They forgot the myth about people using guns to kill other people

God: I think Eddie Izzard's point there (it was a quote from a comedy sketch of his) is that guns are very efficient at what they do. None of the other weapons you listed there could allow an ordinary person (i.e. not someone with Legolas' archery skillz) to kill relatively large amounts of people, in a relatively short amount of time, at range.

"A gun is a tool"

I always thought it was a weapon.

But Lewis and seacritter, there probably are some high schoolers mature enough to carry a gun. There are also a hell of a lot of "adults" not mature enough to carry a gun no matter if they're 21 or 61.

My point is that this is just as stupid a line of questioning as putting the no-gun sign up in front of your house.

What the hell is with the articles up today? Did all the real mods die or what? Who the hell approved this flamebait?

Seacritter: Yes...why, yes, I would. I'm not afraid. And I don't appreciate the fearmongering "If you don't have a gun CRIMINALS WILL KILL YOUR FAMILY!" rhetoric.


And fark it, guns are NOT useful in deterring assault. You're more likely to die in a mugging if you have a gun than if you don't.

Do I agree that America has some farked up social problems? No.

Er....that should say "Yes."

2003-07-14 12:25:40 AM cscx

Best. Post. Ever. :)

Best quote regarding guns I ever heard - I cannot remember who said it though:

"Blaming guns for killing is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnel's being fat"

Might have been Ted Nugent but I'm not sure.

Only scared ppl relay on guns for protection. Its a proven fact! Just as proven as the "facts" in the "article" as a matter of fact.

seacritter - but follow the crook's logic. If he's desperate enough to break in and knows there's a gun in the house is he going to try to clonk you on the head or is he going to bring his own gat with him and shoot the first thing in the house that moves?

2003-07-14 12:25:40 AM cscx
Best. Post. Ever. :)

KimVette, I must disagree. Attacking someone's opinions because they're fat is not only irrelevant but also a sign of weak intellect.

Michael Moore is not anti-gun. He's pro-figuring out what the fark is wrong with America and why we have so much violent crime. He goes after the NRA in his movie for being insensitive, but he's not anti-gun. I am quite pro-gun ownership, but I actually watched Bowling for Columbine and understand what it's about. He makes some valid points about the state of our society.

Most of this seems reasonable... however, the authors would benefit in credibility by accurately citing every figure used in the article. I suppose it was published in a newspaper, but still...

seacritter - but follow the crook's logic. If he's desperate enough to break in and knows there's a gun in the house is he going to try to clonk you on the head or is he going to bring his own gat with him and shoot the first thing in the house that moves?

Based on all the burglar/would-be-burglars I've encountered (worked 10 years in my father's law firm, and in a small town about half of your clients are wannabe thieves) their logic is more along the lines of "no one is home/I won't wake them up." Several specifically don't carry guns because if they're caught it's a much more severe charge.

Hooray, another gun flame war. I will simply continue to assert that the answer lies far between the extremes of the NRA and the gun-grabbers.

seacritter
If the right to bear arms is to protect us from our government, what eactly are you going to do when one of these comes rolling up your driveway?

Guns don't kill people. People who think that guns don't kill people kill people.

Nightsweat:- Stick his "bare arms" in the air?

seacritter - Yeah, that's what I mean. The asymmetry of power between the government and the people is so great that gun ownership, unless it's extended to ownership of tanks, rocket-launchers, artillery, etc... is no guarantee.

I agree the right to bear arms started out that way when cannons and cavalry were the worst the government had to offer, but now, it's outdated.

2003-07-14 10:14:21 AM seacritter
My point in the sign in front of the house is that there is a chance that the person that is about to be violated might fight back. This alone probably deters more crime than anything else

Or the criminal will just bring a bigger gun. Or bring along a friend or two. All you do is up the ante and make the criminal hit you harder and faster.

In any case, my major complaint with guns is their lethality. I believe that everyone has the right to defend themselves with non-lethal weaponry. I mean, how do I know that the dead person at your feet is really the dastardly criminal you say he is? I often wonder how accurate all thost pro-gun stats are about killing off nasty bad guys vs. just shooting someone out of anger or by mistake.

Killing a man with a gun makes you police, judge, jury and executioner all in one second. There's no check on this kind of power. It is undemocratic and unAmerican.

I say phasers set on stun for everyone. That's the answer.

sithon writes:

isreal low murder rate RIIGHT.

Given that most murders in Israel seem to be committed by Moslem men with explosives strapped to their chest, I'd stand by the claim about the murder rate in Israel, if their point was that the gun violence rate is low, which it is.

It's also very low in Swtizerland, where weapons are common in many homes.

--h

I'm so sick and tired of all this crap that the media feeds the public about the evil of guns. Let's look at the truth of the matter, Congress is banning guns and taking them away from HONEST citizens, just because of the way the gun looks. Do people really believe that a civilian version Colt AR-15 is more deadly than a Ruger Mini-14 ? A Colt AR-15 is a air cooled, gas operated, semiautomatic, .223 caliber, 5.56 mm, multi-feed rifle. A Ruger Mini-14 is a air cooled, gas operated, semiautomatic, .223 caliber, 5.56 mm, multi-feed rifle. What's the difference? The Colt is BANNED, and the Ruger is LEGAL. Both guns fire the exact same bullet, both guns are just as deadly, but an honest citizen can no longer purchase a Colt AR-15, because Congress doesn't think we should have them. But guess who does have them...THE CRIMINALS !!!! Do you really think that a criminal cares if the gun that he robs you or murders you with is on the Banned List ? WAKE UP ! If a person is committing a crime, using a banned gun is the least of his worries.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that gun control is a crime, but I am saying that the laws that are being passed are completely worthless. A person cannot have a handgun or rifle magazine that holds more than ten rounds, but you can carry as many magazines as you want. Where is the logic in that ? When handled by a skilled person, a magazine can be ejected, a fresh one loaded into the weapon, and a round chambered in less than two seconds. The amount of rounds in the actual magazine is irrelevant. Why is there a waiting period for handguns, when a background check can be performed in a matter of seconds? Criminals are not buying their guns in gun stores, why would they? In a gun store, a semiautomatic handgun can run from several hundred dollars to over a thousand dollars. On the street a criminal can buy a stolen, converted, fully automatic machine pistol for less than a hundred dollars. The majority of violent crimes are committed with weapons that HONEST citizens are forbidden to posses.

If all of these "do-gooders" really want to carry a torch, they need to pick a worthwhile cause. Let's fight for welfare reform, healthcare, something worth fighting for. We need to quit punishing honest people for the acts of criminals. Rather than take good guns away from good people, we need harsher punishments for violent acts. If a criminal commits a violent crime with a gun, incarcerate them with the maximum penalty that the law allows. If a criminal commits a murder, then put them on death row, and execute them quickly, not twenty years and millions of taxpayer's dollars later.

There were fifteen children killed in the Columbine Tragedy, and I admit, it was a tragedy. Let's be realistic, according to a national insurance poll, five children are killed PER DAY in automobile accidents. Why aren't the "gun grabbers" attacking the automobile industry ? They're attempting to sue gun manufacturers, why not auto manufacturers?

Overall, gun reform needs to be reformed. Let's stop punishing honest citizens for the acts of criminals and start punishing the criminals.

In any case, my major complaint with guns is their lethality. I believe that everyone has the right to defend themselves with non-lethal weaponry.

Not to sound all mysogynist (because I'd probably be called a feminazi on any other thread), but if you put me up against an average-to-big man in a "defend yourself with non-lethal weaponry" contest, I'm not going to win. What kind of non-lethal weaponry would you advocate?

Killing a man with a gun makes you police, judge, jury and executioner all in one second. There's no check on this kind of power. It is undemocratic and unAmerican.

I think there are definitely instances where lethal force is warranted. If someone breaks into my house, my right to defend myself trumps his right to live. If a guy tries to rape me and I can reach a gun, he's dead. However, shooting someone for stealing your car, or running down the street with your television....that's just plain stupid. But if a person is in immediate danger, lethal force is justified. I don't see how you could assert otherwise. Vigilante-ism is definitely unAmerican, but self-defense is a totally different thing.

pkjun--
"And fark it, guns are NOT useful in deterring assault. You're more likely to die in a mugging if you have a gun than if you don't."


From personal experience, I call bullshiat on that statement.

Here's why America is so f*cked up:

Americans are the greediest most selfish humans on the planet. Being a superpower has spoiled the citizens rotten and unlike Russia, they never faced the nesseccary econmic disaster required to deflate their huge ego's. Granted, there was the Great Depression, but that was prior to superpower status. If anything, coming out of the Great Depression by kicking ass all over Europe/the Pacific and ascending to superpower status just caused America's ego to inflate even more. Anyway, American's believe the world should be delivered to them on a silver plater. As a result, they greedy and selfish with giant egos. This leads them to care only about their own personal happiness and to f*ck anyone who gets in their way. If raping women gives an american sexual satisfaction, he'll do it. If molesting children gives an american sexual satisfaction, he'll do it. If buying a Magnum .44 and using it to blow away "those damn dirty n*ggers" gives an american sexual satisfaction, he'll do it.

So the short hand version is: Americans became greedy and selfish from being spoiled by superpower status. As a result, americans have no self-control and like all humans, they are slaves to their sexual hormones(which more or less includes adrenaline).

If the mere fact that Guns exist bothers you that much, then a speedy death from stress related
hypertension to you! Guns aren't going to leave our sight for quite some time. Besides, I would
think you have more to worry about than if someone has a gun or not, perhaps I'm wrong. At the
risk of sounding like a neo-hippie, ultra-liberal, eco-idiot, the freedoms that our constitution
allows commands a bit of responsibility. "Gun violence" is something I, at least, find ethically
unsound, particularly in Hollywoods grim depiction of guns equating to killing humans. But like
drugs, suburbs, strip malls and vegetarianism this egregious blight on the integrity of the human
race isn't bloody likely to leave any time soon. What is right is rarely what is...and while I am not
going to actively pursue the eradication of the negative image Guns have in this country, I'm not
going to participate in making the matter worse. So the next time your cuddling on the couch
shoveling pop-corn in your face watching Arnold, Sylvester, or hell even Keaneau Reeves killing
people and your really into it, think of just how hypocritical you have become.
Screw all you Anti-gun freaks, you aren't even worthy of washing my socks.

Emporer-Jay

Nice rant. You're not on top of a watchtower with a scoped rifle right now, are you?

starr, I agree with a lot of what you have to say (except for your death penalty views, but...eh). However:

There were fifteen children killed in the Columbine Tragedy, and I admit, it was a tragedy. Let's be realistic, according to a national insurance poll, five children are killed PER DAY in automobile accidents. Why aren't the "gun grabbers" attacking the automobile industry ? They're attempting to sue gun manufacturers, why not auto manufacturers?

I ask you and all of the other pro-ownership proponents out there to PLEASE stop comparing guns to cars. It is the most ridiculous, apples-to-oranges comparison out there and it detracts from your valid points. They are not related. At all. Except that sometimes people have gun racks in their pickups.

<sarcasm>
<sniff />
<voice type='patriotic;sarcastic'>God Bless America.</<voice>
</sarcasm>

bah. stupid filter.

Nightsweat

You are in my crosshairs even as we type(I'm using a portable laptop).

(dramatic chord):BUMH BUMH BUMMMMMMMH

what have we learned?

well, again, guns = dicks.

that's why the pro-gun people can't seem to make any sense. the whole argument gets them in a tizzy 'cuz they believe somebody's trying to cut off their dicks.

/applaud starr77

Oh, and Emperor-Jay? I'm on the way to your house right now to rape and kill you. Because I'm an American and it's my God-given right.

(The previous comment was sarcasm, for those in the audience who are sarcasm impaired.)

Could someone tell me the jist of our current gun laws? Maybe they'll give those of us w/o insight into them a little more knowledge about gun 'reform' laws and whatnot.

It's amazing what one has to believe to believe in gun control. by Michael Z. Williamson
d­ag­g­ers­ydnine­t

That the more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
That Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
That "NYPD Blue" and "Miami Vice" are documentaries.
That an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .44 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
That firearms in the hands of private citizens are the gravest threat to world peace, and China, Pakistan and Korea can be trusted with nuclear weapons.
That Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
That ordinary people, in the presence of guns, turn into slaughtering butchers, and revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
That the New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns, just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
That one should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a software engineer for computer problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
That the "right of the people peaceably to assemble," the "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the states.
That the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, allows the states to have a National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1917.
That the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state agency.
That private citizens can't have handguns, because they serve no militia purpose, even though the military has hundreds of thousands of them, and private citizens can't have assault rifles, because they are military weapons.
That it is reasonable for California to have a minimum 2 year sentence for possessing but not using an assault rifle, and reasonable for California to have a 6 month minimum sentence for raping a female police officer.
That it is reasonable to jail people for carrying but not using guns, but outrageous to jail people for possessing marijuana.
That minimum sentences violate civil rights, unless it's for possessing a gun.
That door-to-door searches for drugs are a gross violation of civil rights and a sign of fascism, but door-to-door searches for guns are a reasonable solution to the "gun problem."
That the first amendment absolutely allows child pornography and threats to kill cops, but doesn't apply to manuals on gun repair.
That Illinois' law that allows any government official from Governor to dogcatcher to carry a gun is reasonable, and the law that prohibits any private citizen, even one with 50 death threats on file and a million-dollar jewelry business, is reasonable. And it isn't a sign of police stateism.
That free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.
That gun safety courses in school only encourage kids to commit violence, but sex education in school doesn't encourage kids to have sex.
That the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government forms, waiting periods, checks, infringements, ID, and fingerprinting, is responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 1950's and 1960's, which was caused by the awkward availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, and by mail order.
That we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who owns a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
That there is too much explicit violence featuring guns on TV, and that cities can sue gun manufacturers because people aren't aware of the dangers involved with guns.
That the gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
That the crime rate in America is decreasing because of gun control, and the increase in crime requires more gun control.
That 100 years after its founding, the NRA got into the politics of guns from purely selfish motives, and 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, the black civil rights movement was founded from purely noble motives.
That statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control, and statistics that show increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
That we don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, and we should ban and seize all guns, therefore violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments of that Constitution, thereby becoming an oppressive government.
That guns are an ineffective means of self defense for rational adults, but in the hands of an ignorant criminal become a threat to the fabric of society.
That guns are so complex to use that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
That guns cause crime, which is why there are so many mass slayings at gun shows.
That guns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army only has 3 million of them.
That banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
That the Constitution protects us, so we don't need guns, and can confiscate them, thereby violating the 5th amendment of that constitution.
That women are just as intelligent and capable as men and a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen".
That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
That a handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
That a majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population used to support owning slaves.
That one should ignore as idiots politicians who confuse Wicca with Satanism and exaggerate the gay community as a threat to society, but listen sagely to politicians who can refer to a self-loading small arm as a "weapon of mass destruction" and an "assault weapon."
That Massachusetts is safer with bans on guns, which is why Teddy Kennedy has machinegun-toting guards.
That most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by, because they can be trusted.
That a woman raped and strangled with her panties is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
That guns should be banned because of the danger involved, and live reporting from the battlefield, which can keep the enemy informed of troop deployments, getting thousands of troops killed and perhaps losing a war, is a protected act that CANNOT be compromised on.
That the right of online child pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is a constitutionally protected extension of the Bill of Rights, and the claim that handguns are for self defense is merely an excuse, and not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
That the ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
That police operate in groups with backup, which is why they need larger capacity magazines than civilians, who must face criminals alone, and therefore need less ammunition.
That we should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
That guns have no legitimate use, but alcohol does, which is why we issue cops beer instead of guns.
That police and soldiers are the dregs of society who were unfit to get any real job, which perfectly qualifies them with the high moral standards and keen intellects to handle these complicated tools and be our guardians.

"Thou shalt GUN..."

Son of Secret Police
that's why the pro-gun people can't seem to make any sense the whole argument gets them in a tizzy 'cuz they believe somebody's trying to cut off their dicks.


I think that's part of the problem, people who can't make sense for themselves own guns. Yeah, there's gun freaks in the world, but there are also NASCAR freaks and people who collect Starwars stuff, I know this one woman who owns all these ceramic flamingo's, I mean what the hell!?!?!? To each thier own I guess. In reality, people who collect and cherish firearms, don't have the inclination to go out on a shooting rampage. Well, except for that music producer guy in hollywood, but I was talking of reality not hollywood. Equating guns to penis size (or lack thereof) is the same as stating your anti-gun opinion is fueled by your own impotence. See it works both ways! My gun is still bigger than yours anyhow.

Two arguments for widespread gun ownership:

1) Deterrent to repressive government. At first glance, that appears ridiculous, given the disparity between the types of weapons a citizen may reasonably own and the types of weapons possessed by modern governments. However, consider populations that have been subjugated by tyranny; in almost every case, the government first disarmed the population. A population widely armed with small arms doesn't completely prevent tyranny, any more than taking the keys out of your car and locking your car prevents car theft. But it does make tyranny much less likely.

2) Deterrent to crime. As I've mentioned in previous posts to this thread, the article summarizes and simplifies conclusions from the research of John Lott. His science is generally respected as sound. The short version of his research is that widespread gun ownership is an effective deterrent to crime. I doubted his research myself, until I investigated.

Another point:
-Guns are more dangerous than most other weapons and therefore they require more caution, both legislatively and by gun owners. Minors should not have weapons, which highlights one serious responsibility of a gun owner: keeping weapons out of children's hands. Folks with a history of mental instability and convicted felons should also not have weapons. Existing laws address these issues and should be strictly enforced. I've always thought prospective gun owners should be required to prove basic competency and knowledge of gun safety before being allowed to purchase weapons.

Read my posts way above for more

/back to the salt mine

I like it, Mad Ogre :)

Nightsweat writes:

If the right to bear arms is to protect us from our government, what exactly are you going to do when one of these comes rolling up your driveway?

Assuming it's there on business and not to protect me, the best tactic would be to pour gasoline into an open hatch and light it, but failing that, Molotov cocktails seems to work pretty well for the Czechs back in 1968. Unfortunately for the Czechs the Soviet Union rolled too many of these things in, along with infantry and other supporting arms.

By the way, do understand your logic--that if we here in the U.S. have weapons to protect us from our government, why don't we also allow civilians have Hellfire missiles (the weapon of choice against a tank)?

The concept that the people have weapons in order to "take back the country" should the government get farked up is not in the Constitution, but was cited by the Founding Fathers as an additional justification for the Second Amendment in the Federalist Papers. At the time, anyone could own the exact same weaponry that the U.S. military had--smooth bore muskets, slower firing rifled muskets for sniping, or even cannon (mostly rich ship owning merchants).

Today laws restrict what types of weapons that the people can own and under what circumstances. Even with the proper licenses and money, you can't legally equip a civilian force larger than a platoon (40 or so people) to equal the firepower of a similar U.S. military unit (in some states it's impossible to even legally equip a squad--about 10). The best you could hope for would be a fight in which you could draw the military units into city fighting and that you could inflict enough casualities (and encourage enough defections) to make it at least an even contest.

No, you could say that the government "pulled a fast one on us" many years ago, when the people were sold on the idea that it was best that they not be allowed to own certain weapons because of their lethality--"Public Safety" over "Right to Rebellion" in a "modern" society.

But it begs the question...who is really safer? The people, or the bureaucrats?

--h

When fisting is outlawed, only outlaws will have fists.

http://www.gunowners.org/fs0101.htm

Yes, this fact sheet is put out by a pro-gun group, but every fact includes source material. Guns are a dangerous tool, but they are still a useful tool.

Useful and dangerous at the same time? Things such as cars and fire come to mind.

except, redford, that only the gun freaks (such as yerself) get hysterical over this stuff. anti-gun folks (of which i am NOT one) generally seem sensible.

Mad Ogre:- My IQ just dropped reading that. Does anyone really think there are people on either side of the issue who would read that list and link "hmmmm, that's right. That's how they/we think". I tend to think people would read that, laugh, and consider the person who wrote it deluded and quite possibly not fit to carry anything more dangerous than a crayon.

Well isn't it obvious. If you have to register your guns, the Government will know who has them and be able to use that information to determine their tactical needs when they storm your compound. We can't have that now, can we?

Seriously though, Canada has been trying to get all gun owners to register their weapons and it has gone overbudget by $2 billion so far. It was it was only supposed to cost taxpayers $2 million. Lotso angry Canucks. I think that comparing the U.S. gun murders to almost any other nation is assinine. The comparison should be to the densley populated, poverty striken urban areas where the majority of these crimes take place.

Pack em in like sardines, keep em dumb and let em starve - let the games begin. Solve those problems first and I'll open the door.

Holding out in underground bunker.

/David Koresh

Mad Ogre

When you put it that way, you make gun control advocates sound as blindly faithful as religous folks.

Just an observation.

Nightsweat
I agree, the government has gotten much better weapons (from my tax dollars). If it got to the point of a tank rolling up my driveway, it's too late to make a stand... I would jump in my yacht and just leave, I speak several languages and will blend in/dissapear/enjoy the world etc...