideration to using the ban-the-knife example, and will work on a hypothesis. The essence of it will be that future "societal advances" in the European model, in the interest of making us all "safe" will eventually have us living in caves without the benefit of fire...

David W. Gay
May 29, 2005, 02:23 AM
Sorry about waking a sleeping thread, but I just have to share a laugh I had at one one of the posts on that blog:

In a post by "British Observer", the statement was made:

...decent people don't need guns because they will just end up shooting other decent people...
That statement just cracks me up!

It may be a sad "mindset" to think like that, but it is still a funny statement.

Oh Well, Carry on!
:)

RevDisk
May 29, 2005, 04:57 AM
My post. Bit lengthy, but oh well.

I'm sure you could come up with many statistics regarding gun control. Some for gun control, others disproving it.

Such statistics are rather meaningless. Without "Due Process", I'm sure many more criminals would be in jail. Without freedom of speech, there would be less hate speech. Without a trial by jury, I'm sure society would be much more orderly. I'm sure we'd have a lot less contriversial subjects if freedom of the press was removed from the Bill of Rights.

None of that matters. The US is not a pure democracy, it is a constitutional Republic. Specifically, civil liberties cannot be removed by a 51 percent vote. Such laws can be passed, and often are. They are illegal, and unfortunately our Judicial branch often (but not always) upholds them. This does not make such laws legal or proper, even if they are enforced regardless.

I own firearms for a couple reasons. One is keeping in practice, because firearms are a part of my work. Another is recreation. I enjoy shooting. I also have a CCW license, so I can carry a concealed handgun if I wish to do so. Do I need to carry a gun everywhere? Nope. I can choose when and how I exercise my civil liberties.

Plus, guns are here. Removing them from society would not just be a violation of the Second Amendment, but also the Fourth amendment (right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures) and Fifth amendment (nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation). One could argue that the Sixth, Seventh, Nineth and Tenth amendments can or could apply.

Do you wish to strip away your right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure? Due process? I assure you, gun confiscation would be impossible without destroying both of these amendments even before the second amendment was questioned.

Ah, but that's just the theoretical. Now the practical. You would have to locate every gun in America, and take private property away from their lawful owner. Mind you. You'd have to be depriving gun owners of their property. Most gun owners are not very skilled with firearms. (ie, trained in combat or tactics) However, a significant percentage are VERY skilled with firearms. Many law enforcement personnel are gun owners themselves. A significant percentage of police would not comply, and would assist non-LEO gun owners in varying degrees.

The military is legally forbidden from law enforcement except under specific circumstances. Confiscating private property is not one of those exceptions. Not to meantion, in a poll conducted by the military, 70% said they would not obey such orders. It's a sad statement that 30% would, but I do not think that 30% would question the 70% and would quickly fall in line. If the govt ordered the military to turn on its citizens, many would mutiny. Others would simply not comply.

Few rational people would even consider asking UN personnel to assist in the confiscation of private property of American citizens. But just out of curiousity, I asked a small sampling of UN police officers and military personnel if they would follow orders to confiscate guns from Americans. To a man, they individually said they would refuse. They believed they would be quickly slaughtered. I agree with their assessment.

The US has been very kind in providing me in training of firearms. I have fired several hundred thousand rounds through assault rifles. Real assault rifles, capable of automatic fire, not "evil looking black rifles". I would not need to start off with a gun to cause havok. I've kindly been taught how to 'obtain' firearms if I need them, make explosives, etc etc. At worst, I can manufacture my own. It's not as hard as you think. At best... heh. I doubt you want to know the details. Don't think I am some rare case. I am far from alone. Hundreds of thousands of American citizens are much more skilled than I. A good number of them have never been a police officer or served in the military.

All of this is just chest beating anyways. On both sides. Guns are here to stay. They are codified in our legal system, and would be impossible to remove from the citizenry. Deal with it.

Go ahead and say what you will about gun confiscation. Freedom of speech and all that. It's not practical, nor is it legal, to remove guns from the US. Gun control is annoying, counter-productive and harmful. But it does little except harass law abidding citizens. It does not deter criminals, nor is it intended to do so.

fallingblock
May 29, 2005, 05:17 AM
:d

If you enjoyed reading about "You want a debate on gun control?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!