As a Canadian, I watch American news programs and can’t believe the amount of death and injury caused by careless (or deliberate) use of weapons.
In 1993, there were 23,000 gun related deaths in the states. The same year, in Canada, there were 68 gun related deaths. I know there is a hugh population difference. We have about the same population as California…I’m not sure what the stats were for that state, but I’m betting it was more than 68.
In my nation, guns are regulated up to our collective armpits. I’m not saying this is the major difference between us…bad guys will get guns no matter how much red tape you put in the way.
The difference is attitude and respect. Quitw simply, we have both of the attributes and the states is still searching for them. Generally speaking of course.
This is just an observation…not a flame towards an entire nation.
Graeme, the statistic you are looking at includes suicides. A little over 50% of gun deaths are suicides. I can see no reason why the availability of guns would reduce total suicides. I can’t shoot myself, well, I guess I’ll just go for a long drive in the garage.
The true number, including accidents and homicides in 1998 was more like 12,000.
Of cours, the anti-gun crowd seeks to make the numbers seem as high as possible.
Actually, with adequate regulations and laws with teeth, it would become very difficult for the average dumb schmo to get his hands on a gun. Getting guns away from dumb schmos is what I’m advocating! Sure smart criminals would be able to get their hands on guns, but maybe if their really smart and they realize that all the dumb schmos no longer have guns, they would feel the need to carry one themselves…
Hey, a guy can dream, can’t he???
Mr.Zambezi writes:
Glad you brought that up again… I keep meaning to say something about this. It’s come up a number of times in this discussion. There seems to be an undercurrent of sentiment that (1) suicides are unpreventable and (2) if it’s not me, suicide is acceptable.
In 1997, 1262 suicides (nearly 1%) were young people below the age of 19. These people were not given the time or the tools to work out their problems, but they were given the tools to end their life. I find even one gun induced suicide in this age group to be UNACCEPTABLE!
Well, in that same year (1997) more than half of all suicides were with guns (17,566 with guns versus 30,535 total). Plus, in line with my previous point 1262 kids committed suicide with guns, while the total suicide rate for this same age group was only 2109.
No. We just find all unnecessary death unacceptable. Even when we are not personally threatened. In the case of the 14 year old girl that committed suicide (my niece). There were few, if any warning signs. She went from a happy little girl to a suicide victim in just a few days. All because of some minor humiliation at school. The survivors of that tragedy could not be more hurt if a psychopathic criminal had burst into their home and shot her. The weapon her father had bought to protect her was the instrument of her death.
How many such deaths do you feel justifies our society having such a high availability of hand guns? How many kids lives (and other innocent victims) are you willing to trade so that you can keep a gun, on the outside chance that someone else with a gun is going to break into your home, and threaten your life?
Personally, I don’t think it will ever change. Guns are an unstoppable force in this country. I just think it’s a shame because I think they do more harm than good.
Do a little reading on something called the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. It’s the heartwarming tale of a few jews in 1942, armed with a few guns, holding off the Nazi army for a period of 27 days. And that’s just a few people in one section of one town in one nation. What if the entire Jewish population of Europe had had the same access to weapons as we have now in the U.S.?
Okay, not yet ready with the big reply, but I had to respond to this:
“Induced”? Having the gun in the house CAUSED the suicide? CAUSED the depression, the hopelessness, the desire to end it all? It may have made ending the life easier, but the gun “caused” no suicidal feelings, any more than my blender “causes” a desire for margaritas.
Thank you for the links. They are the most powerful testimony here in support of our 2nd Amendment to date. It really is not about hunting, or target shooting. It is about the individual’s natural right to self defense-against thugs of all kinds. Before tyrants can assume and abuse power, they must first disarm the citizenry. History has demonstrated this to be axiomatic; and YES, it CAN happen here, if we allow it. Is there any wonder the Jews say “Never Again.”?
How many kids need to be molested before you shut down the internet. How many childrren have to watch their parents die from heart disease before you ban fatty foods, smoking and alcohol? How many children have to die in auto wrecks before you change the spped limit to 15 mph? Is your right to drive to a movie more valuable than the life of a child?
If it saved just one life …JUST ONE LIFE…[insert any law you like here]
Bull! After 1781, Americans have never had to use an ad hoc militia to defend the tenets of the constitution against tyrany. Even then, you can’t compare the taxation by the British govenrment to the genocide of Hitler’s Germany.
[aside to everyone else]
This is just the sort of over-the-top, paranoid individual that I would prefer not have access to guns. To him, everything looks like a conspiracy plot to take over his street
[/aside]
True, and pigs could evolve wings and take to the sky if we allowed them to acquire a taste for birds.
You may want to think twice before you decide to assemble your own militia to oppose an American government supported tyrany that may crop up in the future. Groups who have tried this in the past haven’t recognized much success in this country. We depend on our government and the ideals of the people to protect us from tyrany - not the guns in our closets.
In fact, the closest thing we have to tyranies today in this country are organized crime groups. And they have law abiding citizens like yourselves to thank for providing them with armament…
Any American who believes that they need a gun in the house to protect themselves from tyrants, is a fanatic in my book. And a fanatic with a gun is much more dangeraous than a criminal with a gun…
Yeah, Alexender hamilton, what a paranoid lunatic!
Now that you mention it, since there is no tyrannical gov’t on the horizon, we should change the 1 st amendment too. After all, there is too much porn and we need to get rid of pedophiles and hate groups.
Trying to equate cars, and food, and the internet which have a non destructive intent with guns that have a destructive intent is a lame argument. If guns were designed to do something else and just happened to occasionally kill, then I’d agree with you - but that’s not the case. Guns were designed to kill and they are indiscriminate in their execution of their duty.
That was then - this is now. Do you really believe that if your right to bear arms were denied, that you, or other Americans, or the US government would be subject to any greater threat of tyrany than you are today? Don’t forget, the 2nd Amendment was just that, an amendment - a change to the original constitution. The framers knew that times change and that governments and laws need to change with the times. The constitution is a living document, maybe it’s time to let it grow up a little bit so that a few more young Americans can have a chance to grow up, too.
I’m not advocating changing or erasing the 2nd Amendment. My position is that it merely needs to be qualified regarding the use of the arms people have the right to bear and there needs to be laws that govern the kinds of arms that citizens have a right to bear. In the same way that the 1st Amendment does not give unlimited right to free speech, the second should not give unlimited right to bear arms… In fact, it already doesn’t give that right. I can’t, for instance, use a machine gun or a bazooka or a cruise missle to defend my home… What’s up with that?
Joey, I couldn’t agree with you more on that. In fact, that’s also my goal. Well, sort of… I want to get the dumb shmos away from the guns. You want to get rid of the guns… I want to get rid of the dumb people. How? Educate 'em!
Ever wonder why? Maybe it was… because the US population was well-armed already? The use of the word “militia” doesn’t refer to those nutcases in Montana… it refers to everyone who’s not already part of the federal armed forces.
The logic is this: If there’s an armed populace, it makes a military takeover of the country (far more feasible than you may think, if Germany, Russia, Turkey, and Indonesia are any example) becomes impossible. The system in the US is made of checks and balances: The check to a fascist coming to power is private gun ownership.
That’s the sort of talk that allowed the Holocaust to happen. Sneevil said anything to make me think that he thinks anything of conspiracy theories. What exact makes you think he’s paranoid, pray tell? “Before tyrants can assume and abuse power, they must first disarm the citizenry”… seems like common sense, to me. Think of it this way… “Bully must be bigger and stronger than other kids”.
“Before tyrants can assume and abuse power, they must first disarm the citizenry”… Joey, tell us exactly what is flawed with this logic, please.
You miss the point about guns. They’re not an ACTIVE deterrent, they’re a PASSIVE deterrent. Their USE isn’t what staves off a tyrannical gov’t coming to power (or what keeps crooks away from homes), it’s their PRESENCE, the knowledge that they’re out there in plentiful numbers that keeps horrific acts at bay.
Joey said:
How so? Sure, one person with a gun isn’t going to do anything should Clinton go nuts and order the military to subdue the populace, but 300 million people with guns WILL. Once again, this seems like pretty good logic, and just common sense.
Now, on to the topic of suicide…
Joey, I’m hardly one to be insensitive to your family’s loss, but in my mind, if someone feels the need to blow their head off, then a gun in the house should be the least of your worries.
I always say, gun use is only a sympton. The real problems are a helluva lot more complex than “He’s got a gun”.
Sorry if this has been mentioned, but the gun laws only prevent the LAW-ABIDING people from getting guns. In Sweden, every person is required to own a gun or rifle. Sweden has just about the lowest crime rate in the world! Ok, there’s a three day waiting period in the US. What does that do? All it means is another three days without protection. How retarded is this country. Anyway, 90% of criminals say that they get their guns illegally, by bypassing the system. So, what do we have now? Well, the government has the names of every law-abiding citizen with guns, and the names of ten percent of criminals with guns. That is, of course, if the criminals were to use their real names when puchasing guns. So now we have maybe 1% of crooks who we know have guns. Meanwhile, the rest of us can’t get our weapons because of how our fantastic government works. Grrr…
I haven’t read all of the posts in this thread yet, but I thought I would point out that there is another thread titled “Proposed amendment to gun ownership” that I have been posting to along with Mr Zambezi. Mr Z and I have argued at length about the intent of the founding fathers and the 2nd amendment. I support MY right to keep and bear arms and concede that the only way I can be armed is if everyone has access to firearms. I FIRMLY believe that successful politicians (including the founding fathers) are all completely full of crap. No one is really happy about me owning guns and I’m not happy about anyone else owning guns. Let’s face it, there isn’t anything anyone can do about it. Gun control legislation is not effective and shouldn’t even be attempted regardless of your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
See. You are paranoid. I didn’t say “YOU” and I didn’t say “DEALER”. I said that a large number of the guns you are afraid of were stolen from private citizens “LIKE” you.
SPOOFE:
How do you propose to teach the 50 million plus gun owners out there to not be stupid?
Or maybe it was because we developed a formal military and law enforcement.
Ahhh… but history gets to sort the nuts from the heros. I’m sure to the 18th century British, the American rebels were a bunch of nutcases, as well.
See, that’s where I think this whole defense breaks down. Let’s say that a fascist does come into power in the US. He will be either supported by the rest of the government or not. If not, that’s the most effective check and balance. He will be labeled criminal and removed from power. If however the rest of the government supports him then he most likely has the support of much of the citizenry as well… How do we distinguish fascism? BUt let’s say it’s obvious and we know it when we see it. A bunch of the citizens band together with their hunting rifles and hand guns to bring down this fascist and the entire military might of the US government… Yeah, I can see it.
Well, I did feel that Sneevil’s language was a bit extreme, which is why I followed it up, facetiously, with my extreme language… And here you are with your bit of extreme language…
For the record, the language that I find paranoid and “over the top” is the entire context:
This implies (if not comes right out and says) that history shows that if you take the guns away from the citizenry you will be overthrown. However, history tells us nothing of the sort. There are plenty of nations who have agressive gun control without threat of tyrany. There are also plenty of nations where nearly every citizen has access to heavy firepower and the threat of tyrany is a daily one. HISTORY shows that armed citizenry is not the determining factor in the equation - the nature of the government is the real deterrent against tyrany.
Well, let me restate. The flaw is that you’re little pop guns are great for blowing away innocent victims and the occasional theif with malicious intent, but they are no match for the US military and law enforcement forces.
This is simply a bad assumption. Don’t you think law enforcement officials are aware that they are dealing with heavily armed individuals when they seek to put organized criminals out of business? The guns owned by the criminals are not very effective PASSIVE deterrents. Neither would your gun and the hundreds of guns owned by your neighbors be an effective deterrent against a well sponsored tyrant. For the record, they don’t appear to be an effective deterrent against the crooks breaking into your home either… Why? Because most crooks break in when you’re not there to grab your gun and defend your things.
You seem to be missing the point. A gun in the house makes it more likely that the attempted suicide will be successful. A failed suicide attempt is not the best mechanism for recognizing that someone has an emotional problem, but it results in a hellava lot more people getting help for their problems than successful suicides. No we can’t prevent all suicides by removing access to guns, but if we only prevent some of them, I think that’s a good thing. If I felt that handguns served some other ‘REAL’ useful purpose, then I would probably take a different position.
Darkpyre:
Can I assume that all that preceded your sig was bait? If not, I suggest that you (1) read the thread, your points are dealt with previously and (2) listen to the voices, they’re bound to be making more sense than you are…
SarumanRex:
Sadly, I agree with you. It’s a cancer that is out of control… it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try. At the very least, if we get a greater number of people thinking about the consequences of their actions and decisions, maybe more of them will at least act more responsibly with their guns, which gets back to SPOOFEs point about education. The anti-gun contingent pushes for tighter gun controls. The NRA pushes back and simultaneously tries to educate people about gun safety and responsible gun ownership. I don’t think their motives are completey altruistic, but the end effect is, at least more positive than the alternative…
I think this has been answered… require gun educationg courses, genius.
THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT PRIVATE GUN OWNERSHIP IS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT AGAINST!
Or if a Commander-In-Chief has the use of the military, with a defenseless body of citizenry unable to do anything, he doesn’t NEED no stinkin’ support. The military is supposed to swear loyalty to their Commander-In-Chief: If he tells them to fire on defenseless citizens, they will.
But on the other hand… remember that Hitler rose to power with the support of his people. Why? Because he just did something great: He brought them out of a depression worse than America’s Great Depression. After that, people were thinking “Let him do what he wants, he knows what he’s doing!” It wasn’t until they realized that he was a tyrant that it was too late. I, and many others, want to keep the potential for that happening again as far away as possible.
And plenty of other countries where the citizens have no guns with plenty of tyranny. Somalia, anyone? Rwanda? If you think that this doesn’t happen, you’re foolish and naive.
The US has a standing army of less than a million (I forget the exact number). There’d probably be a few million more in the reserve. Say… five million total that would be called upon by a crazy Commander-In-Chief to subdue the citizenship. If only a tenth of these follow orders… 500,000 armed men, in tanks, helicopters, and the best military equipment available. If the populace was unarmed, they’d be able to keep the American people down easily. However, if they were facing 50 million “crackpots” with guns, they’d have no chance, just based on shear numbers.
Still think there’s a flaw? If so, I say again, you’re foolish and naive.
The guns owned by known criminals are also illegally owned, and we’re not talking about illegal guns, since no amount of gun legislation will make them any more illegal.
Here’s the passiveness of the gun deterrent, and I believe I’ve mentioned this several times, but Joey, I’m mentioning it again, just for you (you’ve been fun to debate with thus far): Let’s talk about our hypothetical criminal, Bob. Bob wants to go break into a house, steal any valuables, rape any women, etc. He goes to what looks like a nice neighborhood, finds a house that looks promising. He looks around a bit, maybe a half hour looking around the neighborhood to see if there’re any rent-a-cops around, or if any other neighbors are awake. He climbs over the gate to the backyard of his target house. He breaks the sliding-glass door and quickly runs inside. He looks around a bit, getting the layout of the place, before he begins running upstairs. He’s at the landing when he sees the door to the master bedroom open, and the owner of the house is standing there with a S&W .38 revolver. Bob stops, considers the situation a second, and decides to not risk getting shot, and runs away.
No bullets were fired.
No one was hurt.
And, according to Max’s information, this happens 2,000,000 times a year.
If a crook is that well-organized and has such a well-planned-out plot, then I doubt he’s only trying to get your gun. That’s the kind of thing that happens in the movies only, my friend. Just the sheer amount of time and resources that would have to be put into finding a good target (someone who has a gun, who will be gone for a significant amount of time, who doesn’t have gun locks/safe/etc), figuring out how to get into his/her house, figuring out the layout of their house, plus the difficulty in ensuring that said person would be gone long enough and the house will be empty… it’s just unrealistic and, again, foolish and… well… paranoid.
I really don’t agree, based entirely on personal experiences. The availability of guns only affects the percentage of suicides that involved guns. If there were no guns, we’d still be seeing roughly the same numbers of suicides. So, in my mind, suicide shouldn’t even be used as an argument for gun control (more of an argument for mental health, family values, social issues, etc.)