Just For Skeptics (Guns)

[Richard G]

How much of your current opinion regarding guns is based on fact rather than feeling?

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

[T'ai Chi]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0801.htm
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

You beat me to it, Tai Chi.



Arm Yourself With The Facts
Don't let emotions stand in the way of truth.
The Bible & Guns

[Marvel Frozen]

And are the facts as you know them actually true, or are they merely "spin" being promoted by those holding anti-gun positions?

Apparently it's better to get "facts" that are merely "spin" being promoted by those holding pro-gun positions.:rolleyes:

[Zep]

Sad. Very sad that it has come to this.

[ImpyTimpy]

You know, I'm not against guns actually. But after reading your provided link, let me just tell you. I'm starting to think we should ban morons from owning firearms. This site is nothing but a pile of anecdotal appeals to emotions. I love this one:

Canada: Ian Dunbar of Green Lake, B.C. was four years old and home from kindergarten in 1994. While playing in his back yard, a bear attacked him. His mother jumped on the bear and hit him. A neighbor went to get a rifle, but was unable to find the key. They finally snatched Ian away and rushed him to the hospital, but he died in his mother's arms on the way.

Anyone remember the story about a toddler that shot his grandpa in the head because the gun was left out in the open? But hey, at least grandpa nor the toddler will be getting attacked by bears any time soon.. Or in grandpa's case never.

[ImpyTimpy]

What about this one?

* Merced. On the morning of August 23, 2000, Jonathon David Bruce attacked a houseful of kids. Armed with a pitchfork -- and without a stitch of clothing on his body -- Bruce proceeded to stab the children. Two of them died.

The oldest of the children, Jessica Carpenter (14), was quite proficient with firearms. She had been trained by her father and knew how to use them. There was just one problem: the guns were locked up in compliance with California state law. Unable to use the firearms, Jessica was forced to flee the house to get help. Mr. Bruce's murderous rampage was finally cut short when officers -- carrying guns -- arrived on the scene.9


And on the same page we have:

A. Waiting periods threaten the safety of people in imminent danger

Hmm.. Maybe if he was allowed to buy a gun without a waiting period he could've done more damage. I mean crap, all he could do was run around and stab people with a pitchfork... Damn government. Making crazed nuts wait to buy guns! How dare they!

[Richard G]

We need waiting periods to buy pitchforks.

[Suezoled]

*shrugs* I'm not against guns. I'm against pro-gun and anti-gun emotional propoganda. I like shooting rifles and handguns... on the target range. I'm a lousy shot. :p I don't own one, but know the process for which to obtain one legally. I like that there's a waiting period on the gun. I like the required hand gun class you have to take. I like the application process.

A gun is not something I would depend on for home or personal safety. If I did have one, you can bet it would be locked and stored away. There are kids here every other weekend, and no way in hell would I ever dream of putting a handgun or a rifle in the same building they're in.

Keeping a gun for home protection involves a definite amount of organization. The first thing a person needs to realize is that a gun does entail a good deal more responsibility. As a gun owner, you are responsible for preventing tragedies with the gun within your own family. Secondly, it is not the be-all and end of of home security to own a gun. It's better to let a thief steal your cash and valuables, rather than to risk injury or worse for yourself and your family. If you truly believe your family is in danger, you had better know where that key or code is to unlock that gun, and be prepared for injury or worse if the gun does have to be used.

In short, gun ownership does take a lot more responsibility. I've noticed a lot of people going for quantity and not quality. That's the scary part.

Well, that's my take on things.

[Suddenly]

My favorite pro-gun one liner, paraphrased from Archie Bunker from "All in the Family," responding to his daughter's citing some statistic on how many people are killed each year by handguns:

"Would it make you feel any better if they was pushed out of windows?"

(spot the flaw in the reasoning?)

[Zep]

Originally posted by Suezoled
*shrugs* I'm not against guns. I'm against pro-gun and anti-gun emotional propoganda. I like shooting rifles and handguns... on the target range. I'm a lousy shot. :p I don't own one, but know the process for which to obtain one legally. I like that there's a waiting period on the gun. I like the required hand gun class you have to take. I like the application process.

A gun is not something I would depend on for home or personal safety. If I did have one, you can bet it would be locked and stored away. There are kids here every other weekend, and no way in hell would I ever dream of putting a handgun or a rifle in the same building they're in.

Keeping a gun for home protection involves a definite amount of organization. The first thing a person needs to realize is that a gun does entail a good deal more responsibility. As a gun owner, you are responsible for preventing tragedies with the gun within your own family. Secondly, it is not the be-all and end of of home security to own a gun. It's better to let a thief steal your cash and valuables, rather than to risk injury or worse for yourself and your family. If you truly believe your family is in danger, you had better know where that key or code is to unlock that gun, and be prepared for injury or worse if the gun does have to be used.

In short, gun ownership does take a lot more responsibility. I've noticed a lot of people going for quantity and not quality. That's the scary part.

Well, that's my take on things. Surprise, surprise! A point of view I do agree with!

What have I been saying here for some months now? That there needs to be a level of responsibility involved, not just waffle about "rights" and stuff? "Responsibility" is a concept that appears to have been overlooked by some. And in the absence of personal "responsibility," surely some of it then rests with various authorities? Doesn't mean the right to own and use firearms is lost, just that it is "managed responsibly."

I genuinely hope you enjoy your shooting practice and improve your abilities, Suezoled!

[The Fool]

Wow, being awash with guns, Baghdad must be just about the safest place in the world....

Got your gun on at the moment Richard? Just in case your keyboard attacks you?

[Garrette]

The Fool

Wow, being awash with guns, Baghdad must be just about the safest place in the world....

Well, the places with armed guards are the safer places, yes.

The UN Compound, though, did not have armed guards.

Neither did the HQ of the International Committee for the Red Cross which was attacked with car bombs this morning.

The three schools receiving threats from hooded bastards last week in Baghdad did not have armed guards.

[Zep]

But Garrette, that is exactly how the pro-guns groups would like the USA to be: all the citizens will have the guns and all the "nasty government" and corporations and stuff won't. Isn't that true?

[Garrette]

Well, Zep,

I don't think there is one 'exact' position. The ones of which I know do not, however, advocate disarming either the government or corporations. Where did you get those ideas?

[tim]

In the UK the gun laws are extremely tight. You may have, subject to rigorous checks by the police, the following -
A shotgun, limited to single or double barrel, or semi-auto but only if the magazine capacity is two shots. No pump-action weapons at all.
A rifle of any caliber (within reason) but only single shot, bolt action or lever action. A pump action .22 would earn you a prison sentence. An semi-automatic, even a .22, say goodbye for 4 or 5 years.
That's it. (Apart from black powder guns).
What's happened to gun crime here? It's gone up a significant amount.
In the UK successive governments have failed to realise that taking firearms away from bona fide gunowners, who kept to all the rules (locking them away in a steel safe bolted to a structural member of the house and so on) makes virtually no difference to gun crime. Criminals who want firearms can obtain them easily. We are now attached by the Channel Tunnel to Europe. I don't know how many vehicles come into the UK every day, but there's no way they can search them all, or even a small percentage.
Banning guns is unlikely to reduce gun crime.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by tim
In the UK successive governments have failed to realise that taking firearms away from bona fide gunowners, who kept to all the rules (locking them away in a steel safe bolted to a structural member of the house and so on) makes virtually no difference to gun crime. Criminals who want firearms can obtain them easily. We are now attached by the Channel Tunnel to Europe. I don't know how many vehicles come into the UK every day, but there's no way they can search them all, or even a small percentage.
Banning guns is unlikely to reduce gun crime.

Actually Tim, most of the guncrime in the UK comes from converted 'replicas' which can legitimately be bought by anyone.

The major problem is that certain ethnic minorities have taken the whole american "ghetto-gangsta" yadayada to heart and now feel the need to have a handgun to impress their mates.

The last place I worked, this woman's best friends daughter was accidentally shot by her boyfriend who had been showing off his new toy.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by tim
Banning guns is unlikely to reduce gun crime. Tim, As you point out our law as re fairly tight and there has not been a history of mass gun ownership in the UK.

The key question is therefore not would a ban reduce crime but would ubiquitous gun ownership reduce crime ?

Certain people on this forum (none of whom are UK residents as far as I am aware) believe mass arming would reduce gun crime. I am not one of them

[tim]

Originally posted by Lothian
Tim, As you point out our law as re fairly tight and there has not been a history of mass gun ownership in the UK.

The key question is therefore not would a ban reduce crime but would ubiquitous gun ownership reduce crime ?

Certain people on this forum (none of whom are UK residents as far as I am aware) believe mass arming would reduce gun crime. I am not one of them

Lothian, I am not suggesting ubiquitous gun ownership, nor would I do so.
We had very, very tight gun restrictions here and misuse of legally held weapons was statistically extremely low. For everyone shot with a legal gun I would suggest thousands were killed on the roads, hundreds killed by other means.
What hacks me off is the way successive governments run scared of the tabloid press and give knee jerk reactions. I had handguns which I used for target shooting. My daughter and my brother had handguns, as did many of my friends. Criminal convictions amongst us all? None. (OK, I did get fined £10 once for littering).
I say again, banning legitimate gun ownership does not affect gun crime in a significant way.
Yes, restrict ownership to trustworthy people.
Yes, insist on secure storage.
Yes, have heavy penalties for misuse.
No, don't ban firearms.

Jon, I agree with you. It's difficult to stop people making replicas fire. But then how difficult is a zipgun to make from scratch? I could make one in a couple of hours. As a shooter I would not like to fire a converted replica - to dangerous. To me, that is!

Edited to add, thank you both for your contributions to a debate that's already been lost.............:(

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by tim

I say again, banning legitimate gun ownership does not affect gun crime in a significant way.

Except Thomas Hamilton used legally held guns to murder 16 at a primary school.

Would he have been able to get guns illegally? Maybe, maybe not.

Should the police have taken his licence away long before? Absolutely. But they didn't, which suggests they are incapable of running an effective licence system.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Garrette
Well, Zep,

I don't think there is one 'exact' position. The ones of which I know do not, however, advocate disarming either the government or corporations. Where did you get those ideas? Why, they come from the "pro-gun" stances that have been aired right here on this forum! The "Second Ammendment" advocates who somehow seem scared of the very government of their peers that they elected (or, more likely, didn't bother to turn out to elect, but that's by-the-by). They seem to feel that this same government is armed solely for the purpose of denying them their rights and keeping them enslaved by armed force in some way.

And their way of responding to this is to advocate such actions as the arming of all citizens, the formation of private militia, giving permission to carry concealed, and giving permission to own any weapons desired from a BB gun right through to a shoulder-launched wire-guided anti-tank missile. And so on. You may have heard the phrase, "protect ourselves from our government"? I don't need to requote all of these people here again - they are all about this forum and their views are right there for all to see. However one stands out - he is quite happy with 29,000 plus Americans being killed by guns EACH YEAR as long as he can maintain his rights to own a gun (I should keep his words as a permanent quote - it's quite scary).

Believe me, I didn't make this up! This is what has been told to me by them! Very forcefully (and disparagingly) too, at times. And I still can't believe that in this day and age civillised people still think like that - that it is a government run by fear and force versus a highly armed and resentful civillian population.

Which brings me back to the subject: That last sentence seems to describe Iraq just now fairly accurately, don't you think?

[Mr Manifesto]

Go easy on Richard, gang. He's feeling a little sore after he got his butt kicked in his pro-vigilante thread. He's hoping more anecdotes will support his cause.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Garrette


Well, the places with armed guards are the safer places, yes.

The UN Compound, though, did not have armed guards.

Neither did the HQ of the International Committee for the Red Cross which was attacked with car bombs this morning.

The three schools receiving threats from hooded bastards last week in Baghdad did not have armed guards.

What about the Baghdad police station where ten American soldiers were injured? Were there any guns there?

[Garrette]

Zep,

I'll take your word that the position you describe has been espoused here. Are you assuming that it is THE pro-gun position?
It's not mine.

Actually, I think you're building a strawman. The argument that guns are useful in defense of an overbearing government does not equate to an argument to disarm the government. It certainly does not equate to advocating disarming corporations, which was your initial claim. May I assume we are over the hyperbole?

Zep

that it is a government run by fear and force versus a highly armed and resentful civillian population.

Which brings me back to the subject: That last sentence seems to describe Iraq just now fairly accurately, don't you think?

Are you saying that the current Iraqi government is one run by fear and force? Please be more specific. Do you mean the Iraqi governing council? Do you mean the ministers appointed by the council?

Or do you mean the Coalition Provisional Authority that set up the Governing Council and is ceding powers to them, albeit slowly?

Perhaps you mean the Coalition Joint Task Force-7 commanded by Lieutenant General Sanchez?

I grant it is a highly armed population. Resentful? Resentful of what and to what degree? Resentful that we are here? Resentful that we didn't do it sooner? Resentful that it took longer than they wanted to get electricity going?

Or resentful, as many have said to me personally, that the coalition does not use more force to suppress the former regime loyalists and criminals.

You need to be much more specific if you want a response. Otherwise, it smacks of simple demagoguery.

------
------

Mr Manifesto

What about the Baghdad police station where ten American soldiers were injured? Were there any guns there?

Undoubtedly. The bigger guns are at the coalition checkpoints and gates to compounds, including CPA.

I guess it shows that the argument is not nearly so simple as either side wants to make it, yes?