Here’s som nifty lil’ tidbits, taken from here.
I admit it’s an anti-gun-control page (an argument that I’m sure will come up to debunk this quote), but, frankly, it’s no big surprise. After all, if a government wants to subjugate its people, what better way than to take away their source of defense? Admittedly, it doesn’t happen very often… but that’s probably small comfort to the millions who were slaughtered, huh?
Here’s another nice page, if anyone’s interested.
MGibson writes:
Well, that’s sort of the point, isn’t it?
I would argue that males tend to have more access to guns than females.
I have seen many thoughtful arguments in this post, many valid; I particularly liked SingleDad’s take on the matter. However I feel that the matter boils down to this:
Guns would therefore not be needed by the good if they weren’t in circulation and thus already possessed by the bad. The initial demand (ignoring the police and FBI and other LEGITIMATE gun USERS (of whom there are few)) undeniably stems from those bad people with criminal intent. The gun-sellers know this. And so I say the reason that the bang-bangs are still in circulation is that the profit motive in consumer-capitalism overrides any ethical concerns.
This of course is ignoring the psychoanalytical view of the individual and his/her need for personal power and/or security.
Just out of curiosity, are swords legal in the US? This would be a better alternative as there is more connection with reality in cutting someone at close quarters than pulling a trigger. I assume most people would be reluctant to use a sword in situations where they would not hesitate to use a firearm.
Having said this though, I would not at all like to be assailed by a pack of slavering feral dogs without a .44 magnum at least!
I have seen many thoughtful arguments in this post, many valid; I particularly liked SingleDad’s take on the matter. However I feel that the matter boils down to this:
Guns would therefore not be needed by the good if they weren’t in circulation and thus already possessed by the bad. The initial demand (ignoring the police and FBI and other LEGITIMATE gun USERS (of whom there are few)) undeniably stems from those bad people with criminal intent. The gun-sellers know this. And so I say the reason that the bang-bangs are still in circulation is that the profit motive in consumer-capitalism overrides any ethical concerns.
This of course is ignoring the psychoanalytical view of the individual and his/her need for personal power and/or security.
Just out of curiosity, are swords legal in the US? This would be a better alternative as there is more connection with reality in cutting someone at close quarters than pulling a trigger. I assume most people would be reluctant to use a sword in situations where they would not hesitate to use a firearm.
Having said this though, I would not at all like to be assailed by a pack of slavering feral dogs without a .44 magnum at least!
Joey: the stats reported by the UK are NOT correct. They do not include any gun deaths from the Northern Ireland “problem” as that is an act of terrorism/war. We could have lower crime stats too, if we considered all those gang-banger deaths as “war”. And you cannot compare total guns deaths from countries with a small fraction of the USA’s population. Did you know that Leichenstein had eveen less gun deaths than Canada?
And you can’t compare different counties with radically different sociologies to us, either. Based on that, I can show that assault rifles keep the crime rate down. Switzerland has a low crime rate, and a low gun crime rate too. But, every single able-bodied citizen of Switzerland is required by law to keep a fully-automatic assault rifle in their home or business. My God, the way the anti-gun liberal press demonizes assualt guns, you would think the streets of Geneva would be awash with blood, instead of one of the safest Cities in the world. Where you YOU rather be at midnite, in the Central park- Geneva or New york City? But NYC has VERY strong anti-gun laws, and there are hundreds of thousands of fully-automatic assault rifles in Geneva. I’d pick Geneva, every time. Now, I relly don’t know if handing out assault rifles to the “law-abiding” citizens of NYC would be a good idea, but I can tell you that cities with laws that require the issuance of concealed weapon permits, have lower crime rates than cities with serious anti-gun laws.
Uh… no it wouldn’t. A gun is small and relatively efficient… a sword is big, heavy, and clumsy (in general). A gun does its’ job well, while a sword relies on the length of the user. Do you think that the average woman (not to belittle women, but they ARE smaller than men, on average) would be able to swing a ten-fifteen pound sword if somebody’s trying to rape them? Of course not. Then there’s the fact that a sword’s range are dependent entirely by the length of the blade… I could go on.
Undeniably? I’m sorry, but if you’re going to claim that something is “undeniably” true, let’s see some stats. Most guns used for crimes are illegal, anyway… NO INDUSTRY can remain in business by relying on an illegal consumer base, at least, not in the US (and don’t point out the “drug industry”, because that in and of itself is an illegal operation). There’s a demand for guns because, surprise!, they can be fun.
Ever go target shooting? Hunting? If not, don’t knock it 'til you’ve tried it, buddy-boy. Yeah, guns were designed as instruments of war, but so were jet engines and computers.
And it’s also ignoring the fact that, also surprise!, guns are a part of American culture. They have been since the Revolution. Sure, times have changed since then, but have people really changed all that much?
The only legitimate gun users are law enforcement officers? When did this happen? If you were to use your definition that “guns are designed only to kill”, then the only legitimate gun users would be murderers and hunters. Seeing as how the uses of a gun range from recreation, law enforcement, collectors items, and personal defense, I’d say that “legitimate” gun user is anyone that owns a gun. However, we’re concerned about legal gun users, of which there are many, and of which the few (those who use guns for purposes of crime) get the most air time.
Personally, the only gun control I find acceptable is requiring all gun owners to take training classes for gun use and storage (the Constitution does say, after all, “well-regulated”). This training should minimize any gun accidents around the house and maximize their use as a weapon. But why is there such a need to ban or further restrict them?
Oops, way up there, I said “while a sword relies on the length of the user” while I meant to say “while a sword relies on the strength of the user.” Stinkin’ typos…
Spoofe-
sorry about jumping into as arguement like this, but I couldnt let this go.
Do you seriously think that the Holocaust would not have happened if the Jews had been armed?
Also, regarding swords, not all swords are big and clumsy. Not all swords are the type youd see on the front cover of Conan the Barbarian. If you take a quick look into the history of fencing, you will see that some of the most deadly and effective swords in history have been light and thin and very manageable.
And as for Gun figures in Northern Ireland, it is feasable to rule them out from the study, as these guns were used for a different purpose.
This arguement shouldnt bring gun use during “war” or “terrorism” into it. from what I read so far, it has to do with the gun in the home and the gun as self defence.
Daniel,
You wrote:
Well, first of all most of the gun violence attributed to this conflict occurs in Northern Ireland, which is not a part of the UK. Second of all, I think you have to discard this kind of data anyway because the argument that is being made is that people should be allowed to keep guns to protect themselves in their homes - not that people should be allowed to own guns to fight in wars or terrorist environments.
I disagree. Maybe the numbers and statistics don’t map on a one to one basis, but the trends of the statistics may still be relevant. I’m preparing a “major assault” on MaxTorque’s previous post, so I intend to say more on this subject a little later.
I will concede that in some states with liberal gun laws the crime rates seem to go down, however, in Texas at least, the number of accidental shootings, road rage incidents, and domestic gun violence has gone up as a result of more people with greater access to firearms. People keep trying to use the “automobile” argument and for the most part I think it’s lame, but here’s an intersting statistic for you. In Texas more people are killed with guns than are killed in auto accidents - and we don’t even have that much “gang-bang”, drug related violence to account for this.
Max,
I haven’t forgotten you or conceded your points, I’m just preparing a meaningful argument… while trying to keep my boss from shooting me… just a figure of speech…
[QUOTE]
**
Daniel,
You wrote:
You provided us with a statement but you did not provide us with a statistic. I seriously doubt that is the case in the state of Texas. And if you don't think we in the state of Texas have drug problems go down to the border. Texans with property on the Mexican border are often terrorized by drug runners who use their property.
Marc
Too bad you don’t have numbers for this. Oh well, I’ve looked them up for you, on the CDC Wonder server (log in anonymous, then search the Injury Mortality area for firearm deaths in Texas). The total firearm death rate per 100,000 in Texas in 1997 was 12.57. While still higher than it should be, it’s the lowest point yet in a long, steady gun-violence DECLINE in Texas. Concealed-carry was signed into law in 1995; between 1994 and 1995, the firearm homicide rate fell from 18.47 to 15.17, an unprecedented and dramatic one-year drop.
The Violence Policy Center, a group that HATES the NRA, reports the following for 1996, one year after concealed-carry became available:
In 1996 Texas ranked 18th in rate of firearm-related homicide, with a rate of 5.83 per 100,000. In 1996 the national rate of firearm-related homicide was 6.02 per 100,000.
Funny how the most-armed state in the Union (and one of the most populous) manages to beat the national average…
Also, you’re dead wrong about automobiles. In 1997, again according to the CDC, 3,767 Texans died in automobile accidents. By contrast, 2,443 died from all firearm-related causes. If you’re just gonna make stuff up, I’m not sure we should debate any more.
Hope it’s better than the stuff you’ve produced so far.
Also from the CDC, there were about 18,000 gun deaths in 1998. 13,000 were suicides. Not a “threat” in my mind.
Hmmm, Okay?
Spoofe Bo Diddly wrote:
Ok, this is a point you Americans seem to miss every time, its called “Irony”. I was not serious that Americans should go about wielding swords (although fights WOULD be more infrequent and much more entertaining to watch).
It saddens me to see that you (and obviously many others) believe a gun is anything other than a weapon. If anything CAN be used effectively as a weapon, it IS a weapon. Some people can use the tip of their finger as a deadly weapon, but these people are few. The fact about guns is that even an old granny can kill someone with ease. This makes a gun the easiest and most effective form of deadly force available to the average US citizen.
Sickeningly, he also wrote:
So guns are fun eh? Try justifying that to all the families of gun death victims. Of course a gun may be used for other purposes, but this does not change the fact it is still a WEAPON. A car can be used in a hit-and-run attack, but that does not detract from its primary function as a vehicle.
I would no doubt enjoy firing a gun myself, as power is enjoyable. However, this type of power is not conducive to people living in mutual harmony. Maybe one day you will realise this, although I understand that having grown up in a gun-bearing society, you cannot see the inherent wrong.
JohnLarrigan:
A group of six million armed people? It would’ve been a helluva lot harder for the Nazi’s to subjugate THAT. And that’s only including those that were killed in the Holocaust… ignoring all the survivors AND the native Germans who were very sympathetic to the plight of the Jews and others killed in the death camps.
Papertiger:
No, we Americans just like to keep serious in a serious debate. It must be convenient for you to hide behind “irony” whenever you make a blatantly ignorant statemen, doesn’t it?
And this is reason to ban guns? If we ban guns because they CAN be used as a weapon, then we have to ban EVERYTHING because EVERYTHING can be used as a weapon.
Duh. That’s sort of the point, isn’t it? Right now, there’re a lot of illegal guns running around out there. And, as I’ve said NUMEROUS times (and nobody’s bothered to try to counter), there are only two ways to counter “the most effective form of deadly force”… a bullet-proof vest, which isn’t realistic (they’re heavy, bulky, and uncomfortable), or another freakin’ gun.
Yes, as I’ve said, guns CAN be fun. Just like a car, another instrument originally designed for a single purpose, can be fun. Or an airplane, yet ANOTHER machine originally designed for a single purpose, can be fun.
So all families of gun death victims are all of a sudden all lumped together in a singular group? There’s absolutely no difference between victims of accidents or those murdered by another person with criminal intent? Or are they all simply numbers for your misguided quest against firearms? Gee, that’s certainly big-hearted of you. What a good, moral person you are!
It’s inherently wrong to want to be able to defend against those willing to break the law for their own personal gain? It’s inherently wrong to find enjoyment in the simple competition of target shooting? It’s inherently wrong to want to test oneself against nature in a good four- or five-day hunt? It’s inherently wrong to become fascinated with collector’s items and desire to put together a nice set of rare items? Where’s the wrong, pray tell? Please, I only seek in becoming as enlightened as you. After all, it’s perfectly clear that you are my superior, and that evolution has given you gifts that far surpass my humble parentage. Oh, forgive me! Don’t throw bolts of lighting down and incinerate my pathetic body!
Whew. At last I have time to respond to a post I’ve neglected.
Most of mine come from government sources and organizations that track violence statistics. I’m not sure what more-compelling evidence I can produce. Still, I’m more than willing to take a gander at what you can bring to the table.
Nor am I. However, I believe that limiting access for those who wish to purchase a gun for self-defense is harmful to society. Certainly, not everyone should own a gun. But, given the number of guns in this country (over 300 million in more than 50% of U.S. households), accidents, the elimination of which is the oft-cited purpose of gun control legislation, are freakishly rare, as are impulse homicides. And there are certainly many times and places when a gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen prevents harm.
Yes, society does indeed impose a duty upon such items. And, having taken Torts last fall, I can tell you that, if a child enters your yard and your dog (a gentle pet that has never snapped at, much less bitten, anyone) attacks the child, you are not liable, because you have no obligation to protect a third party from an unforeseeable harm. Swimming pools, by contrast, are an “attractive nuisance” and are covered by strong regulations concerning fence height, visibility, and coverings, varying by state/city/county. If you meet the requirements of the local codes and a child nevertheless hang-glides into your yard and drowns in your pool, you are not liable, because you have taken every step you, a reasonable person (hopefully), thought necessary to protect against a foreseeable harm.
On to guns. A criminal has to break into a house (commit a CRIME, not a mere civil trespass) in order even to be in position to steal a gun. Why must the homeowner bear more responsibility than taking standard precautions to protect his home from burglars?
On unlocking codes and tracers: anything of that sort has two major effects on the usefulness of the gun. First, they add one more thing that can malfunction and go wrong with it. Ask the police if THEY want guns with transmitter rings or fingerprint scanners before they’ll fire. They’ll answer no, because, in a life-or-death confrontation, you don’t want to discover that the fingerprint scanner is too dirty to function or that you forgot to change the batteries or that your gun’s copy of WindowsCE has crashed.
Second, they increase the cost of the gun dramatically, making buying a firearm for protection prohibitively expensive for the poorer classes, those most likely to need the protection a firearm can provide. The idea here is to keep people safe, remember, and most people can’t afford to buy a gun that passes part of a $25 million R&D cost (the amount, IIRC, that Smith & Wesson plans to spend developing smart gun technology over the next three years) on to the consumer.
What, you want accident stats? I think I’ve produced this one before, but, here we go again: According to the National Safety Council, 110 children under age 14 died from unintentional firearm injuries in 1998. By contrast, 2,600 died in vehicle accidents, 850 drowned, 570 died in fires, 200 suffocated on an object they’d swallowed, 160 died in falls, and 110 (tied with firearms) died from some form of poisoning. Firearms are tied for LAST PLACE on the list of causes of accidental death. If you really want to save children’s lives, lobby for better child safety seats in cars.
Also, according to the FBI’s 1998 Uniform Crime Report, 121 children under age 12 were murdered with firearms. Since 748 children under 12 were murdered that year, firearms represent a small fraction of the means of child death. Afraid I can’t find any statistics on woundings, but I’m working on it, and I suspect the numbers will be in line with those for deaths.
I’ll let you sift through the NRA’s safety programs yourself. Bet you’re shocked that they even exist. Here’s a quickie from their Institute for Legislative Action site: "Rather than imposing ineffective laws, NRA believes education is the way to further reduce firearm-related accidents. Nationwide, NRA’s 50,000 Certified Instructors and Coaches train three-quarters of a million trainees each year. Separately, NRA’s award-winning “Eddie Eagle"® Gun Safety Education program for children in grades pre-K through 6th grade has reached nearly 10 million students nationwide.” So, there’s some solid educatin’ goin’ on.
I feel I should add that I’m not an NRA member and can’t presume to speak for them, so, take that as you like.
From the NSC page above, we have that 900 people died in firearm-related accidents in 1998. Again, dead last on the list. Compare that to the 41,200 automobile deaths, 16,600 fatal falls, 9,000 poisonings, 4,100 drownings, 3,700 deaths by fire, and 3,200 suffocations covering all age groups in the same year. Compared to that, guns look positively safe.
Unfortunately, some existing statistics don’t separate justifiable homicide from homicide. CDC Wonder has just one numerical category for “homicide/legal intervention” But I stand by the “2 million defensive gun uses” figure, rationale given in an earlier post.
You should watch Tales of the Gun on the History Channel. They’ll often have collector-historians on, people who own hundreds of, say, WWII Walthers that’ll still take your head off, yet they’re certainly not antisocial government-paranoid persons. I’m a bit disturbed by your implication that owning firearms means that someone is somehow imbalanced. I’m a big fan of horror movies, too; are those next on your “ban” list?
Your other points were addressed and stats given in earlier posts. Most violent crimes are committed by career criminals, therefore enforcement (say, a mandatory longer sentence if a person commits a crime with a firearm, rather than pleading out of the weapons charge) will have a greater effect on crime. Ever heard of Project Exile and its success rate?
True, when injuries do occur they’re often very serious or fatal. However, in most instances of a defensive gun use, the gun is shown but not fired. Therefore, the number of bystanders accidentally shot in such circumstances is surely small, but I, like you, can’t find stats. Whadaya say we drop the “injured bystander” argument for lack of evidence?
Killing who, the beater or the beatee? You’d be disarming both an abuser likely to want his victim alive and afraid AND a victim with a history of being incapable of fighting back, you know. Is that preferable?
They’re not for everyone. But it’d be nice to keep the option available, rather than banning ownership altogether.
Gonna have to say again that I responded to a question very like this earlier, both through the International Violent Death Rate Table and the factors more important in assessing crime than the number of firearms owned from the UCR. See earlier posts in this thread.
Go to town. I’ll be here. It’s a subject near and dear to my heart.
Sure thing, bubba. What say we discuss this in between magazines at the range next time!
I don’t usually respond to these threads, as it is normally pointless since no one will change their position. However, sanctimonious Brits deserve a response:
You want to know what’s “sickening” to me, sport, is that you somehow think that watching two people hack each other with swords would be entertaining. Oh wait, that’s that “Irony” thing again, isn’t it?
Real life is neither Highlander nor Rocky 3. People get seriously hurt, crippled, and die in “good ol’ fistfights”. I just love it when people get up and say “in the good old days, we just settled our differences with a simple fistfight and shook hands afterwards. And we were all good chums henceforth.” Yeah, right! People that say that have never seen a real street fight in their lives, just the Hollywood version.
Your argument was doing so much better not mentioning The Finger. So in that case you would ban the possession of The Finger for that person, or have it removed forcibly by the Government (which is never wrong), or require a Byzantine registration and regulation system for The Finger. Come on sport, you admit that for “some people” the tip of their finger is a weapon. If it is truly a weapon for some, than what does a “civilized society” such as the UK do if someone possesses such a weapon and the skills to use it?
Another quote showing a nearly complete ignorance about firearms, except what Hollywood or the BBC tells you.
Hmmm…maybe by this statement you are revealing that you are not the type of person who should have a gun. Good thing your Government (which is never wrong) decided that for you already. Owning and using a gun is a tremendous responsibility. I get a sense of accomplishment from knowing that I can use it properly, accurately, and safely. If I ever felt like I was getting some sort of power trip by using it I would fear for my sanity (as maybe you should for yourself, sport?).
Or perhaps having grown up in a gun-phobic society, one that denies it’s citizens the right to defend their own lives, you cannot see that your way is not the way for every society on earth.
Read the other thread where I post about using my firearm to defend my life from 3 physical attacks and to prevent my own rape. Oh wait, I guess you don’t have that sort of unpleasantness over there, do you sport?
While I don’t have any stories of a gun saving my life, I can personally vouch for the fact that a gun, if used responsibly, can be an extremely fun source of recreation.
While I certainly don’t doubt the sincerity of those who dislike firearms, and while I certainly don’t want to force those who dislike firearms to change their mind, I don’t want them to be telling me what to do on a subject of which their experiences are nil, or close to. Personal opinions are fine and all, but when you start forcing your opinion on others, you have oppression, fascism, etc… all this not-fun stuff, you know?
I haven’t seen much of an argument for the continued regulation of guns (statistics I’m wary of, and the promise of more stats later)… I haven’t seen ANY argument for the banishment of guns (swords work just as well?)… this isn’t a debate about changing someone’s mind, you know (if it was, I wouldn’t mind the rhetoric being used by some), it’s a debate about a real-life issue that can have a lasting and significant effect on my (and others) existence.
Now, this isn’t a flame to anyone… just a reminder of what’s motivating some of us. I, for one, can completely understand the comments of someone like Papertiger, even though I completely disagree (and even mock, to an extent), and what I’m asking is for the same treatment in return… mutual understanding.
“continued regulation of guns” up there should be read as “adding more regulations to guns”. Sorry.
“continued regulation of guns” up there should be read as “adding more regulations to guns”. Sorry.