Read again, AZ Cowboy. The article stated that UK’s crime rates were rising, not that they were high. There’s a minor difference between the two.
Typical “False Dilemma” mentality. It’s not one or the other, Mr. Cowboy… gun ownership can serve the purposes of preventing a government from abuses of its power, and guns can be used for personal defense. Wanna know something else? Guns can be used for other things, too. Surprised? A lot of people are, it seems.
>Germany established gun control in 1938.
Well, wrong. The Weimar Republic established not gun control, but in effect, a gun ban, in 1928. Before the Nazi take-over. Ah well, what is one drop of misinformation in a raging torrent ?
Please show me where. The article I read said:
And perhaps that is right, I don’t know, I’m just skeptical. The only supporting argument was that Scotland Yard is hiring. Hardly a causality argument, IMHO.
On the criminality issue, sure, guns have many purposes. But the article’s opening paragraph slammed (and misstated) noted “liberals” second amendment arguments. The rest of the article mostly stayed on that track.
I even agree with the final statement of the article, that:
It’s just too bad the writer tossed in some self-defense argument - with no support - taking a position no more defensible than the one she criticized (and misstated) by the “liberals”.
And I still have no clue where this came from:
What does that mean? Toss out gun control for a moment, how do liberals divide us using the tools of race and gender? Was that supported in the article, and it “whooshed” me?
Even exTank recognized a poorly written editorial, for which he has my respect. Frankly, his (now lost) posts from our previous debate were much better written, and supported, than this POS. This thing swerves around the issues worse than Ted Kennedy’s car!
Not me. I’ve seen that episode of the Simpsons. 
Okay, I’ve finally read the article. Whew!. Nothing new there! I agree with the sentiment, but it’s all been said before. Of course she mentions Rosie O’Donnell’s hypocracy; but dose she mention that NRA president Charleton Heston marched with Dr. Martin Luther King in 1963, and as SGA prsident helped Black Americans gain entry into the Hollywood work force? Not that Heston’s activities have anything to do with gun control, but it does show that conservatives are not one-dimentional. (FTR: I consider myself a Liberal who is strongly in favour of the right to own firearms.)
I found this interesting: This article says Sarah Brady may have violated gun laws.
Of course it has all been said before! As it has been rehashed in this thread!
The reason for the debate is really just the fear that gun controlers have of an inanimate object and their unreasoning lack of faith in human nature. It is not based on anything more.
Before all of the gun-haters come after me, I suggest they pick up a book. It’s called More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott. This book was not written by some gun-totting NRA whack job. THe statistics are not biased. He is a senior research scholar at Yale University. The book is a compilation and explanation of a study that he conducted which examines how gun control laws and other crime bills have affected the states in which they have been enacted. Yep, states. Not irrelevant foreign countries but states. In America.
Read it, check out the statistics, and tell me exactly why “guns are bad.”
–==the sax man==–
My apologies, my brain crossing the word “thriving” later in that paragraph with “rising” (hey, I was posting at 2:00 AM).
In any case, A: Ireland and Scotland do not make up the UK, and B: the article still didn’t say that their crime rates were “high”, just “higher than countries with less restrictions”… i.e. - Switzerland, maybe?
And why would that be? Could it be because those who have most vehemently opposed gun ownership in the past have also identified themselves as “liberal”?
Nah. That couldn’t have anything to do with it, could it?
Hell if I know.
Oh, I never said it was a well-written article… it jumps from point-to-point and is designed to “preach to the choir”, as it were. I was just picking nits.
…tip-toeing gingerly into the fray…
Well, for what it’s worth, my own take on gun control is this:
That once upon a time the only entities that had arms to any real degree (and no, I’m NOT talking about a farmer picking up his sickle; which, although if handled properly, could be a very dangerous weapon) were the governments/kings/ruling entities. And a farmer with a sickle was not going to be very effective against an armored knight with a crossbow. A whole lot of farmers with sickles were not going to be very effective against a whole lot of armored knights with crossbows.
The right to bear arms is the right to defend ourselves AGAINST OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. This is why the argument of a militia being defined as a group of individuals under the auspices of a government is nonsense, at least to my way of thinking. If for some horrendous reason, martial law were declared and the government were to start suspending the Bill of Rights, (and please…try not to start in with: "But our rights are being suspended, because [insert favorite conspiracy theory here]) (I’m talking about a Nazi-type pogrom going on) then a government-controlled militia would be of no use whatsoever. In matter of fact, it would likely BE that militia that would be the ones knocking on our door.
UNLESS I WERE TO MEET THEM AT THE DOOR WITH A GUN OF MY OWN. It’s not a state-organized militia that would defend my rights, but instead you, me and that guy behind the tree.
This is what I believe our Founding Father’s had in mind. (doing my best Karnak impression here)
And no; I don’t own a gun, believe it or not. If it weren’t for gravity, I probably couldn’t hit the ground. I have my own ways of defending my self, my family, my property and my rights.
Some of them quite lethal in their own right.
zWhat exactly are we debating here, or rather, with whom?
I want to see a show of hands --or better yet some poll numbers–of those who think the US government should confiscate all or most guns.
[shoving hands deep under the table, like Vyv, Neil and Mike did when Rick said, “Okay, hands up: Who likes me?”]
That was a little uncalled for, don’t you think?
Besides I haven’t used any unsubstantiated quotes, thank you very much. I simply thought the girl had a couple of good points, and I enjoyed her stance.
same here
Ahh, but if the gun-control types aren’t going to show their hands, perhaps they could state exactly what confiscations and limitations they do and don’t support? While such people often claim not to be in favor of complete victim disarmament, they seem to go along with any gun control measure that gets proposed. A notable example was the proposed ‘cop killer’ bullet ban, which many supported and which many now claim was an example of the NRA being bad. Yet the proposed ban would have made all rifle ammunition (aside from .22 rimfire) illegal - hardly a law with minor, reasonable impact.
I share Toaster52 s concerns. A ban on firearms would not remove guns from the hands of criminals in mass. The crimainal concerns seem to be a smoke screen, a diversion at best. A ban would however, remove the guns from the hands of the militia. They would be the first target in a collection effort. Does anyone support the disarming of militia? They are the only thing between you and your government gone awry.
It seems to me that a lot of people are getting so caught up in the idea that some right is being infringed upon that they forget to actually think.
I’m not really an American, so I shouldn’t really be writing this… but to me, the idea of having a gun around just in case you find yourself fighting your own country’s soldiers is like having a pack of condoms around just in case you find yourself fucking your own mother: the thought of shooting my own troops is too abhorent for me to ever contemplate.
And that’s it.
Welcome to the SDMB. Got any quotes to back this up?
I fail to see how the analogy works. Further, you betray a misunderstanding of the “protect from government abuses” theory… it doesn’t deal with what we can do if a tyrannical government starts abusing the populace, it’s meant to prevent that tyrannical government from ever forming in the first place. Preventive medicine, as it were.
And, no, I am NOT claiming that gun ownership is the only method of doing this. Further, I am not claiming that this is the only use guns have. If you want me to start dragging out crime rates across the U.S., that’ll be just fine with me.
Boiled down, most of the rhetoric in this thread assumes, as the college girl’s article linked in the OP does, that gun control equals gun confiscation. That just is not the case.
I favor gun control, but if I saw an effort to confiscate all privately owned guns I would instantly become a criminal. Because I would not only keep the ones I have, I would acquire and cache as many others as I could get hold of. I haven’t seen any such effort on the part of the government, however, though conspiracy theories abound.
What I have seen is a gun lobby that battles any attempt to restrict who can possess guns, any effort to limit the kinds of guns, any attempt to demand childproof locks (I know, they could use improvement) and even any move to outlaw certain accessories like fingerprint resistant handles, Teflon coated bullets and kits that allow a 9 mm. semi-auto to empty a thirty-round clip in three seconds. Some extreme gun fanciers even think it’s okay for a citizen to own a bazooka.
I don’t know that any of the posters would fall into that last category, but many would probably argue that assault weapons are ligitimate to own, whether as collector’s items or as “protection.” I doubt anybody would admit to wanting an Uzi or a Kalishnikov for the purpose of shooting (gawd forbid) people, even though that’s what they were invented for.
I am generally liberal, but, as I said, I have three guns: a rifle for hunting, a light shotgun (4/10) and a pistol for…you know. I inherited these from my dad, and though I wouldn’t have bought them, I didn’t get rid of them.
Let’s get the argument of the OP straight. It’s not about control. It’s about confiscation. And that, my friends, is not an issue, except to those who would rather appeal to emotions than to reason. Confiscation is wrong. Control is not. If you want to argue the points of control individually, that’s for another thread.
“Hello, I must be going.” --Groucho Marx
No, but it’s the worst-case scenario in terms of gun ownership… and the popular theory is that each unnecessary bit of gun control makes future unnecessary controls all the more easier.
Besides, HCI - one of the leading authorities of gun control advocacy - has as one of its goals to ultimately ban and confiscate all guns. So there’s ample reason to be wary of such measures.
Define “assault rifle”.