Emporer_Jay

He hates these cans!

In fact, Mad Ogre's list is the ultimate straw man argument. I can't think I've ever seen a better example.

Son of Secret Police,


Indeed I am a bit excitable when dealing with this topic. In a perfect world the middle ground (of which I imagine you encompass) would have a more vociferous role in society. Therein may lie the answer many peoples problems.
Much extenuation if you took my tone to be downright condescending.

To reiterate, the 'article' is condensed from an excellent book on the subject, "More guns, less crime". John Lott Jr. began his study from a neutral (or even slightly pro-gun-control) standpoint, and the study's results swung his position. The book has stood up to peer review numerous times and his methodology has proven sound each time (much the same cannot be said about similar books on the opposite side of the ideological fence, re the book 'Gun culture').

In the actual book, references are cited, charts are available, statistics are shown, and the methodology clearly explained. The article, for purpose of brevity, does none of this.

Personally, I do not understand why people think that legislating will fix any problem. Prohibition was so effective at curbing alcoholism, and the Drug War has defeated drug addiction and drug crime, right? So legislating guns away will stop all gun violence, aye?

Sad.

And for Fear Mongering: The right to bear arms is to protect us
from our government more than anything else.

I'm feeling much better knowing that a Glock will be an
effective deterrent to an F-16 or Abrahms tank.

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).

Ah, the old "ugly American" routine. The problem is that there isn't a template "American", unless
you're counting the hopelessy jingoistic "American", who wears their fake patriotism on their
sleeve (and demand that others do the same). The truth is that America (more correctly,
the United States OF America) is made up of all kinds of people and what is seen on
television and heard on radio isn't reflective of what the average American feels, thinks
or believes.

Screw all you Anti-gun freaks, you aren't even worthy of washing my socks.

It's people like you who give gun proponents a bad name.

well, again, guns = dicks.

And here all this time I thought that a huge truck or SUV=dicks. I'll have to update
my notes.

I know a guy (who happens to be a postal worker, frighteningly enough) with a 50 caliber. What the hell does anyone need a 50 cal. weapon for?

I just don't understand why people stockpile these huge arsenals that aren't practical, only dangerous. Why?

son of secret police writes:

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.

You are talking about a Constitutional right as basic as any other. If we were talking about new restrictions on, or the abolition of the First Amendment, then many of the same people who you call "anti-gun folks" (and your use of "freaks" versus "folks" gives away your position on the issue) would be engaging in the same behavior.

I am amazed at the number of people in the U.S. that take a liberal interpretation of the First Amendent to the Constitution and see flag burning and porn as protected speech, yet when it comes to the Second Amendment they become quite literal and incorrectly start pointing at the National Guard as the people who the amendment was talking about.

I am equally amazed at the number of people who say I should be able to own an M-16A2 assault rifle but can't buy a Playboy because it's "immoral"--so don't feel too bad.

The bottomline is that you can't have it both ways. Either you interpret your constitution liberally, defined as that you infer meaning from the words that the original author may or may not have intented, and stretch words to cover things not originally thought of--or you interpret it literally, it means exactly what it says in the context that the author intented only, and if it isn't covered, and you want to address it you amend the document.

Liberals should be strong advocates of the right to bear arms, given that they as a rule liberally interpret the Constitution. They are not. Why? Because like many social conservatives, they are raving hypocrites.

--h

MyrnaMinkoff "Except that sometimes people have gun racks in their pickups."

LOL...touche

I know they're not related, but was ranting...mostly to point out that it's idiotic to attack the manufacturers for the acts of end users.

Pro-death sentence or anti-death sentence, I don't take issue with. It's the all of the tax dollars that are wasted while the convict sits there for twenty years or more that I have a problem with.

I've owned guns for over 21 years and have yet to shoot anyone. I guess that makes me a slacker in the eyes of the Mikey Moore types.

Israel has a murder rate 40% lower than Canada's? Proportionally!? shiat. We better send some gun-toting "peacekeeping" troops over to Canada tout-de-suite! They're all gonna kill each other!

And just who gives a shiat how the murder rates of Israel and Canada compare? Who wrote this garbage?

Or the facts are:

1. In 1999, more than 28,000 Americans died by gunfire. Among all consumer products nationwide, only motor vehicles outpace guns as a cause of fatal injury. In 1999, guns outpaced motor vehicles as the number one cause of injury-related death in three states: Alaska, Maryland, and Nevada.

2. Contrary to popular perception, most homicides do not occur as the result of an attack by a stranger but stem from an argument between people who know each other and are often related. For firearm homicides in 2000, where the victim-offender relationship could be identified, more than half of the victims were either related to (eight percent), intimately acquainted with (16 percent), or knew (45 percent) their killers. Only 31 percent of homicide victims were killed by strangers. For female victims, where the victim-offender relationship was known, the majority (58 percent) were killed by their intimate acquaintances.

3. A gun is far more likely to be used in a suicide, homicide, or unintentional shooting than to kill a criminal. Using federal government figures, for every time a citizen used a firearm in 1999 in a justifiable homicide, 185 lives were ended in firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings.

4. In 1999, homicide was the leading cause of death among African-Americans 15 to 24 years of agenearly nine out of 10 victims (88 percent) were shot and killed with firearms. Tallying up firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings, the overall firearms death rate among African-Americans aged 15 to 24 was nearly three times higher (50.7 per 100,000) than the rate among all Americans aged 15 to 24 (18.0 per 100,000).

5. For all our fear and fascination with guns and homicide, the fact remains that most firearm deaths in America are not the result of homicide (10,828 for 1999), but suicide (16,599 for 1999). It is estimated that only 10 percent of suicides by firearms are committed with firearms purchased specifically for the act.

6. The wholesale value of firearms manufactured in the United States in 1998 totaled more than $977 million. The value of handguns manufactured that year totaled more than $370 million, while the value of rifles and shotguns totaled over $600 million. The value of ammunition manufactured totaled more than $550 million. The combined wholesale value of both manufactured firearms and ammunition in 1998 was $1.5 billion.

7. In 1980, pistolssemiautomatic handgunsaccounted for only 32 percent of the 2.3 million handguns produced in the United States. The majority were revolvers. By 1999 this ratio had reversed itselfpistols accounted for 75 percent of the 1.3 million handguns produced that year.

8. To counteract the sales slump of the 1980s, gun makers began a marketing campaign aimed at women and youth. At the same time, they began to redesign and expand their product lines focusing on firepower (assault weapons, a new generation of high-powered Saturday Night Specials, and new ammunition types), and technology (laser sights and the increased use of plastics).

9. It is estimated that in 1992 the overall cost of gunshot wounds exceeded $126 billion. The injury cost per bullet sold in the United States exceeded $25.

Des4,
It doesn't have anything to do with need. There is very little that we really need, when it comes down to it. People own guns because they want them.

Example....


I know a guy (who happens to be a pizza delivery driver, frighteningly enough) with a 250 horsepower car. What the hell does anyone need a 250 horsepower car for?

I just don't understand why people stockpile these huge 250 horsepower cars that aren't practical, only dangerous. Why?

I don't have much to contribute to this thread.

Bet you all wish you lived in a safer country! I go to bed peacefully every night. Without a gun. Sometimes I don't lock the door cos I've forgotten to do it and I can't be bothered getting up. I don't lock my car at night. I've never seen a gun out on the street. I've rarely even seen someone carrying a knife. I guess I must be lucky.

I agree, you should be allowed to protect yourselves in your homes. I just think it's sad that so many people obviously feel the need to. I also think it's sad that so many people don't seem to question why so many guns are needed instead just get in a rage about their constitutional rights.

Like the saying goes, a life lived in fear is a life half lived.

Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms
is the goal"--(Janet Reno)

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -Adolph Hitler 1938

Remember what happened to the Tutsis in Rwanda between April and July of 1994. After the Tutsis had been disarmed by governmental decree, Hutu forces systematically massacred hundreds of thousands of them.

It is my opinion that the REAL core cause core of our violent young males is the lack, especially in the most violent urban areas, of an authoritative elder male influence. Without a civilizing and controlling example to obey and emulate, young males revert to tribalism and the resultant violence that invariably accompanies it.

Prohibition of drugs (and the lucrative black-market thereby engendered) is the instant cause of most urban violence.

FACTS:

(1) Lott's book "More Guns -- Less Crime" is perhaps THE most well-researched pro-gun dissertation ever. The article is a SYNOPSIS (and a rather poorly written one at that) of said book. Read the book, check the citations, then talk to me about it.

(2) Every US state that has liberalized their right-to-carry laws have seen a significant and almost INSTANT drop in violent crime.

(3) Prior to the 1970's ANYone could buy a handgun, MAIL ORDER, for < $20 in the US. Crime rates THEN were half of what they are NOW. The more difficult it became for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, the higher the crime rate.

(4) Washington DC, probably THE most anti-gun city in the USA (handgun posession is illegal for nearly everyone, even in your own home), also has THE highest per-capita murder rate.

(5) Laws, by definition, affect the law-abiding. Criminals, by definition, don't give a fark about the law. Passing laws restricting gun ownership therefore disarms only the law abiding, allowing criminals to act with practical impunity.

(6) 9 out of 10 criminals surveyed prefered UNARMED victims.

(7) Guns don't kill people, people kill people. People with guns kill people with hammers, knives, rocks and sticks. When the fecal matter hits the rotating ventilation device, which group do YOU want to be in?

(8) One of the biggest reasons the Axis didn't attempt to invade the US mainland in WWII was because they KNEW the average US citizen could outgun them.

(9) My (rural) high school actually had a "shooting club" and a range behind the school. Nearly HALF of the male students were in it. We brought our guns to school and stored them in our lockers, usually with the ammo in a pouch attached to the stock. Not ONE shooting occurred, and not ONE of the kids who EVER came through that club has EVER been convicted of a gun-involved crime.

(10) I had a PERSONAL experience a few years ago, was being stalked and threatened by a psycho. Tried to buy a gun to protect myself and ran into my state's mandatory "waiting period." Left the store UNARMED and was approached by a man in the parking lot offering to sell me a stolen handgun. Law-abiding citizen couldn't get one for three weeks, , criminal COULD get one in three MINUTES.

Some MORE Gun Control Facts!

1911 Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1929 The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1935 China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 6 to 7 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and 12 million Christians who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

1956 Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1964 Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1970 Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Doctors vs. Guns U.S. Statistics:

Number of physicians in the US = 700,000
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year =120,000
Accidental deaths per physician = 0.171 (U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)
Number of gun owners in the US = 80,000,000
Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) =1,500
Accidental deaths per gun owner = 0.0000188 (U.S. Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms)
Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Greece. Ireland. Jamaica. Bermuda. England. Canada. New York City. What do all of these countries or jurisdictions have in common? The answer: each government used gun registration lists to later confiscate firearms.

History repeats itself, always has, always will, and those who haven't learned their history are doomed to repeat with it.

Gun control is being able to hit your target.

My wife? Yes.
My dog? Maybe.
My GUN? NEVER.

You can have my gun when you pry my cold, dead fingers from around it.

When in doubt, empty the magazine.

Lock and LOAD!

Heart Disease and Cancer kill more people than cars or guns. We should ban Heart Disease and Cancer.

So the Armenian genocide, Stalin's purges, the Cultural Revolution, Nazi Germany (Godwin! Godwin!), the killing fields, and Idi Amin's massacres are all due to gun control?

That's an... interesting... view of history. Psychotic, but interesting.

Mad Ogre

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

What is really amazing is that Michael Z. Williamson can convince himself that other people believe all that crap.

I have followed the gun control debate for decades and I have never heard a gun control advocate say any of those things.

I have heard pro-gun ownership people accuse gun control advocates of believing such nonsense.

I always amazes me that when many peoples beliefs are challenged. They will convince themselves that those who believe differently are somehow evil.

It is not possible that Liberals just have a different point of view; Ann Coulter says they are evil.

It is not possible that the NRA just has a different point of view, they must be trigger-happy rednecks who are waiting to get YOU!

It is not possible that gun control advocates just have a different point of view. Michael Z. Williamson (and Mad Ogre) say they must believe in all kinds of stupid stuff.

It is always so much easier to brush off other point of view as stupid then actually analyzing them. It amounts to intellectual laziness.

This article is interesting, but frankly it's irrelevant. Who cares if, statistically speaking, many a lot of idiots blow their own heads off?

I am a responsible citizen, I know how to shoot, handle and store my gun(s). Let the idiots kill each other, I can still use my gun safely.

I'm a registered gun-toter, and I think the advantages by far outweigh the hypothetical disadvantages. I'm sick of hearing people complain that guns are dangerous and killing oh-so-many Americans. Sorry, but you're in more danger driving your car than you are from getting shot by a registered owner of a gun with a concealed carry permit. That's just pure, unadulterated silliness.

Take a real case, for example.

Kennesaw, GA, at one point, had a local ordinance requiring that every resident of the city of Kennesaw was required to own a firearm. The result? The crime rate was significantly lower than surrounding cities of equal size. Kennesaw is no small place, either, being a resident of the local area.

I don't think the law exists, anymore -- it was outsted by the growing pressure from "progressives" (liberal silliness if you ask me) -- but the effects of the law are well documented. Look it up for yourself, it's been in several gun control case studies.

Those are all very good points. Glad you all could solve that one.

Gun control laws in general aim at eliminating criminal ownership of guns. The waiting period, the push to eliminate gun show sales, the push to limit the number of dealers (which now outnumbers the number of service stations in the U.S.), and the push to ban certain classes of weapons (handguns, assault rifles, etc...) are all legitimate and reasonable attempts to cut down on dangerous gun ownership.

Personally, if you want a 12 gauge and a rifle for hunting, I'm all for you. But you don't need a machine pistol in mid-town Manhattan.

I think we should keep all forms of dangerous power from the inept hands of the idiotic public, be it subtle powers like right to privacy, or not-so-subtle powers, like those granted by weapon ownership.

Unless we're willing to sacrifice the rights and powers of the public, there will only be more death, killing and lawlessness. Half-measures and the preferential treatment of certain freedoms are nothing more than hypocritical, dangerous conceits. Shouldn't the right to life override any other imperative?

Proactive law enforcement is the future. Praise the lord, and pass the freedom crushing legislation.

Oh-yea, that Lexas SUV is so much more practical than a Geo Metro.
It is funny that the liberal think it is ok to suport gun control, but always scream foul if a concervitive tries to cut back on a social program!
One more thing, the coment on juvinels not having access to firearms is wrong. I have owned a firearm since I was 9yrs old. (Got it for my birthday) I have not killed anyone in the following 27 years. Ownership is a resposnability not to be taken lightly, but registration of firearms will not make a criminal more responsable.

Again, hubiestubert, I put the question to you -

What are you going to do if the government sends this up your driveway?



You already are powerless against the government if they wanted to get you bad enough.

Nightsweat -- "So the Armenian genocide, Stalin's purges, the Cultural Revolution, Nazi Germany (Godwin! Godwin!), the killing fields, and Idi Amin's massacres are all due to gun control?"

Apparently you don't comprehend the difference between causative and contributive.

NONE of those things were "due to gun control" but ALL were POSSIBLE AS A RESULT OF it -- that is to say they would have been IMPOSSIBLE in the presence of an armed populace.

I can guaran-damn-tee you one thing -- If the American Dictator decides to start rounding up rednecks, hilarity WILL ensue.

That's an... interesting... view of history. Psychotic, but interesting.

Sarcastic_Bastard

So what little popgun of yours is going to fend off the tanks? If a professional army with no loyalty issues went after the rednecks the rednecks would be dead in a VERY short time.

Guns don't protect you from your government. Not anymore. Participatory democracy, a volunteer military, and a free press so you know what's going on protect you from your government. Not much else does.

Synaesthesia: This article is interesting, but frankly it's irrelevant. Who cares if, statistically speaking, many a lot of idiots blow their own heads off?

I am a responsible citizen, I know how to shoot, handle and store my gun(s). Let the idiots kill each other, I can still use my gun safely.

Oh my god I feel sick. This is replusive.

Nightsweat, sure, that tank could beat an armed man if he was staging a single man revolution. But I doubt the gov't. would call out the big guns for one crazy guy.

I'd like to think that if there was an actual revolution that the populace would be more united. One thousand armed men and women in a town have more power against a tank than one thousand unarmed men and women.

snertly,

It is funny that the liberal think it is ok to suport gun control, but always scream foul if a concervitive tries to cut back on a social program!

That comparison doesn't make any sense.

One more thing, the coment on juvinels not having access to firearms is wrong. I have owned a firearm since I was 9yrs old. (Got it for my birthday) I have not killed anyone in the following 27 years. Ownership is a resposnability not to be taken lightly, but registration of firearms will not make a criminal more responsable.

I'm glad you had a good experience with guns early on, but allowing minors to own guns is asking for trouble. You have to be a certain age to do things that are "dangerous", like drive a car, drink alcohol, smoke, etc. I fully support age limits on gun ownership.

2003-07-14 12:08:42 PM Sarcastic_Bastard

Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

How can you possibly come to this conclusion when the only 2 numbers you looked at were number of gun owners and number of ACCIDENTAL gun deaths? What about those gun deaths that were not accidental? Isn't that part of the whole gun owners are dangerous if they kill other people? You really don't want to add that number to the mix, do you?

What type of NRA-skewed bullshiat do you read? Oh yeah, this book!

Tanks are nothing new. The nazis had plenty of them. Yet, the first thing they did in occupied countries was, as in Poland and Czechoslovakia, used pre-existing gun registration lists to identify gun owners. Many simply disappeared in the middle of the night.

In other countries such as Holland and France, notices were posted demanding that all firearms be surrendered within 24 hours. Failure to comply violations resulted in death.

Obviously, if tanks were sent to my home, I guess I'd be dead. Otherwise, they can't stay in their tanks forever

hubiestubert
I'm not the right guy for the car argument. I gave up driving ten years ago. It made me too angry.

We do have limits on cars. Certain cars are not street legal. Bill Gates had (and may still have for all I know) a monster Porsche (I think) stuck in Seattle at the port authority because it wasn't street legal.

"So what little popgun of yours is going to fend off the tanks? If a professional army with no loyalty issues went after the rednecks the rednecks would be dead in a VERY short time."

Yeah, which is why Vietnam was so quickly and easily won with few losses on our side. Those VC had crap for weaponry.

son of secret police: "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."

Yeah. Michael Moore generally seems sensible.

Oh, and CrackeurJacque, those are some of the most commonly misrepresented "facts" about gun control ever. Which is the entire reason that John Lott wrote his book. To debunk facts like that and give a dose of reality to gun statistics.

MyrnaMinkoff

Yeah, but one thousand professionally trained soldiers and a tank and air cover and special forces beat a thousand (or twenty thousand) armed men lacking those extras.

Revolution in the U.S. is over - at least revolution that doesn't take a significant part of the armed forces with it.

2003-07-14 12:47:47 PM Crunch61


Tanks are nothing new. The nazis had plenty of them. Yet, the first thing they did in occupied countries was, as in Poland and Czechoslovakia, used pre-existing gun registration lists to identify gun owners. Many simply disappeared in the middle of the night.

Proof? And even if it was true, you people talk as if the Nazis wouldn't be around if there was no gun control

2003-07-14 12:56:47 PM MikeWeath

Yeah, which is why Vietnam was so quickly and easily won with few losses on our side. Those VC had crap for weaponry.

The VC were so hard to beat because they knew the terrain and were very good fighters. The Americans were not using jungle fighting tactics but rather WWII tactics. You honestly think some guys with a shotgun and a few handguns could defeat an American Army unit?

MikeWeath

The Vetnamese may have had crap weaponry but they also had a lot more killed than we did.

KIA for US vs. NVA/VC: 47,348 vs. 1.1 million. The ARVN took 200K plus KIA, but they mostly had crap weaponry, too.

We didn't lose the war, we lost the politics.

Look, if you all want to believe that a bunch of rednecks could take down the government and that gun control will lead to the return of Hitler, then be my guest.

The delusional nature of your claims just makes me more convinced you shouldn't have guns in the first place.

Revolutions can be fought in the face of superior numbers. ask the American soldier who was killed in Iraq today, or the 50 before him.

But, that being said, the arguments for overthrowing the gov't if necessary is the weakest one against gun control. How about the good old "I'm an American, and I can buy almost anything I want" argument? Bush won't do away with guns, because the economy favors those sorts of products.

Shadis: Michael Moore isn't anti-gun. Have you even SEEN Bowling for Columbine?

You honestly think some guys with a shotgun and a few handguns could defeat an American Army unit?

Goddammit. So, what you guys are saying is that since we'd probably not be able to defeat the gov't if they came knocking at our doors, we shouldn't be allowed to try?

I call shenanigans.

Big Al, I agree with you on a ton of stuff, but not here. I don't see how the majority of liberals are anti-gun ownership, when most are proponents of freedom and constitutional integrity.

Guns are great, just ask this guy

Shadis: Michael Moore isn't anti-gun. Have you even SEEN Bowling for Columbine?

I don't think anyone that claims Michael Moore is a crazy anti-gun liberal has seen BfC. They just hear other reactionaries yelling about how he goes after their golden god, Heston, and they shiat themselves with rage.

"You honestly think some guys with a shotgun and a few handguns could defeat an American Army unit?"

I think 1% of the population marchin on DC with freaking pichforks could stop the entire US army.