Let Americans Provide Their Own Security

[msmith537]

@SnakeSpirit

What’s YOUR point? If you have one.

No point really. Other than how ridiculous it sounds talking about wanting a gun for protection in the last place you would need one. I worked with a similar guy who told us he needed to have a Glock for protection. You get a lot of drive by’s in Natick, MA, Snoop Dogg?

@SnakeSpirit

Statics show that you don’t have to arm everyone, that having a proportion of the population that is well-trained in firearm use carrying concealed weapons is adequate to quell violence. We’re talking firearm enthusists, here, people who train and practice with some regularity. Kind of a civilian extension of the police force.

Do you have cites to these statistics? Other western democracies have much lower crime rates than the US and much greater gun control.

@SnakeSpirit

The US constitution currently permits us only some types of auto-LOADING weapons, as long as they only have 10 or fewer rounds… and meet other arbitrary criteria.

No, the Constitution does not say this at all.

@SnakeSpirit

Originally Posted by msmith537
What are we indulging in adolescent male gun fantasies here again?
Some of out strongest supporters are women, like catsix - so no, your snarky remark is out of line.

Sorry. I did not mean to imply that we men have a monopoly on “crazy”.

@SnakeSpirit

No, you assume that we assume that. Most of us only want responsible, trained people within the civilian population to have and carry guns.

Well, yeah. If that was the case then there wouldn’t be a problem.

Look, I just don’t get this mentality where people think they need a firearm to feel safe.

[Barbarian]

Snakespirit, there ain’t nothing stopping people who aren’t in the inner cities from carrying as much firepower as they want. And if you take a long, hard look at the 40, 000 people a year killed in the U.S. by gunfire, you’ll see that a lot of them are killed by mistake.

Face it, most people are just too lacking in self-control to be allowed to drive, let alone hold a lethal weapon.

[antechinus]

@Barbarian

Snakespirit, there ain’t nothing stopping people who aren’t in the inner cities from carrying as much firepower as they want. And if you take a long, hard look at the 40, 000 people a year killed in the U.S. by gunfire, you’ll see that a lot of them are killed by mistake.

Face it, most people are just too lacking in self-control to be allowed to drive, let alone hold a lethal weapon.

40,000 !!! Fuck, you would be safer joining the army and being posted in Iraq, where there are only 1000 soldiers killed out of 200, 000 troops…

oh hang on, there are 300 million people in the USA. One soldier in 200 killed in combat in Iraq, compared to one civillian in 7500 killed by firearms in the USA.
OK the USA is safer.

[Fear_Itself]

@SnakeSpirit

Most of us only want responsible, trained people within the civilian population to have and carry guns.

I am in favor of responsible gun ownership. Specifically, gun owners are responsible for what ever happens with their weapon. Your kid shoots the neighbor kid? You go to Jail. Burglar steals it and commits a crime? You go to Jail. You shoot your teenager sneaking in after curfew? You go to Jail. Gun owners are responsible for any negative consequences that occur as a result of the owner not maintaining adequate control over their gun. It’s like owning a pit bull; it’s your right to own one, but no matter how bizarre the circumstances, if someone gets hurt, you are responsible. But I don’t hear any gun rights advocates supporting anything close to this, apparently they have a very narrow definition of “responsible”. Fuck 'em, take away their guns. Irresponsible bastards.

[BF]

@Barbarian

Snakespirit, there ain’t nothing stopping people who aren’t in the inner cities from carrying as much firepower as they want. And if you take a long, hard look at the 40, 000 people a year killed in the U.S. by gunfire, you’ll see that a lot of them are killed by mistake.

Face it, most people are just too lacking in self-control to be allowed to drive, let alone hold a lethal weapon.

That figure of 40K is incorrect.

CDC
[ol]
[li]In 1999 a total of 28,874 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States, down nearly 6 percent from the 30,625 deaths in 1998.[/li][li]In 2000 a total of 28,663 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (tables 18 and 19). This number was 0.7 percent lower than the 28,874 deaths in 1999. [/li][li]Firearm suicide and homicide, the two major component causes, accounted for 57.9 and 37.7 percent,respectively, of all firearm injury deaths in 2000. The other components—firearm accidents, firearm injuries of undetermined intent, and legal intervention involving firearms—accounted for 2.7, 0.8, and 0.9 percent, respectively. [/li][*]Among those aged 19 years and under, the number of firearm deaths was 10.1 percent lower than in 1999. Despite the decrease, in 2000 those aged 19 years and under accounted for 10.6 percent of all firearm deaths. [/ol]

[SnakeSpirit]

@Spiny Norman

I hope SnakeSpirit will agree with me when I say that a central idea in the linked article is that existing gun control laws (the article mentions the problems involved in aquiring submachine guns) makes it harder for civilians to defend likely terrorist targets. The suggestions seems to be to let the militia guard the homeland while the army roams abroad.

The problems are, as always with this sort of scenario, that a bunch of strangers with firearms does not constitute a unit.
<snip>
You can defend your house or your store, sure. With time to meet up and come up with a plan, you might be able to line up a militia to guard, say, a block in the suburbs - IIRC, something like that often happens to prevent looting after hurricanes etc.

Norman I can agree with most of what you said, but I think small arms and hunting weapons are adequate for civilians, until the enemy starts bringing in machine guns, of course…

[SnakeSpirit]

@tomndebb

So it is, at best, a bit disingenuous of you to be making the “number of guns relates to number of crimes” argument in this thread.

You brought up the numbers of guns issue, not I. I was just countering your faulty argument.

[Optihut]

@SnakeSpirit

You brought up the numbers of guns issue, not I. I was just countering your faulty argument.

That’s not true. I just went back to page 1 and found out that Tomndebb didn’t mention it, but you brought it up in posts 33 and 35.

[Optihut]

@Optihut

That’s not true. I just went back to page 1 and found out that Tomndebb didn’t mention it, but you brought it up in posts 33 and 35.

To clarify, ** Tomndebb** mentioned it in post 46, but that was more than 10 posts after you did.

[SnakeSpirit]

@antechinus

It is always amusing to see snakepirit try to defend lack of gun control.

It’s always amusing to see people launch personal attacks on me and then throw in selective misinformation while they pride themselves thinking I’m distracted.

@antechinus

In NSW:
murder - 1999-2003 down 7.3%
robbery with a firearm - 1999-2003 stable

From the NSW Buraeu of Crime Statistics and Research.

So nice of you to provide a link. I went to see for myself, and for that time period in New South Wales (please correct me if I’m wrong, isn’t that just one district of Australia? Or is it the whole country?), yes, your selected statistics are right.

However, and it’s a big however, murder includes drownings, asphixiations, beatings, stabbings, shooting with arrows, bludgeoning, poisining, striking with an auto and everything else, as well as firearms.

That statistic is meaningless in relationship to firearms, however.

And, even though firearms are outlawed, robberies with a firearm are stable?? - that’s progress? General robberies are up according to that link, however, as robberies without the use of a firearm increased some 10% in a more recent period. Also, you failed to mention rapes are up 7.3%.

However, it appears that general crime in NSW is down, and I congratulate you. It’s down in the firearm burdgeoning United States as well. However, your point is well taken, and I’ll update my statistics if I can find a site that covers all of Australia.

@antechinus

As more and more handguns and unlicenced firearms are taken out of circulation the LOWER THE RISK of violent acts being perptrated with these weapons.

Your statistics certainly did not show this, so I’ll just take this as your opinion.

Thank you for sharing.

[SnakeSpirit]

@msmith537

Do you have cites to these statistics? Other western democracies have much lower crime rates than the US and much greater gun control.

Sure the statistics are all in this thread:

What relationships exist between crime and firearm ownership? Should we do something?

@msmith537

Look, I just don’t get this mentality where people think they need a firearm to feel safe.

Since the OP is about National Security, then are you proposing that we disarm our police and armed forces?

I fell much safer knowing our police and military have firearms. And I feel that allowing responsible Americans to carry arms increases our security.

I don’t feel like I need a gun to feel safe, though. I don’t own guns, and I feel safe. A few years ago I owned guns, and considered myself part of the nation’s security. I gave up my guns when I felt I was no longer able to use them effectively. Your statement seems a bit off-topic for this thread.

[SnakeSpirit]

@Fear Itself

I am in favor of responsible gun ownership. Specifically, gun owners are responsible for what ever happens with their weapon. Your kid shoots the neighbor kid? You go to Jail. Burglar steals it and commits a crime? You go to Jail. You shoot your teenager sneaking in after curfew? You go to Jail. Gun owners are responsible for any negative consequences that occur as a result of the owner not maintaining adequate control over their gun. It’s like owning a pit bull; it’s your right to own one, but no matter how bizarre the circumstances, if someone gets hurt, you are responsible. But I don’t hear any gun rights advocates supporting anything close to this, apparently they have a very narrow definition of “responsible”. Fuck 'em, take away their guns. Irresponsible bastards.

Maybe you are only reading anti-gun propaganda. Most gun-rights advocates support responsibility for owning firearms. I agree with what you said; where do you get this information? Do you make it up? Talk about irresponsible.

Cite please?

[SnakeSpirit]

@BF

That figure of 40K is incorrect.
firearm accidents, accounted for 2.7

Thank you for fighting ignorance, BF

[SnakeSpirit]

@Optihut

That’s not true. I just went back to page 1 and found out that Tomndebb didn’t mention it, but you brought it up in posts 33 and 35.

I’ll be polite here, even though I’m being… uh, misrepresented.

I said nothing about numbers of guns and the relation to crime in either of those posts. I was talking about concealed carry laws (which do not change numbers of guns, just location), and the subsequent decrease in crime.

Apples vs. oranges.

[antechinus]

@SnakeSpirit

However, and it’s a big however, murder includes drownings, asphixiations, beatings, stabbings, shooting with arrows, bludgeoning, poisining, striking with an auto and everything else, as well as firearms.

That statistic is meaningless in relationship to firearms, however.

I am glad you are keen for more detailed statistics.

From the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

For all of Australia:

Firearms used in the commissioning of murders in Australia is down from 32% in 1996 to 12% in 2003. And we know what happened in 1996.

The overall homicide and related death rate has been decreasing as well.

As more and more handguns and unlicenced firearms are taken out of circulation the LOWER THE RISK of violent acts being perptrated with these weapons.

So the statistics DO support this statement.

[Fear_Itself]

@SnakeSpirit

Maybe you are only reading anti-gun propaganda. Most gun-rights advocates support responsibility for owning firearms. I agree with what you said; where do you get this information? Do you make it up? Talk about irresponsible.

Cite please?

Read what I said again:

no matter how bizarre the circumstances, if someone gets hurt, you are responsible. But I don’t hear any gun rights advocates supporting anything close to this

What, you want me to prove a negative? That’s not how it works here, SS. If you have evidence that this is the position of the NRA or any other gun-rights lobby, bring it on. Fight my ignorance. Otherwise, my conclusion stands.

[tomndebb]

You brought up the numbers of guns issue, not I. I was just countering your faulty argument.

You seem to be reading some other thread–perhaps one you have imagined. I have put forth no argument, merely challenging the manipulated numbers and faulty logic that you have put forth in this thread or the one to which you have linked.

Since you ignored it the first time, I will repeat: I am not an opponent of gun owership or possession; I simply find bad logic or twisted facts to be counterproductive when discussing the issue of gun possession.

[Abe]

SnakeSpirit, you have the somewhat obvious tendency to forcefully want your point of view to be right – whether it’s on the supernatural or guns, your MO appears to be exactly the same. That is why, I think, a poster mentioned it is “amusing” to see you argue this point of view. It’s the techniques you employ that raise alarms.

Tomndebb pointed out on page 1 that your “statistics” are taken out of context – that is, there was a general decrease in crime for all states as opposed to your selective cite of the 34 gun-friendly states only. You may have missed it so let’s look at this again:

Originally Posted by SnakeSpirit
In fact, in every state (34 at last count) that passed such legislation had a decrease in violent crime.

Originally Posted by Tomndebb
More to the point, in every state (in the U.S.) crime has fallen, regardless whether or not they have relaxed restrictions on guns. Similarly, Australia’s increase in crime is exactly on the trend that they have mainrtained for many years. In each case, the situation seems to have the same cause: crime increases or decreases with the proportion of the population who are males between 17 and 45. The crime statistics are easily manipulated by ignoring that point.

You therefore have more work ahead of you if you want to prove that guns result in a decrease in crime. The faulty argument in this segment of the discussion is rather obviously yours, not Tom’s. I take it you were the victim of some questionable gun-lobby propaganda and didn’t intend to mislead your fellow posters, but don’t be so hasty to dismiss a correction next time – especially if it comes from Tom!

[SnakeSpirit]

I checked out your site, and I have to change my assumptions. Although it really seems to be a mixed bag, I have to agree that there was a corresponding change in crime when gun laws were introduced in Australia.

However, it was a mixed bag, as my emphasis below denotes:

From your site:

"WEAPON USE

A weapon was most likely to have been used in attempted murder (76%) and murder (58%), and least likely in sexual assault (1%) in 2003. The proportion of murders involving a weapon peaked in 1996 at 78% while the proportion of attempted murders involving a weapon peaked in 1997 at 87%. The proportion of assault offences involving a weapon increased from 10% in 1995 to 13% in 2003.

VICTIMS(a), Weapon used in commission of offence

A weapon was used in 36% of robberies recorded in 2003. The proportion of robberies in which a weapon was used increased from 36% in 1994 to 46% in 1998 and has since generally declined. For those robberies that involved a weapon, the proportion involving a firearm decreased from 36% in 1994 to 15% in 2003. The proportion of kidnapping/abduction where a weapon was used also fluctuated from 11% in 1995 to 24% in 1999. Since 1999, this proportion has declined to 16% in 2003.

With the exception of assault, a knife was the most common type of weapon used and was involved in 33% of attempted murders, 28% of murders and 19% of robberies. A firearm was involved in 20% of attempted murders, 13% of murders and 6% of robberies.

A firearm was used in 6% of robberies recorded in 2003, the equal lowest proportion since national reporting began in 1993. The proportion of murders involving a firearm in 2003 was also at its lowest on record at 13%. Firearm use in murders peaked at 32% in 1996, but has since declined steadily. For attempted murders in 2003, a firearm was used in 20% of offences, marginally above its low of 19% in 1998 and well below its high of 32% in 1999.

It’s good that your crime rates are decreasing, similar to in the US, where guns have not been outlawed. I withdraw my mistaken allegation that banning firearms and a rising violent crime rate are the norm in Australia (except for rape, which has been increasing dramatically).

Thank you for fighting ignorance!

[SnakeSpirit]

@tomndebb

Well, I guess we might conclude that, (leaving aside the clear post hoc ergo propter hoc issue), except that even with more guns the U.S. still has higher crime rates than Britain, Australia, Canada, and Ireland with fewer guns.

I just do not believe that this is a fruitful line of reasoning.

This was the first mention of numbers of guns in relation to crime rates.

I contend that the numbers of guns owned by individuals in a country is irrelevent to its crime rate. This has been supported by statistics in the aforementioned “other thread.”

Perhaps I misunderstood this original post? I certainly do not follow the line of reasoning that says that fewer guns = less crime. The statistics do not support it.