gun control

Factual Questions
61

Sorry I dropped out of the debate for a bit; I was distracted…

ManGeorge: I wasn’t aware that the NRA was for the legalization of marijuana. If they are, as you claim, then the only thing I can think of is that the NRA, as much as a proponent of the right to keep and bear, is as much a proponent of personal responsibility/personal accountability.
I had a longer post written when A-O-Hell went down on me and I lost everything.
The only other thing I will respond to tonight is the presumptive IBROC, who chimed in with:

*Excuse me, but what country do you live in?[/i\ (me)

*Japan, why?

quote (ExTank) You, me, and any other natural born citizen were born with the right to keep and bear arms.

Someday, young man, you will learn that the world is a very big place.

And personally, I enjoy living in a country where the murder rate is less than a tenth that of the U.S., the murder rate by juveniles is less than a hundredth that of the U.S., and the mere sound of a gunshot makes the national news.*

Do you presume I am some trailerpark redneck who’s never been further than the local Wal-Mart? Lemme give you the World Tour of ExTank: Germany, Italy, France, Switzerland, England, Holland, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Quatar and Haiti. In every one of those countries, I surrendered many rights that I hold dear to me, and yet never felt the loss of them as I am a law-abiding individual that respects the rights of others to live as they wish so long as it doesn’t cause harm to others.
Okay, Haiti scared the shit out of me.
Ibroc, are you stationed in Japan with the military, or there doing work for your employer? Or have you moved to Japan in a conscious move away from America? Or are you a Japanese citizen of Japan adding your two Yen to this discussion? If the latter, go drink some sake and shut the fuck up.
Because my first gut reaction to your post was this:
“Were you born a coward, or did you grow into it?”
The reason you evoked this initial response is because I perceived a certain smug attitude in you touting of Japan’s superiority. But you are in no way as “free” in Japan as you are in America; it’s like saying England was a democracy after John of Anjou got his ass whipped at Runnymede. And if you have sacrificed your Bill of Rights for the “security” of a marginally democratic Corporate Regime, then you would well and truly deserve the appellation “Coward”.
If you had bothered to read my previous posts, comparisons between different societies, with their separate histories and cultures, is largely meaningless.
Are there aspects of Japanese society and culture that America could emulate to better herself? Most certainly; I’d say there are dozens of different cultures on this planet that America has already taken the best of and made her own.
We don’t live in Japan, and we don’t have a history anything at all like that of Japan’s.
So Japan’s solutions probably won’t work here in America.

<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>
“Of course, feel free to fall on your sword anytime the urge strikes you.”

62

Ex Tank;
Good to see you back.
One little thing;
I didn’n claim that the NRA was for legalization, I meant that they were for prohibition.
I don’t have this on good authority, I just read it somewhere. Might easily be B.S.
Peace,
mangeorge

63

[[Personally, Ibroc I like living in a country where I can do what I damn well please as long as I don’t hurt anyone.]] Peyote Coyote
Unless, of course, you’re a pot smoker, or a homosexual, or …
[[If guns are outlawed, only the criminals and the government will have guns.]]
True, but there will be fewer criminals with guns.

64

Here’s my two cents-

I hate guns. I think they are killing machines, and useful only for destructive, damaging purposes. However, I also recognise that my morality is not the morality of the masses. In my opinion, you can do whatever you want, as long as you aren’t interfering with any else’s pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

So, use your guns responsibly and no problem. But there is a problem. As Zyada noted about halfway through this thread, Americans are lazy. And not only that, we are focused on self-gratification and we are unable to accept the fact that we are responsible for our actions. If a person refuses to accept the consequences of having hot coffee in a moving vehicle, they can sue McDonalds. How can we expect the same nation of people to accept the consequences of pulling a trigger? Guns are a symptom of the disease, it allows one disassociation from the intended targets. That is the true issue here. If we took responsibility, and taught that to our children, these school shootings would have never taken place. But it is too easy - You piss me off, I demand the instant gratification of revenge. Sad world.

65

One thing that everyone seems to be missing here is that the founding fathers did not address the issue of the right to bear arms in the Constitution to assure target practice or hunting, or even crime deterrence. They wanted the citizenry to have guns in order to protect against tyranny. The “arms” envisioned by the founding fathers were to be used against those trying to take away the rights of US citizens.

So guns (and ammo) do indeed Kill people. That it what many are designed for. No one understood this better than the British in the 18th century.

As for ammo restriction, gun registration, safety courses, etc. They all have one problem that flies in the face of the constitution: the whole point was that an armed citizenry would prevent despotism, tryranny and the dissilution of our freedoms. If you puts the decision of who will own a gun into the government’s hands, then the protection is gone. The tyrant decides whether or not the “freedom fighters” can have guns.

For example, let’s take the safety course Idea (and this is what happened with hunting courses in NY state.) You simply cut the courses down to one per year, ten people are allowed to attend, it costs $20,000 and it will be held in Northern Alaska in January. Oh, and el presidente is annexing public companies, abolishing property rights and taking your wife. What are you gonna do about it, Mr. Citizen? Call 911?

66

Thor’s got the thought right as for the Constitutional right to bear arms (as do others, but I’m just looking at the new input on an old thread) and Tabu I think has scratched the surface of the problem. Could it be that the American people as a whole are just incompetent to exercise the freedoms contemplated by our Constitution?

Regards

67

" … and nothin’ comes for free … "

68

I think that one should excercise caution when making statements such as “the American People” and, “we as a society” when it comes to issues of irresponsibility.

Not only does it smack of an effite snobbery, but it is useless on a rhetorical basis for establishing a public policy.

I would remind you of the old Joke: All fisherman are liars, except for me and you…and I am not so sure about you.

I live in Littleton Colorado and have heard these statements used ad nauseum. “we as a society” should be stricken from our debates.

69

When I was younger and more naive, I used to think, “Well, the least they should do is to make it as EXPENSIVE to own a gun as it is a car.” As in: MANDATORY: Insurance, uninsured gun owner insurance, liability, accident, loss. theft etc… Also, tax everything & anything to do with guns…You know: the sale, yearly ownership taxes, ammo, cleaning target practice…
Then add on license & registration fees, a Dept of Guns & Ammo (like DMV) and voila!..Then I realized…the Foundind Fathers were sharp old revolutionaries…We don’t want Bill Clinton, or Richard Nixon, or Bob (limp) Dole, et al to have an army at their command unless we (you know, the people) have at least a chance of defending ourselves. Then of course Rodney King…so we add to the Govt/Military…the dirty Cops (nothing to fear from cops who understand their role, but the uppity ones)…Then we saw the Riots Following the Rodney King Beatings…Now, Do we want the aforementioned, and criminals to be the ONLY ones with access to guns…?

No easy way out of this one gang…

BTW, I don’t never have owned a gun…I hope to leave the country before I feel that I need one to be safe…

La Voice

70

<Picture>posted 04-22-99 07:02 PM     <Picture: Click Here to See the Profile for Cervaise>

quote:

be honest enough to present an intellectually honest argument

Okay, how’s this?

quote:

From the Telegraph in England:

There are an estimated 200 million guns in America – where only seven states ban the carrying of concealed weapons – and the differences between it and other countries are stark: in 1996 handguns were used to murder 30 people in Britain, 106 in Canada, 211 in Germany and 9,390 in America.

Given that it switches a discussion of violence to a discussion of a particular tool of violence, this argument is either inherently dishonest, naive, or trivial.
71

Two thoughts:

  1. Let’s say we have a scenario that there are 10 people in a room. Either everyone can have a gun or only one person gets a gun and that person is not you. Which situation do you want (i.e. everyone has a gun or only one person has a gun).

  2. For those that are opposed to guns and want them banned and removed from homes. Would you put a sign in your yard or wear a button that proclaims you as being gun-free? Would you let everyone know that you do not have a gun in your home or on your person?

Jeffery T.

  • Not a gun nut but sure do want to have the right to own one.
72

That leaves me 8 human shields. Not a problem.

Why on earth, or under what oddball square-planet-where-everything-is-the-opposite-of-earth circumstances, would anyone be expected or required to do any such thing? Do you came from a strange land where presenting false choices results in winning an argument?

Wouldn’t the smart thing to do be to put up a sign saying you do have a gun, whether you do or don’t?

73

quote:

  1. Let’s say we have a scenario that there are 10 people in a room. Either everyone can have a gun or only one person gets a gun and that person is not you. Which situation do you want (i.e. everyone has a gun or only one person has a gun).

That leaves me 8 human shields. Not a problem. - Pldennison

It could be a problem if the one gun contains more than 8 bullets.
quote:

  1. For those that are opposed to guns and want them banned and removed from homes. Would you put a sign in your yard or wear a button that proclaims you as being gun-free? Would you let everyone know that you do not have a gun in your home or on your person?

Pldennison writes –

Why on earth, or under what oddball square-planet-where-everything-is-the-opposite-of-earth circumstances, would anyone be expected or required to do any such thing? Do you came from a strange land where presenting false choices results in winning an argument?

Wouldn’t the smart thing to do be to put up a sign saying you do have a gun, whether you do or don’t? –

The point is the reason one would not put such a sign in their yard, is it is the chance that the occupant of the house has a gun is what keeps the intruders away.

If all guns were confiscated, as they were in Austraila, then the intruders would be quite certain that all occupants are unarmed and therefore not deterred from robbing the house.

If one believes that guns are the problem and are proud they are gun-free then why don’t they let everyone know.

Jeffery T.

74

Well, then, given your premises, the obvious answer for eliminating crime is to post a sign on every house in the country to the effect that the owners are armed, whether in reality they are or not.

75

quote:

The point is the reason one would not put such a sign in their yard, is it is the chance that the occupant of the house has a gun is what keeps the intruders away.

Pldennison writes :

Well, then, given your premises, the obvious answer for eliminating crime is to post a sign on every house in the country to the effect that the owners are armed, whether in reality they are or not. –

That is not a bad idea Pldennison. The fear of possibly entering an occupied house in which the owner has a gun, is probably what causes most burglars to target empty houses.

The signs would not totally eliminate crime, but it might cause the criminal to think twice before entering.

Glad you agree with me Pldennison.

Jeffery T.

– Do you really want our government and criminals (is there a difference) to be the only ones with guns?

76

I don’t agree with you; I was attempting to expose the underlying stupidity of your premises. I don’t have a gun, nor will I at any foreseeable point in the future, but my home hasn’t been robbed. Know why? Because I chose to live in a low-crime neighborhood with a decent police presense, I lock my doors, and I leave appropriate lighting on.

Criminals tend to target empty houses because it reduces their chance of being caught. The point is so obvious I don’t know why you’d introduce the threat of being shot as a possible factor.

77

Pldennison writes:

I don’t agree with you; I was attempting to expose the underlying stupidity of your premises. I don’t have a gun, nor will I at any foreseeable point in the future, but my home hasn’t been robbed. Know why? Because I chose to live in a low-crime neighborhood with a decent police presense, I lock my doors, and I leave appropriate lighting on.
Criminals tend to target empty houses because it reduces their chance of being caught. The point is so obvious I don’t know why you’d introduce the threat of being shot as a possible factor. –

You call my premises stupid, yet you offer no “proof”. You state that your house has never been broken into, and give the reasons of a low crime area, police, door locks, etc. Then you state that it is obvious that a buglar targets empty homes because of not wanting to get caught and that being shot is not even a factor.

I will give that not being caught can and does play a role in the selection of a home, but numerous times one or more people have broken into a home and been met with an owner with a gun.

I too chose a low crime area, police, door locks, lights, etc. But I also have a gun, just in case the above items do not deter a bandit.

It sure is easy to say a point is obvious or stupid, but it seems to be hard for you to give facts or anything more than your personal experience.

Jeffery T.

78

Nice to see the classic usenet debating tactics live on this MB as well.

Yep. Oh, and I don’t leave valuable things sitting where they are visible from street level, too. My entertainment center is in an upstairs room, right below our bedroom.

“Let’s see, should I rob this house where everyone is home, and I will almost certainly be apprehended, identified and imprisoned; or this one where nobody is at home?”

A nuclear arsenal won’t help you if you aren’t home to use it.

It’s almost certainly the primary consideration. It’s called “risk assessment”; see above.

Is this that “proof” you were discussing earlier?

Gee, I bet you live in one of those states where you can use lethal force even if not threatened with same. Some people get their rocks off that way, I hear.

As opposed to presenting false choices like putting a sign on your home stating you don’t have a gun. Say, are your guns programmed to shoot people who enter when you aren’t there?

79

It seems that Pldennison does not like my thoughts on the matter of having a gun in the home and the role that it plays in protection.

Here are some statistics that I have found on the matter.

According to Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, on the day that the Columbine Shootings occurred, guns were used for the purposes of self-defense nearly 7,000 times.

“John Lott teaches criminal deterrence, law and economics at the University of Chicago. His book, More Guns, Less Crime, contains a comprehensive and scientific study of the effects of gun control on crime rates. The results have made Lott a great enemy of the gun-grabbers. Lott’s research found that states that ban carrying concealed weapons have murder rates 127 percent higher than states with laws that allow law-abiding citizens to carry guns for protection.
Why? Because murderers, rapists and other violent criminals actually put thought into targeting their potential victims. That’s right. Every day, predators choose their targets based on several variables. Chief among those variables is the target’s vulnerability. If the predators believe their prey might have a gun, they seek other prey.” Pulled from Neal Boortz Column.

"Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi conducted a three-year study for the National Institute of Justice on how criminals acquire and use handguns. They found:

  • 81 percent of the imprisoned criminals agreed that the “smart criminal” will attempt to find out if a potential victim is armed.

  • 57 percent of “handgun predators” had encountered armed citizens.

  • 39 percent did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.

  • 69 percent of “handgun predators” personally knew other criminals who were scared off or shot at by armed victims." Same Boortz Column.

I do not have a problem with Pldennison jor anyone else not having guns. But for my family’s safety, I want to be able to own a gun. Not just a hunting rifle or a target pistol, but a handgun.

I am not asking for assault weapons, just a handgun to defend myself.

By the way, Pldennison, I will use whatever force neccessary to protect my family. This does include killing an intruder.

Jeffery T.

80

It seems that you make too many assumptions based on my questioning your idea of requiring non-gun-owners to place a sign on their homes advertising that fact. It was a stupid premise and I called you on it. Get over it.

You may own whatever weapon you think you need. I don’t care if you have a Sherman Tank for protection. If I am a criminal, I will simply case your home until you and your family leave, then rob you anyway.

I assume, then, that when he or she turns out to have been unarmed, you will be willing to pay the damages awarded his or her family in the inevitable civil lawsuit?