Something for American gun control nuts. [Archive]

Ranb

1st November 2003, 03:09 PM

I would also have to draw the line near the rocket launchers.

As one who is skilled in the use of small semi-auto rifles, I can say they are indeed useful in a self defence situation. I would really like to own an M16 or MP5, but have to settle for the lessor ar15 sporter. As for other weapons like rocket launchers, I do not know how to use one and can not determine the tactical value unless I am experienced in their use. As for the basis for keeping assault weapons legal, I can only answer that by asking, "What is the basis for making them illegal?" They are not used often in crimes and criminal miss-use should not spoil it for the rest of us.

I am all for keeping gun out of the hands of criminals. But the way the USA is doing it by trying to keep everyone else from owning them is wrong. While I have used the gun/car analogy in the past, it is not always accurate. As a gun owner and a gun club member who expends lots of ammo, I am not using firearms "on the street" as gun control nuts like to say. They are safely locked away at home when not used, used at a reasonably safe rifle range or hunting area, or tucked into my pocket ready for defence.

Improving the economy so that people do not turn to crime and keeping those who commit violent crimes in prison or away from guns is the way to go. Eroding the rights of the good guys is not the way it should be done. Hunter safety, and self defence courses are good ideas for hunters and people who choose to carry in public. The instant background check also seems to be a good idea. I do not want any restrictions on the small arms I can keep at home or use at the rifle range.

Merely owning and shooting certain firearms should not make me a criminal, but here in Washington, there are many firearms which mere ownership or use of will earn me a trip to prison.

Ranb

Jet Grind

1st November 2003, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Ranb
Improving the economy so that people do not turn to crime and keeping those who commit violent crimes in prison or away from guns is the way to go. Eroding the rights of the good guys is not the way it should be done. Hunter safety, and self defence courses are good ideas for hunters and people who choose to carry in public. The instant background check also seems to be a good idea. I do not want any restrictions on the small arms I can keep at home or use at the rifle range.

Merely owning and shooting certain firearms should not make me a criminal, but here in Washington, there are many firearms which mere ownership or use of will earn me a trip to prison.

Agreed, it looks like we're pretty much on the same page here. Except I believe that the gun/car analogy is more accurate than you give credit for. Saying that you don't use guns "out on the street" misses the point, the fact is that guns use is potentially very dangerous as are cars (somewhat more so, IMO).

Thank for your thoughtful replies.

clk

1st November 2003, 03:37 PM

Ranb,
You stated that some semi-automatic rifles were useful in self-defense situations. However, I wasn't sure whether you meant to imply that this would be the "tactical use" for guns such as the M16 as well. Would you favor or oppose a law that would allow citizens to carry automatic rifles (such as the M16) on the street as self-defense weapons? My primary problem with making automatic rifles legal is that I think criminals would be able to gain access to them more readily. Even if you were to restrict the sales of these weapons to people that passed background checks, there would still be more of these weapons on the market, and thus, I think that criminals would have easier access to these weapons. But I may be wrong.

AmateurScientist

1st November 2003, 03:43 PM

Mere things are neither evil or good. A firearm--any type of firearm, including the most potent military firearm--is an inert, inanimate object. So is a potato peeler.

Would anyone attempt to demonize a potato peeler?

Activities are things which can be criminal or not. Prohibiting certain activities, particularly ones that are anti-social, is something which a government of, by, and for the people of a free state should be interested in doing. Prohibiting mere things is something it has no legitimate business in doing.

Ban the activity, not the thing.

AS

Jet Grind

1st November 2003, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by clk
My primary problem with making automatic rifles legal is that I think criminals would be able to gain access to them more readily.

Well, not exactly. Maybe if you only required background checks, this may be true. But if they have to bypass a system of training, registration, insurance, and reudmentary physiological and psychological tests, it isn't. If someone is willing to go that far then they're going to get an automatic weapon anyway (they'll most likely just steal one if that's the case).

Prohibition doesn't work, I remember a quote (don't know who it's from) "if the government really wants to improve education, it should ban the practice." The key is regulation. In addition, I do think that assault weapons can have tactical value in some situations, such as a person in a urban area who may face the threat of gangs, or even riots.

AmateurScientist

1st November 2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Jet Grind

Prohibition doesn't work, I remember a quote (don't know who it's from) "if the government really wants to improve education, it should ban the practice." The key is regulation.

I can't attribute the quote either, but whoever said it certainly understood economics, sociology, and the effects of government regulation.

I couldn't agree more.

AS

specious_reasons

1st November 2003, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Ranb
(snip)
but the liberals in this country have a much bigger voice on the airwaves.
(snip)
Ranb

*sigh*

I'll suspect you don't have a whole lot of proof for that statement.

Monketey Ghost

1st November 2003, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
A firearm--any type of firearm, including the most potent military firearm--is an inert, inanimate object. So is a potato peeler.

Would anyone attempt to demonize a potato peeler?
AS

I'm sorry AS, but it's just poor thinking to compare a weapon meant to propel metal at high speed with a food implement.
How often are potato peelers used to commit crimes?

Banning the activity doesn't seem to work. We still have plenty of crime on the streets. I side with reducing the number of weapons readily available to any ***hole with a short temper.

Mr Manifesto

1st November 2003, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Mere things are neither evil or good. A firearm--any type of firearm, including the most potent military firearm--is an inert, inanimate object. So is a potato peeler.

Would anyone attempt to demonize a potato peeler?

Activities are things which can be criminal or not. Prohibiting certain activities, particularly ones that are anti-social, is something which a government of, by, and for the people of a free state should be interested in doing. Prohibiting mere things is something it has no legitimate business in doing.

Ban the activity, not the thing.

AS

Great analogy! Here's a boy who was accidentally injured (http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/0919sr-shooting19Z8.html) by his brother who was fooling around with a potato peeler.

And here's (http://www.news-journal.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2003/10/17/1066363819.19830.9473.6770.html;COXnetJSessionID=1 kf4E4kc5O82Ivvu17enMBY3YBSI21Mhq6Wjj4kogvo5ElaavW9 6!1162453049?urac=n&urvf=10677370162450.8574877938800115) someone who was accidentally injured when potato-peeler practice when wrong.

AmateurScientist

1st November 2003, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by No Answers

I'm sorry AS, but it's just poor thinking to compare a weapon meant to propel metal at high speed with a food implement.
How often are potato peelers used to commit crimes?

Banning the activity doesn't seem to work. We still have plenty of crime on the streets. I side with reducing the number of weapons readily available to any ***hole with a short temper.

The major problem with your argument is that the legal availability of guns has no effect on the overall crime rate and little on violent crimes.

In Washington, DC, possession of any handgun is strictly prohibited. It has the highest murder rate of any city in the U.S., and one of the top three or four in the world.

Vermont is the only state in the U.S. in which it is legal to carry a concealed handgun with no permit whatsoever. The handgun murder rate there is very low.

How about looking at the lawful uses of handguns, including merely carrying one concealed for a greater sense of personal security, versus the unlawful uses of them?

I should have used large chefs' knives, rather than potato peelers and you could see the comparison better. I don't have any statistics, but I'm willing to bet there have been plenty of domestic crimes, including violent murders, committed with lawful kitchen knives. You know, like the one used to kill Janet Leigh in Psycho?

Sure, the primary purpose of self-defense guns is for self-defense. That's a lawful use, and perfectly constitutional and sensible. Why should the persons who commit crimes with guns have any effect on the persons who choose to use guns for self-defense? Would you make the same argument against the chef's knive? Or a baseball bat, for that matter, which, although it has a perfectly lawful use, can be used as a very effective violent weapon, and indeed has been?

What's that about guns causing crime again?

AS

AmateurScientist

1st November 2003, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Great analogy! Here's a boy who was accidentally injured (http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/0919sr-shooting19Z8.html) by his brother who was fooling around with a potato peeler.

And here's (http://www.news-journal.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2003/10/17/1066363819.19830.9473.6770.html;COXnetJSessionID=1 kf4E4kc5O82Ivvu17enMBY3YBSI21Mhq6Wjj4kogvo5ElaavW9 6!1162453049?urac=n&urvf=10677370162450.8574877938800115) someone who was accidentally injured when potato-peeler practice when wrong.

Nice bit of selective reporting. OK, how about powered lawnmowers? In 2001, about 275,000 persons were treated at hospital emergency rooms in the U.S. for injuries from lawn and garden tools. Each year, about 75 persons are killed from riding mower accidents, and 20,000 persons are seriously injured.

Let's ban lawnmowers.

Anyway, the point of my post, which you completely ignored, is that the thing itself isn't good or bad. It's what one does with it that can be good or bad.

Leaving a firearm where an irresponsible teen with insufficient training regarding and/or respect for a firearm can easily get to it is a bad activity. So is the careless handling of said firearm by a reckless teen who accidentally shoots his own brother. Contrary to the news account, the gun couldn't simply have "gone off," as everyone who "accidentally" shoots someone claims. The stupid boy had to have pulled the trigger while pointing the gun in the direction of his brother.

That's the other bad activity here. The gun didn't shoot the boy. His brother did.

AS

1st November 2003, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Ranb
I would object to private ownership of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons since they are of little tactical value to one person.

Ranb

I tend to agree with your post but this line caught my attention.

Malthion, which you can buy at any gardening store is a cholinergic blocking agient, ie. a nerve agent. All you have to do is aerosolize it. Simple enough.

Any moron can make Nitroglycerine and ergo dynamite. Ditto black powder. Given the ubiquitious nature of high explosives at construction sites, making it is probably unnecessary.

A 1 ft length of pipe, two nipples, and a 3/32" drill and you have a bomb, pretty much (3/32 is the standard diameter for cannon fuse, btw)

Mr. McVeigh demonstrated the nasty nature of the combination of fertilizer and diezel fuel.

Ricin, I believe, is the nerve agent made from beans.

It is child's play to make a lethal weapon from assorted junkyard stuff is you have a few cartriges.

I don't know if by "nuclear" you mean fisson, fusion or broadcast of particles but the last any one could do.

From my perspective I see gun laws that are designed to maximally inconvience the law abideing but really do not curb most bad stuff. I see cockamamie "assult" weapons laws that are, in fact, a purely aesthetic judgement. Magazine restrictions that are devoid of meaning and laws against switch blades.

These things were promulgated to appease the ignorant and suggest that the powers that be are "doing something". Until I see a bit less cynicism on the part of our elected officials and a bit more knowledge on the part of the people that they pander to, I am against any further laws and a general rollback of some of the more stupid ones.

I might also point out that for every pair of nail clippers that they take from an old lady going thru security at an airport, 10,000 credit cards get on planes, each of which an be sharpened as good as a boxcutter thru the simple expedient of running them thru a knife sharpener.

My point is that the laws do not deal with our safety, they are feelgood pablum for those of our citizens that are comfortable with superficialities.

clk

1st November 2003, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

Anyway, the point of my post, which you completely ignored, is that the thing itself isn't good or bad. It's what one does with it that can be good or bad.

The same could be said of nuclear weapons and rocket launchers. But would you be in favor of legalizing the possession of those weapons?

1st November 2003, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

Sure, the primary purpose of self-defense guns is for self-defense. AS

I disagree veamently.

Once you start talking about "purposes" you narrow the argument to a series of specifics.

The answer is: I own a gun. Why? I own a gun. Period. It is really none of your business what I do with it unless I break the law.

clk

1st November 2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Ed

I might also point out that for every pair of nail clippers that they take from an old lady going thru security at an airport, 10,000 credit cards get on planes, each of which an be sharpened as good as a boxcutter thru the simple expedient of running them thru a knife sharpener.

My point is that the laws do not deal with our safety, they are feelgood pablum for those of our citizens that are comfortable with superficialities.

I mostly agree with what you said above. However, I'd like to know how you would change the current security search requirements at airports. Would you make them more strict, or make them lax instead?
Thanks.

1st November 2003, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by clk

I mostly agree with what you said above. However, I'd like to know how you would change the current security search requirements at airports. Would you make them more strict, or make them lax instead?
Thanks.

Honestly, I don't know, and neither do our elected officials so they punt with pablum. I'd probably start with a vigorous profiling campaign, but that is not PC. I'd look pretty damn closely at anyone with a mideast backgroud, either by birth or thru marrage or thru recent travel (say 7 years).

I think that we have to be a bit more proactive since we cannot really police all of our airports. I guess we have to decide if the threat is serious enough to hurt some feelings and for our couragious pols to be labeled with some "ism" or other. What we are doing now is *********, if I may be blunt.

Edit to add: I passed 3 airports today: Bradly, Oxford and some airstrip with no name in Roxbury, CT. Two of which I could have swiped a plane from with the dubious help of Lucianarchy. Bradley looked asleep. All are what ...30 minutes from Indian Point?

For rural airports maybe the law should demand pilots be armed. Dunno.

clk

1st November 2003, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Ed

Honestly, I don't know, and neither do our elected officials so they punt with pablum. I'd probably start with a vigorous profiling campaign, but that is not PC. I'd look pretty damn closely at anyone with a mideast backgroud, either by birth or thru marrage or thru recent travel.

I think that we have to be a bit more proactive since we cannot really police all of our airports. I guess we have to decide if the threat is serious enough to hurt some feelings and for our couragious pols to be labeled with some "ism" or other. What we are doing now is *********, if I may be blunt.

I think that profiling would be more effective than what we have now. But profiling would also go against the basic principles that this country was founded on, so it's probably not an option. However, I'm willing to bet that even though profiling is not officially used in airport security, most airport screeners probably look at Middle Eastern males more carefully than 80 year old white ladies.
(Sorry for derailing the topic, Ranb, I didn't mean to)

1st November 2003, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by clk

I think that profiling would be more effective than what we have now. But profiling would also go against the basic principles that this country was founded on, so it's probably not an option. )

The question of where good police work ends and racism begins is a problem. We have no problems now stopping 6ft, white males in the vincinity of hollywood and vine if we have information that they are nogoodniks. 20-40 year old mideasterners sorta fit the evidence that we have to hand.

I think that the really unplesent truth that people are going to have to wrap their heads around (and may suspect now) is that Islam trumps any other loyalty, I mean any. That said .....

1st November 2003, 06:47 PM

We should probably limit visas for people from the mideast to exactly the number that their countries grant americans.

We should also mercilessly go after people that overstay. Maybe 5-7 here and then next boat (not plane) out.

1st November 2003, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by clk

(Sorry for derailing the topic, Ranb, I didn't mean to)

With respect, this is the topic. The current spate of gun control laws attempt to address feelings of insecurity with BS provisions that don't address any real problem.

Richard G

1st November 2003, 07:35 PM

However, what tactical value does an M16 or an MP5 offer to a person?

The same tactical value it provides to a policeman, or soldier who employs them.

Mr Manifesto

1st November 2003, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

Nice bit of selective reporting. OK, how about powered lawnmowers? In 2001, about 275,000 persons were treated at hospital emergency rooms in the U.S. for injuries from lawn and garden tools. Each year, about 75 persons are killed from riding mower accidents, and 20,000 persons are seriously injured.
AS

75 people killed with lawnmowers, huh? Massacre! How many are killed by guns in American per year again..?

The fact is, guns are unsafe, they should be strictly regulated.

clk

1st November 2003, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Richard G

The same tactical value it provides to a policeman, or soldier who employs them.

A rocket launcher also has a tactical value. I know how they are used by soldiers, but I am trying to figure out where anti-gun control advocates draw the line as to what type of weapon should not be legalized. The thing is, if you were to say that the line should be drawn at rocket launchers, then I could easily argue that rocket launchers should be legalized by using the same arguments used to justify a possible legalization of automatic assault rifles. For example, I could say that a rocket launcher is a mere object. "Ban the activity, not the thing" as AS put it.

sorgoth

1st November 2003, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

The major problem with your argument is that the legal availability of guns has no effect on the overall crime rate and little on violent crimes.AS

Look at Canada's violent crime rate. Look at the United State's. Look at the murder rates. There has to be SOMETHING that causes the difference.

1st November 2003, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by clk

A rocket launcher also has a tactical value. I know how they are used by soldiers, but I am trying to figure out where anti-gun control advocates draw the line as to what type of weapon should not be legalized. The thing is, if you were to say that the line should be drawn at rocket launchers, then I could easily argue that rocket launchers should be legalized by using the same arguments used to justify a possible legalization of automatic assault rifles. For example, I could say that a rocket launcher is a mere object. "Ban the activity, not the thing" as AS put it.

Depends exactly how you define "rocket launcher".

This
http://www.commonwealth.net/cgi-bin/info.pl?prodcode=PMLPTERODAKTYL&url=pml/7.5inchkits.htm

Costs $309.00, you may need a license, maybe not. So rockets are legal.

Muzzloading cannon of any bore are legal. A $50 federal license let's you buy "destructive devices".

If you did a bit of work, some high end firework morters would be pretty darn destructive. Come to think of it one could buy a 12" morter here http://www.cannonltd.com/index2.html that could easily put an explosive round somewhere in here http://www.safesecurevital.com/images/middle_left_image.gif

As I pointed out, radioactive isotopes can be found here (http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/44.cfm)
which combined with materials from here (http://www.farmsaver.com/)
can pretty much put NYC out of business.

And I have not broken a law yet.

The stuff that you are demanding an answer about is legal already. Now the question is, who will additional laws effect?

The answer "well it will make it harder etc." is simply not true.

1st November 2003, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by sorgoth

Look at Canada's violent crime rate. Look at the United State's. Look at the murder rates. There has to be SOMETHING that causes the difference.

A more homogenious population, perhaps.

1st November 2003, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Ed

Depends exactly how you define "rocket launcher".

This
http://www.commonwealth.net/cgi-bin/info.pl?prodcode=PMLPTERODAKTYL&url=pml/7.5inchkits.htm

Costs $309.00, you may need a license, maybe not. So rockets are legal.

Muzzloading cannon of any bore are legal. A $50 federal license let's you buy "destructive devices".

If you did a bit of work, some high end firework morters would be pretty darn destructive. Come to think of it one could buy a 12" morter here http://www.cannonltd.com/index2.html that could easily put an explosive round somewhere in here http://www.safesecurevital.com/images/middle_left_image.gif

As I pointed out, radioactive isotopes can be found here (http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/44.cfm)
which combined with materials from here (http://www.farmsaver.com/)
can pretty much put NYC out of business.

And I have not broken a law yet.

The stuff that you are demanding an answer about is legal already. Now the question is, who will additional laws effect?

The answer "well it will make it harder etc." is simply not true.

edit to add: I (or you or anyone) can obtain weapons that are pretty darn lethel, including rockets, nerve agents and nuke based stuff, pretty easily. So what is the point of your question demanding a line in the sand? The concept of "line" is undefined. As is sand.

clk

1st November 2003, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by Ed

The stuff that you are demanding an answer about is legal already.

Yes, I understand that. As you pointed out, "I (or you or anyone) can obtain weapons that are pretty darn lethel, including rockets, nerve agents and nuke based stuff, pretty easily". By that statement, are you saying that there should be little to no regulation on weapons, because those that want to acquire dangerous weapons can easily do so?
If your answer to that is "yes", then I would say that using this logic, you could justify the legalization of nuclear weapons. Would you be in favor of legalizing nuclear weapons?
If your answer is "no", then I misintrepreted you.
Or am I missing the point altogether? :confused:

coalesce

2nd November 2003, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

The major problem with your argument is that the legal availability of guns has no effect on the overall crime rate and little on violent crimes.

In Washington, DC, possession of any handgun is strictly prohibited. It has the highest murder rate of any city in the U.S., and one of the top three or four in the world.

Vermont is the only state in the U.S. in which it is legal to carry a concealed handgun with no permit whatsoever. The handgun murder rate there is very low.

AS

There is a bit more to that, however. Check out the comparative poverty and drug use rates between the two. A desparate person, regardless of the law, is more likely to act criminally than someone who isn't as hungry, be it for food, money, street status, whatever.

But that's just me.

Michael

AmateurScientist

2nd November 2003, 03:32 AM

Originally posted by coalesce

There is a bit more to that, however. Check out the comparative poverty and drug use rates between the two. A desparate person, regardless of the law, is more likely to act criminally than someone who isn't as hungry, be it for food, money, street status, whatever.

But that's just me.

Michael

Or course there is. That's my point. It is manifestly not the existence or non-existence of gun control laws that determines the murder or other violent crime rate in any locality. The gun control advocates apparently claim that it is.

You and I apparently agree.

AS

AmateurScientist

2nd November 2003, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

The fact is, guns are unsafe, they should be strictly regulated.

Yes, that's why police and soldiers carry them. They're unsafe.

Why don't you learn some facts about the issue before you try to spout leftist crap about it?

AS

AmateurScientist

2nd November 2003, 03:48 AM

Originally posted by sorgoth

Look at Canada's violent crime rate. Look at the United State's. Look at the murder rates. There has to be SOMETHING that causes the difference.

Perhaps, but automatically concluding that it is the difference in prohibiting versus not prohibiting the possession of handguns is not a very scientific or skeptical approach.

There are many ways of investigating the issue, including examining the incidence of violent crimes committed in a particular locality immediately before and for some time after the institution of a gun ban. Most studies using this approach have failed to indicate a substantial decrease in violent crime after a ban. Some have even shown an increase.

The truth is that no one has ever defined or identified factors which determine a society's propensity towards a relatively high violent crime rate with much confidence or sufficiency. In all likelihood, crime is influenced by interactions among a great many social variables. It is thus a complex system and inherently difficult to analyze methodically, much like many other social problems.

One can probably find correlations with crime rates among many social variables. Some of them are income, wealth, race (as un-PC as that is, undoubtedly there is a very high correlation between race in the U.S. and rates of criminal arrests and convictions), ethnicity, education, culture, social status, occupation, marital status, relative freedom, degree of governmental control, etc.

Which one determines crime rate?

According to gun control advocates, it is obviously the availability of guns?

If only life's ills were so easy to solve.

AS

Mr Manifesto

2nd November 2003, 03:54 AM

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

Yes, that's why police and soldiers carry them. They're unsafe.

Why don't you learn some facts about the issue before you try to spout leftist crap about it?

AS

If you weren't an idiot, you'd know that I've already said plenty on the issue. You can have a look at the previous threads on the subject. You will find that the United States has one of the highest murder rates in the world. It is only out-competed by banana republics with almost no order at all. Yet the 'guns for all' crowd still scream like babies who've had their bottles taken from them when the suggestion comes around that... here's a wacky idea... why don't we have tighter controls on guns?

The reason I haven't gone into my usual detailed arguments is because the gun-as-phallic-extension types won't listen to them anyway, and if you argue the point with facts and evidence and logical arguments long enough, you only get accused of 'spouting leftist crap' by some hayseed with twelve pairs of chromosomes and a large pool of drool on his bib overalls. Who needs it?

AmateurScientist

2nd November 2003, 04:03 AM

Originally posted by clk

The same could be said of nuclear weapons and rocket launchers. But would you be in favor of legalizing the possession of those weapons?

A better question might be, what is the point of criminalizing their possession?

An interesting trend has arisen in the U.S. in the past 5 years or so. States have rushed to pass laws which prohibit the possession of so-called "precursor chemicals." These are invariably ordinary and readily available goods, such as over-the-counter cold medicine, which can be combined with other ordinary and readily available goods to make illicit drugs, such as methamphetamine. Police very often arrest and charge persons who buy 4 or more packages of cold medicine from a pharmacy, grocery store, or even Wal-Mart under these new laws. Isn't that getting a little ridiculous? See how foolish the war on drugs, or the war on any thing can get?

What does this have to do with weapons of mass destruction? Everything. As Ed points out, terrorist weapons can be and almost always are made from ordinary, readily available goods. If we try to ban any and all things which might be precursors to terrorist weapons, then we truly will live in a police state and we will foster an enormous underground economy trading in illicit goods.

Therefore, I have to ask again, what is the point of banning the possession of so-called weapons of mass destruction? It isn't that the things which can make them are evil. It is the use of such things to terrorize or to harm others which is the activity we should prohibit.

Therefore, if I must answer your question, I say no weapon, "of mass destruction" or otherwise, should be banned. Everyone should have equal opportunity to make or own them.

Do you really think anyone on your block would rush to build his own nuclear weapon once he learns it is legal to do so? More relevant, perhaps, do you really think the status of their being unlawful prevents or deters real terrorists from possessing or attempting to use NBC weapons?

AS

AmateurScientist

2nd November 2003, 04:14 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

If you weren't an idiot, you'd know that I've already said plenty on the issue. You can have a look at the previous threads on the subject. You will find that the United States has one of the highest murder rates in the world. It is only out-competed by banana republics with almost no order at all. Yet the 'guns for all' crowd still scream like babies who've had their bottles taken from them when the suggestion comes around that... here's a wacky idea... why don't we have tighter controls on guns?

The reason I haven't gone into my usual detailed arguments is because the gun-as-phallic-extension types won't listen to them anyway, and if you argue the point with facts and evidence and logical arguments long enough, you only get accused of 'spouting leftist crap' by some hayseed with twelve pairs of chromosomes and a large pool of drool on his bib overalls. Who needs it?

Well, you've gone and exposed me, now haven't you? I'm just an idiot hayseed with twelve pairs of chromosomes and a large pool of drool on my bib overalls.

I'll now hang my head and shame and think stupid thoughts, like how many millions of citizens were so easily rounded up and murdered by their own governments in the past century because they were safe from "gun nuts." I'll drool while remembering that this only happened in banana republics, because it couldn't happen in modern, civilized countries in Europe or Asia.

I'll stare out into space with my mouth wide open, catching flies, while I think about how Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, which must not be in the U.S. as far as I can tell with my 12 pairs of chromosomes, has far more street crime per capita than nearly any city in the U.S.

Finally, I'll try not to screw my cousin while I ponder why police and soldiers carry guns if they are so unsafe and so evil. I'll wonder why they bother, if guns don't effectively stop violent attackers in their tracks.

AS

Mr Manifesto

2nd November 2003, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

Well, you've gone and exposed me, now haven't you? I'm just an idiot hayseed with twelve pairs of chromosomes and a large pool of drool on my bib overalls.

I'll now hang my head and shame and think stupid thoughts, like how many millions of citizens were so easily rounded up and murdered by their own governments in the past century because they were safe from "gun nuts." I'll drool while remembering that this only happened in banana republics, because it couldn't happen in modern, civilized countries in Europe or Asia.

I'll stare out into space with my mouth wide open, catching flies, while I think about how Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, which must not be in the U.S. as far as I can tell with my 12 pairs of chromosomes, has far more street crime per capita than nearly any city in the U.S.

Finally, I'll try not to screw my cousin while I ponder why police and soldiers carry guns if they are so unsafe and so evil. I'll wonder why they bother, if guns don't effectively stop violent attackers in their tracks.

AS

See, that shows what an idiot you are. This argument has already been debunked by myself and others when Richard G tried it in another thread.

Edit to add: Mind you, the 'cops and soldiers carry 'em' argument is slightly new, if no less retarded. The issue is about gun control. You may notice that police officers and soldiers aren't simply handed guns and told, "There's the dude you want to shoot at- hook in, lunch is at 12, knock-off's at 5". No. They're trained to use them. You may notice that soldiers, with their state-of-the-art weapons, keep them tightly secured and safe... if they don't want their butts hoofed out of the army. You apparently don't have any such requirements for your citizens in the US.

Pretend that these requirements do exist. Obviously, they aren't being enforced. Why? Because law enforcement agencies can't be everywhere at once. So do what they do in Australia: if you want to play with tinker toys like hand guns, go to a gun club, where the weapon is locked on licensed premises when it isn't being used.

You aren't going to get comprehenisve gun reforms overnight in the US, of course. Too many toys, too many kids with the vote. One step at a time- we don't want to take the children off the tit too quickly or they'll scream. Maybe we could start by having fully and semi-automatic weapons banned except for restricted situations like gun clubs, etc. Too hard? Screaming already? Worth thinking about next time there's a massacre in your country, with the perp a ticked-off nerd with little or no criminal history.

AmateurScientist

2nd November 2003, 04:21 AM

Originally posted by Ed

I disagree veamently.

Once you start talking about "purposes" you narrow the argument to a series of specifics.

The answer is: I own a gun. Why? I own a gun. Period. It is really none of your business what I do with it unless I break the law.

Well, you are right in a sense. Collecting guns, or using them as ballast in your sailboat are also fine uses. Holding up a convenience store with one is not, however.

How one uses it is the point. I shouldn't have mentioned the "primary purpose." That is a term employed by the anti-gun lobby.

That guns are designed for one purpose or another is indeed irrelevant to the debate. It is no more relevant than the notion that a baseball bat is designed to hit a baseball. No law enforcement officer with any experience on the street would deny that bats are very lethal weapons, when used as such.

AS

AmateurScientist

2nd November 2003, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

See, that shows what an idiot you are. This argument has already been debunked by myself and others when Richard G tried it in another thread.

Well, again, you demonstrate your obviously superior reasoning and debating skills by calling me an idiot.

I'll try to remember with my feeble brain not to bother to engage you in any argument again. Your superior skills overwhelm and intimidate me.

AS

clk

2nd November 2003, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

Therefore, I have to ask again, what is the point of banning the possession of so-called weapons of mass destruction? It isn't that the things which can make them are evil. It is the use of such things to terrorize or to harm others which is the activity we should prohibit.

Therefore, if I must answer your question, I say no weapon, "of mass destruction" or otherwise, should be banned. Everyone should have equal opportunity to make or own them.

AS

Yes, I understand that the use of the object is the activity we should prohibit. But I don't think that making automatic assault rifles readily available would help the situation. Let's look at an extreme case...suppose that nuclear weapons were legalized tomorrow, and that anyone could go into a Wal-Mart and buy a 20 megaton thermonuclear bomb. Do you really think it would take more than a few minutes before every major city in the country was vaporized? Even if there weren't psychotics or anarchists or terrorists that were using these bombs, I think that many of them would be triggered by kids that accidentally got a hold of them and pushed the big red button. Would having a ban on detonating nuclear weapons inside of a city help? I don't think so. I think it would make no difference, and as I said above, each major city in the country would probably be vaporized in a manner of a few minutes after the legalization. Having a law saying that you should keep nuclear bombs out of the reach of children probably wouldn't help much either (do I get one of those language awards for that sentence?). Any idiot who keeps his guns where his kids can get a hold of them would probably keep his nuclear bomb in the same place.
That's why I think that nuclear weapons should not readily available :)

billydkid

2nd November 2003, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Ranb
I would also have to draw the line near the rocket launchers.

As one who is skilled in the use of small semi-auto rifles, I can say they are indeed useful in a self defence situation. I would really like to own an M16 or MP5, but have to settle for the lessor ar15 sporter. As for other weapons like rocket launchers, I do not know how to use one and can not determine the tactical value unless I am experienced in their use. As for the basis for keeping assault weapons legal, I can only answer that by asking, "What is the basis for making them illegal?" They are not used often in crimes and criminal miss-use should not spoil it for the rest of us.

Ranb

You can not base gun rights on percieved need or percieved legitimate usefulness. The presumption in the argument that we should keep rocket launchers out of the hands of ordinary citizens because then they could do real damage. But anyone who wants to do real damage can do that and it is not difficult. Terrorists can always get virtually any ordinance they choose to. Also assumed is that somehow a significant percentage of the population would suddenly go hog wild if they got their hands on real killing power. Look, if a significant percentage of population is like that then, man, we are already is serious trouble.

The bottom line is that you can not keep weapons of any sort out of the hands of bad people (reason they don't have A-bombs is because they can't afford them and do not have the knowledge , materials and technology to build them) all you can do is keep weapons out of the hands of people who are in no way inclined to hurt other people with them. If someone is incline to murder and robbery or any other sort of violent criminal activity there is absoluting no reason to believe they would be in anyway constrained by any prohibition against aquiring weapons. It is just stupid to think otherwise. Laws only constrain the law abiding.

clk

2nd November 2003, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by billydkid

The bottom line is that you can not keep weapons of any sort out of the hands of bad people

Yes, yes, I'm sure everyone agrees with this. But by legalizing those weapons, you are not helping the situation, you are probably making it easier for those bad people to acquire those weapons.

Ralph

2nd November 2003, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

See, that shows what an idiot you are. This argument has already been debunked by myself and others when Richard G tried it in another thread.

Edit to add: Mind you, the 'cops and soldiers carry 'em' argument is slightly new, if no less retarded. The issue is about gun control. You may notice that police officers and soldiers aren't simply handed guns and told, "There's the dude you want to shoot at- hook in, lunch is at 12, knock-off's at 5". No. They're trained to use them. You may notice that soldiers, with their state-of-the-art weapons, keep them tightly secured and safe... if they don't want their butts hoofed out of the army. You apparently don't have any such requirements for your citizens in the US.

Pretend that these requirements do exist. Obviously, they aren't being enforced. Why? Because law enforcement agencies can't be everywhere at once. So do what they do in Australia: if you want to play with tinker toys like hand guns, go to a gun club, where the weapon is locked on licensed premises when it isn't being used.

You aren't going to get comprehenisve gun reforms overnight in the US, of course. Too many toys, too many kids with the vote. One step at a time- we don't want to take the children off the tit too quickly or they'll scream. Maybe we could start by having fully and semi-automatic weapons banned except for restricted situations like gun clubs, etc. Too hard? Screaming already? Worth thinking about next time there's a massacre in your country, with the perp a ticked-off nerd with little or no criminal history.

Fully automatic weapons are allready banned.

As far as semi-autos go---are you just referring to handguns??

What about a pump shot-gun???----banned or not?????

Tony

2nd November 2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by clk

But profiling would also go against the basic principles that this country was founded on, so it's probably not an option.

:i: :bs:

So does gun control ( the right to own a gun is a constitutional right, not being profiled isnt), but I see that hasn’t kept you from arguing for it or kept various governments from implementing it.

If profiling goes against the basic principles this country was founded upon (*cough***********cough*), how come whites were allowed to be profiled during the sniper incident? I guess its only ok to profile and discriminate against white people. It's the usual double standard and hypocrisy we've come to expect from the non-thinking PC mongers.

So let’s recap, we can’t profile because it goes against the basic principles of America (who cares that it will help protect society and save people a lot of time at the airports), but when white people are suspects we can. Gun control is ok because it protects society; but the fact that gun rights are a constitutional right and a basic principal this country was founded upon is irrelevant.

clk

2nd November 2003, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Tony

:i: :bs:

So does gun control ( the right to own a gun is a constitutional right, not being profiled isnt), but I see that hasn’t kept you from arguing for it or kept various governments from implementing it.

If profiling goes against the basic principles this country was founded upon (*cough***********cough*), how come whites were allowed to be profiled during the sniper incident? I guess its only ok to profile and discriminate against white people. It's the usual double standard and hypocrisy we've come to expect from the non-thinking PC mongers.

The gun-control issue is a matter of freedom. But there is always a trade-off between freedom and safety. Profiling is a completely separate issue. What is your source for the statement that "whites were allowed to be profiled during the sniper incident"? If you see no moral or ethical problems with profiling, then, well...there's nothing I can say that will convince you otherwise.

So let’s recap, we can’t profile because it goes against the basic principles of America (who cares that it will help protect society and save people a lot of time at the airports), but when white people are suspects we can.

Strawman.

Tony

2nd November 2003, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by clk

What is your source for the statement that "whites were allowed to be profiled during the sniper incident"?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29422

http://hnn.us/comments/6211.html

Maryland - the Beltway Sniper killings: Several witnesses at the Virginia Home Depot shooting described "dark-skinned" suspects, but police continued targeting "white-guys with guns" and ATF's Mike Bouchard boasted of confiscating a number of rifles from white men in Maryland. Meanwhile people - a black school boy was one - were dying. They were dying because of racial backlash, not racial profiling.

Racial backlash? Ask Chief Moose - a black man. According to incident reports and recorded transmissions, Mohammed and Malvo were stopped at least three times during the sniper search in the tri-state area. Montgomery County Police Chief, Charles Moose, an outspoken critic of "racial profiling" refused to release a composite sketch or even a demographic profile of the sniper suspect. He explained he didn't want to, "paint some group". But from the start of the investigation, Moose targeted whites, citing phone tips from girlfriends, wives and neighbors upset with white guys with guns. Meanwhile people were dying.

Strawman.

:roll: Yeah!! If you say so. Far too often I see the term "strawman" thrown around on this website so people have to avoid addressing difficult problems.

clk

2nd November 2003, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Tony

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29422

http://hnn.us/comments/6211.html

Strawman.

:roll: Yeah!! If you say so. Far too often I see the term "strawman" thrown around on this website so people have to avoid addressing difficult problems.

OK...if I need to break it down for you, I will.

Originally posted by Tony

but when white people are suspects we can.

Can you find a specific sentence where I said that it was only OK to profile white people? Didn't think so. Thus, you completely misrepresented my argument. Actually, I wasn't even arguing one way or another on the issue of profiling. You just did a bit of selective quoting and commented on me saying that "But profiling would also go against the basic principles that this country was founded on, so it's probably not an option. " You completely ignored the previous sentence: "I think that profiling would be more effective than what we have now." Did I ever say that I was opposed to profiling? No. Did I ever say that I was in favor of profiling? No. I simply examined both sides of the issue. Again, you chose to ignore that.

Tony

2nd November 2003, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by clk
Can you find a specific sentence where I said that it was only OK to profile white people?

I wasn’t attributing that mentality to you.

AmateurScientist

2nd November 2003, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by clk

Yes, I understand that the use of the object is the activity we should prohibit. But I don't think that making automatic assault rifles readily available would help the situation. Let's look at an extreme case...suppose that nuclear weapons were legalized tomorrow, and that anyone could go into a Wal-Mart and buy a 20 megaton thermonuclear bomb. Do you really think it would take more than a few minutes before every major city in the country was vaporized? Even if there weren't psychotics or anarchists or terrorists that were using these bombs, I think that many of them would be triggered by kids that accidentally got a hold of them and pushed the big red button. Would having a ban on detonating nuclear weapons inside of a city help? I don't think so. I think it would make no difference, and as I said above, each major city in the country would probably be vaporized in a manner of a few minutes after the legalization. Having a law saying that you should keep nuclear bombs out of the reach of children probably wouldn't help much either (do I get one of those language awards for that sentence?). Any idiot who keeps his guns where his kids can get a hold of them would probably keep his nuclear bomb in the same place.
That's why I think that nuclear weapons should not readily available :)

"Clean up on aisle 7. Someone spilled the plutonium again."

Ummm.... Does not prohibiting something equate to having it readily available?

What about aircraft carriers? Aren't you ready to go purchase your own?

What's that? Can't afford it? Don't have several extra billion dollars to spend on one? Didn't think so.

Same for nuclear weapons.

It's legal for me to tunnel to the center of the earth if I want to. How many people do that?

People don't have nuclear weapons because they can't afford them, your average Joe has no idea how to make one, and there's nothing to do with them except blow away a few hundred thousand or million people with them. With enough money and some nuclear physicists on the payroll, I'm sure some James Bond villain meglomaniac could purchase the weapons grade plutonium from some corrupt officials in Russia or some other former Soviet republic. They've got tons of the stuff.

AS

JAR

2nd November 2003, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by geni
Translation we are having a tough time so we are going to blame the media. Now who ealse has blamed unfair reporting?
Several people on the forum have blamed my low opinion of blacks on the media. That's entirely wrong. The turning point that made me have a low opinion of blacks was my experience with blacks at my middle school. Before that I had a rather high opinion of blacks. When the L.A. riots occurred, I sympathized with the blacks because I was so accustomed to thinking that anything bad done by blacks was okay because blacks sufferred from racial persecution. I don't think that way anymore. It's easy for a white person to say any bad thing done by blacks is okay when he or she doesn't have to live with mass amounts of black people on a regular basis.

peptoabysmal

2nd November 2003, 09:27 PM

The term "assault weapon" is an intentionally ambiguous description intended to demonize firearms and facilitate defining more and more firearms as "assault weapons". The military description of an "assault rifle" is very specific and includes full automatic capability.

Ranb

2nd November 2003, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by JAR

....... The turning point that made me have a low opinion of blacks was my experience with blacks at my middle school. ....... When the L.A. riots occurred, I sympathized with the blacks because I was so accustomed to thinking that anything bad done by blacks was okay because blacks sufferred from racial persecution.......

It is obvious to the most casual obsever that you are a f--king racist. It seems you stopped growing up while you were in middle school. I have heard this lame excuse from blacks and whites describing an event in their lives that led them to treat everyone of a certain race as inferior or differant. Grow the f--k up dude!

Ranb

JAR

2nd November 2003, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by Ranb

It is obvious to the most casual obsever that you are a f--king racist. It seems you stopped growing up while you were in middle school. I have heard this lame excuse from blacks and whites describing an event in their lives that led them to treat everyone of a certain race as inferior or differant. Grow the f--k up dude!

Ranb
I don't treat everyone of the black race as inferior or different.

Zep

2nd November 2003, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
The term "assault weapon" is an intentionally ambiguous description intended to demonize firearms and facilitate defining more and more firearms as "assault weapons". The military description of an "assault rifle" is very specific and includes full automatic capability. OK, for my own education here, for what specific purposes other than killing people and/or animals and/or trees very quickly and messily are weapons like M-16's, Kalashnikovs, H&K's, Skorpions and Uzi's used for?

Tesserat

3rd November 2003, 12:15 AM

AS, going back to your gun/potato peeler/kitchen knife analogy, I don't think it's very accurate. Guns, knives, apples, whatever aren't evil or bad, but some things are much easier to kill people with.

If I had to fight a ten year old armed with either a gun or a knife, I'd rather go up against a knife. A ten year old with a gun could kill me before I got close enough to touch him.

A question for people who live in places where it's legal to carry weapons in public. Are you required to buy insurance, as you would be for a car?

AmateurScientist

3rd November 2003, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by Tesserat
AS, going back to your gun/potato peeler/kitchen knife analogy, I don't think it's very accurate. Guns, knives, apples, whatever aren't evil or bad, but some things are much easier to kill people with.

If I had to fight a ten year old armed with either a gun or a knife, I'd rather go up against a knife. A ten year old with a gun could kill me before I got close enough to touch him.

A question for people who live in places where it's legal to carry weapons in public. Are you required to buy insurance, as you would be for a car?

Here's a simple answer to your question. In my state, no, one is not required to purchase insurance to own or carry a firearm. There are no other constitutional rights in the Bill of Rights which require insurance in order to exercise them either.

As to your stance in this post, I can say this:

Well, now you are trying to decide public policy--whether guns should be legal or not--simply on the basis of how dangerous to one's self or to others a product may be.

On that basis, we should ban all sorts of things. Banning left turns at intersections (OK, this one is an activity, not a thing), for instance, would tremendously reduce auto accidents, including many fatal ones, as failure to yield while making a left turn is the number one cause of accidents on city streets.

Motorcycles kill and maim a hugely disproportionate number of their riders compared to cars, so they should be banned.

Ladders kill a lot of people. Ban 'em.

Football causes a lot of injuries, and some deaths. Ban it. While you're at it, ban sledding, skateboarding, soccer, and trampolines. In the year 2000, for instance, the number of children between ages 5 and 14 in the U.S. treated at emergency rooms for traumatic injuries resulting from these activities were as follows:

Football: 186,000
Skateboarding: 50,000
Sledding: 23,500
Soccer: 85,000 (in 1999)
Trampoline: 82,000

While we're at it, add bicycling to the list. It's the most dangerous. In 2000, 373,000 kids between 5 and 14 in the U.S. were treated at ERs for bike related injuries, and 173 kids in that age group died in 1999 from bike accidents.

(Source: Sports Injuries Stats (http://www.chw.org/display/PPF/DocID/1759/router.asp) )

Deaths Due to Unintentional Injuries, 2000 (Estimates) (Chart compiled by GunCite. Source of data, except as noted, National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 2001 Edition, pp. 8-9, 84)

Compare the number of accidental deaths to kids in the same age group in the U.S. from firearms in 2000: 80.

Bikes are more than twice as likely to kill kids as guns accidentally.

Who is advocating banning bikes?

Actually, here's a link to a good chart showing rates of fatal injuries from various activities, broken down by age group, which got its data from the National Safety Council:

Link to Chart (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html)

According to the chart in the link, clearly automobile accidents kill far more kids under 15 each year than guns--about 2,400 versus 80. Drownings kills about 800.

The accidental deaths and injuries resulting from firearms is not the best approach to use to ban them. Doing so would require giving a free pass to automobiles.

AS

Ranb

3rd November 2003, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by Zep
OK, for my own education here, for what specific purposes other than killing people and/or animals and/or trees very quickly and messily are weapons like M-16's, Kalashnikovs, H&K's, Skorpions and Uzi's used for?

For the thousandth (not really) time, they ARE FUN TO SHOOT. Shooting lots of holes in targets at the range is sport enough in my opinion. I can say that the M16 and AK47 are accurate enough for small game hunting also.

Can you give me an example of when a legally owned machinegun in America was used by it's civilian owner to commit murder? I think no one here can find a case like this in the USA. If you can, I'll shut up (for a while).

Ranb

AmateurScientist

3rd November 2003, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by Ranb

For the thousandth (not really) time, they ARE FUN TO SHOOT. Shooting lots of holes in targets at the range is sport enough in my opinion. I can say that the M16 and AK47 are accurate enough for small game hunting also.

Can you give me an example of when a legally owned machinegun in America was used by it's civilian owner to commit murder? I think no one here can find a case like this in the USA. If you can, I'll shut up (for a while).

Ranb

Good point in second paragraph.

I have to question the efficacy or wisdom of hunting small game with an AK-47. The 7.62 mm round is too big and the rifle is too heavy to carry around in the woods comfortably.

The .223 round used by an M-16 is much more appropriate (although overpowered), and IIRC M-16s can shoot .22 LR ammo as well, which is appropriate for small game, as .22 rifles are often referred to as "squirrel guns." Hell, my old Marlin .22 had a squirrel carved into the wooden stock on each side.

As Ed correctly notes, you don't even have to justify why you want to own any firearms. If you want to own them to keep as doorstops, you should be able to. Lots of gun collectors collect them for the sheer joy and pride of ownership, without actually shooting them at all. Analogously, lots of guitar collectors do the same without even playing them or knowing how.

AS

Cleopatra

3rd November 2003, 09:53 AM

Motorcycles, kitchen knives, potato peelers, sports, can injure people as much as guns can but the question is whether guns are as important in our daily life as a potato peeler is for example.

You can expect to have a high percentage of injuries for things you do on a daily basis, like driving or cutting potatos but the injuries from guns if compared with the necessity of their existence in our daily life is very high.

How many times a week are you going to use your gun and how many times are you going to use your car?

For something that is used only rarely, a gun, is a rather dangerous tool, don't you think?

AmateurScientist

3rd November 2003, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Motorcycles, kitchen knives, potato peelers, sports, can injure people as much as guns can but the question is whether guns are as important in our daily life as a potato peeler is for example.

You can expect to have a high percentage of injuries for things you do on a daily basis, like driving or cutting potatos but the injuries from guns if compared with the necessity of their existence in our daily life is very high.

How many times a week are you going to use your gun and how many times are you going to use your car?

For something that is used only rarely, a gun, is a rather dangerous tool, don't you think?

Ah, but it's that one rare occasion that you may find yourself confronted with a mugger or burglar in your home at night that a gun becomes far more useful than the potato peeler. That's what they're for to defensive carriers of guns. Others may simply collect them because they find them beautiful works of art or craftsmanship, or others still may get a great thrill from shooting them at the range or in the country.

Health insurance isn't very useful for someone who is rarely sick or injured. It's great to have when you need it, however. Think of a defensive handgun as violent crime victim insurance.

AS

Cleopatra

3rd November 2003, 10:10 AM

Ok.

In that case, you should compare guns with something that is used equally rarely and not with the injuries that are occured by cars, knives, sports etc etc etc.

richardm

3rd November 2003, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

Ah, but it's that one rare occasion that you may find yourself confronted with a mugger or burglar in your home at night that a gun becomes far more useful than the potato peeler.

I suppose that the effect must be reduced by the fact that the mugger may also be armed with a gun?

Admittedly if he lunged at you with a potato peeler you would have the upper hand :D

AmateurScientist

3rd November 2003, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by richardm

I suppose that the effect must be reduced by the fact that the mugger may also be armed with a gun?

Admittedly if he lunged at you with a potato peeler you would have the upper hand :D

Except that studies show that most violent criminals are opportunists. They choose their intended victims based on their apparent vulnerability and defenselessness. It's perfectly natural. Few sane predators would voluntarily choose highly armed prey capable of doing them serious bodily harm or killing them if a less harmful alternative exists.

The theory behind concealed carry and deterrence is that criminals who know their intended victims may be armed and may fight back may be more reluctant to commit crimes of violence against strangers. I'm not necessarily persuaded by that argument, mostly because I'm not convinced that most criminals engage in rigorous cost/benefit analyses before deciding to do a particular crime, but it's one that is often put forth. I suppose it has some psychological merit, assuming that the violent criminal in question is a rational actor.

Domestic violence is something of a different matter, as a high degree of passion and/or drunkenness is usually involved. The correlation between alcohol abuse and domestic abuse is very high.

The main reason to carry a firearm for personal protection is to give the carrier an opportunity, assuming he or she is well enough trained, to fight back. Even drawing a firearm is often enough to break off a violent contact with a criminal attacker. Indeed, many researchers in the field have concluded that the incidence of merely drawing firearms in successfully preventing a violent crime against the firearm carrier greatly exceeds the need actually to fire one. That is certainly not meant to imply that anyone should brandish a weapon lightly, as nearly all experts will advise never to do this unless you are prepared to shoot at your attacker and accept the consequences. Indeed, drawing a firearm or even displaying it menacingly is usually a crime itself, when not justified under the circumstances. In my state, it's called "menacing."

Despite the impression one gets from the news and popular media, an extremely low proportion of concealed carriers of firearms have actually fired them at anyone, and a very low proportion of police officers have actually shot at anyone as well.

The ones who do shoot are very often thankful that they were able to, given the alternative.

AS

DanishDynamite

3rd November 2003, 12:40 PM

AmateurScientist:A better question might be, what is the point of criminalizing their possession [in reference to WMD]?You have got to be kidding, my gun-loving friend.
What does this have to do with weapons of mass destruction? Everything. As Ed points out, terrorist weapons can be and almost always are made from ordinary, readily available goods. If we try to ban any and all things which might be precursors to terrorist weapons, then we truly will live in a police state and we will foster an enormous underground economy trading in illicit goods.Indeed, anything made of matter can in principle be made by first buying the necessary elements on the borse. The problem, of course, is what to do with the ingots of material you acquired. Come on, AS! Timothy McVeigh's bomb was not a WMD. Making a WMD requires expertise, laboratories, lots of money, etc, etc. If any schmoe could assemple a WMD in his basement, most major cities in the world would already be just memories.
Therefore, I have to ask again, what is the point of banning the possession of so-called weapons of mass destruction? It isn't that the things which can make them are evil. It is the use of such things to terrorize or to harm others which is the activity we should prohibit.Come on, AS! You don't really mean that. Would you really want to live in a society where you could buy WMD on e-bay? Given your claim that the production of such weapons is easy and hence cheap, what would keep well funded terrorist organizations from devastating every major city in the US? Would you feel safe knowing that Bill Gates bought a few anthrax bombs "just for kicks"? You are advocating for the end of the world in the name of freedom.
Therefore, if I must answer your question, I say no weapon, "of mass destruction" or otherwise, should be banned. Everyone should have equal opportunity to make or own them. Thank Ed there is no large movement to support this view.
Do you really think anyone on your block would rush to build his own nuclear weapon once he learns it is legal to do so? I doubt it, but then I don't know my neighbours very well.
More relevant, perhaps, do you really think the status of their being unlawful prevents or deters real terrorists from possessing or attempting to use NBC weapons?OF COURSE!

AmateurScientist

3rd November 2003, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
AmateurScientist:You have got to be kidding, my gun-loving friend.

Oh, we meet again, my gun debate nemesis with whom I swore to break off further debate on this topic, but with which promise I have failed to comply.

First, I am not a "gun lover." I own two handguns and a simple .22 rifle. I have them for several reasons, among them that I often deal with enraged persons in my profession. I'm no huge, nutty advocate of guns for everyone. I just see no point to banning them, and indeed I forsee many undesirable effects of instituting such a ban, including an erosion of the spirit and letter of the constitution.

Second, I'm not kidding at all. Do you honestly believe that with no legal prohibition on owning a nuclear weapon that any law abiding person could afford one, much less have the expertise and facilities for making one? Why would anyone buy one, anyway? Hell, it's legal to saw off my own leg with a chainsaw, but I don't think I'll be doing it anytime soon.

What's the point of owning nuclear weapons? To pull some James Bond villain holding the world hostage trick? If so, then the person isn't law abiding, is he?

Again, I ask, do you really think a legal prohibition is any deterrent at all regarding such behavior for those otherwise disposed towards it and determined to do it?

Legal prohibitions do not prevent persons from engaging in certain activities if they aren't disposed to follow the law anyway, as most sociopaths and career criminals amply demonstrate every day. Thus, my rational question.

Indeed, anything made of matter can in principle be made by first buying the necessary elements on the borse. The problem, of course, is what to do with the ingots of material you acquired. Come on, AS! Timothy McVeigh's bomb was not a WMD. Making a WMD requires expertise, laboratories, lots of money, etc, etc. If any schmoe could assemple a WMD in his basement, most major cities in the world would already be just memories.

I beg to differ. McVeigh's bomb was plenty sufficient to level a large, well-constructed building. It killed scores of people. I'd call that mass destruction, even though that's not what President Bush means when he uses the term.

Come on, AS! You don't really mean that. Would you really want to live in a society where you could buy WMD on e-bay? Given your claim that the production of such weapons is easy and hence cheap, what would keep well funded terrorist organizations from devastating every major city in the US? Would you feel safe knowing that Bill Gates bought a few anthrax bombs "just for kicks"? You are advocating for the end of the world in the name of freedom.

I didn't say the production of such weapons was easy or cheap. I said the raw materials are readily available.

Anthrax is a naturally occurring common bacteria. You don't have to outlaw it to keep it out of the hands of anyone. Just go to a field. It's there.

The expertise to aerosolize it such that it could be used in an effective large scale bomb is relatively rare, however. You can't outlaw expertise or knowledge. No ban is necessary or desirable.

Anyway, there is no point to buying anthrax weapons except to kill massive numbers of people or to threaten to do so. It's not a defensive weapon. Even so, there is no point to criminalizing possession of one. You don't seem to get that criminalization of such a thing is not an effective deterrent to any sociopath or terrorist desperate to die or kill for his cause, do you?

Thank Ed there is no large movement to support this view.

Unfortunately, the prevailing view is always to "do something," regardless of the wisdom, or lack thereof, of doing anything at all, or the wisdom, or lack thereof, of doing the particular something that the vocal majority advocates doing. Very often, legislating in reaction to a crisis not only is wholly ineffective in addressing the ill to be addressed, but also such legislation has sometimes far-reaching, negative unintended consequences. Surely, you are not for that, are you?

I doubt it, but then I don't know my neighbours very well.

You also don't know the price of uranium-238 or plutonium very well either. Hint: none of your neighbors could afford it.

You are dead wrong about prohibition being an effective deterrent. Just look at alcohol prohibition. Anyone determined enough to procure contraband can do so.

Prohibition of the private ownership of NBC weapons is pointless and ineffective in combatting transnational or domestic terrorism.

AS

DanishDynamite

3rd November 2003, 02:10 PM

AS:Oh, we meet again, my gun debate nemesis with whom I swore to break off further debate on this topic, but with which promise I have failed to comply."Can't keep a good man down", old sport. :D
First, I am not a "gun lover." I own two handguns and a simple .22 rifle. I have them for several reasons, among them that I often deal with enraged persons in my profession. I'm no huge, nutty advocate of guns for everyone. I just see no point to banning them, and indeed I forsee many undesirable effects of instituting such a ban, including an erosion of the spirit and letter of the constitution.Got it. You are not a gun-nut but foresee the downfall of civilization if the right to guns is diminished. As I said, I got it. :)
Second, I'm not kidding at all. Do you honestly believe that with no legal prohibition on owning a nuclear weapon that any law abiding person could afford one, much less have the expertise and facilities for making one? No. Did I claim this absurdity?
Why would anyone buy one, anyway?For fun? To blow up something? Because they want to feel invulnerable? Because they are the head of a cult? You tell me.
Hell, it's legal to saw off my own leg with a chainsaw, but I don't think I'll be doing it anytime soon.Uhhh?
What's the point of owning nuclear weapons? To pull some James Bond villain holding the world hostage trick? If so, then the person isn't law abiding, is he? Fabulous, my dear Sherlock! "If someone decides to use his legally acquired WMD on multiple cities, he is no longer law-abiding". EXACTLY.
Again, I ask, do you really think a legal prohibition is any deterrent at all regarding such behavior for those otherwise disposed towards it and determined to do it? Of course. But even more importantly, it is a deterrent to any rich schmoe who assumes a momentary dislike of society.
Legal prohibitions do not prevent persons from engaging in certain activities if they aren't disposed to follow the law anyway, as most sociopaths and career criminals amply demonstrate every day. Thus, my rational question.I see. Because determined well-funded criminals aren't deterred by the dificulty of accessing WMD, you feel they should be made easily available. Somehow, I don't follow the logic.

3rd November 2003, 02:28 PM

DanishDynamite

3rd November 2003, 03:04 PM

Sorry. After rereading my post I realized I hadn't addressed all of my Alabama shark's points...

AmateurScientist:I beg to differ. McVeigh's bomb was plenty sufficient to level a large, well-constructed building. It killed scores of people. I'd call that mass destruction, even though that's not what President Bush means when he uses the term. Or what anybody else means by the term.
I didn't say the production of such weapons was easy or cheap. I said the raw materials are readily available.OK.
Anthrax is a naturally occurring common bacteria. You don't have to outlaw it to keep it out of the hands of anyone. Just go to a field. It's there.Riiiiight. And I suppose anthrax bombs are likewise?
The expertise to aerosolize it such that it could be used in an effective large scale bomb is relatively rare, however. Aaaaah. Exactamonto.
You can't outlaw expertise or knowledge. No ban is necessary or desirable.Of course a ban is completely required.
Anyway, there is no point to buying anthrax weapons except to kill massive numbers of people or to threaten to do so. Exactly. And yet you would make it available for anyone.
It's not a defensive weapon. Even so, there is no point to criminalizing possession of one. You don't seem to get that criminalization of such a thing is not an effective deterrent to any sociopath or terrorist desperate to die or kill for his cause, do you?No, I simply don't get your argument. And I simply don't believe you would acrually want to live in the world you advocate. The history of the world (and humans) simply don't support your contention.
Unfortunately, the prevailing view is always to "do something," regardless of the wisdom, or lack thereof, of doing anything at all, or the wisdom, or lack thereof, of doing the particular something that the vocal majority advocates doing. Very often, legislating in reaction to a crisis not only is wholly ineffective in addressing the ill to be addressed, but also such legislation has sometimes far-reaching, negative unintended consequences. Surely, you are not for that, are you?I agree.
You also don't know the price of uranium-238 or plutonium very well either. Hint: none of your neighbors could afford it.Which has what to do with this debate? My neighbour isn't a member of Al-Quida either.
You are dead wrong about prohibition being an effective deterrent. Just look at alcohol prohibition. Anyone determined enough to procure contraband can do so.Since 1944 atomic bombs have been under "prohibition". You tell me the effectiveness.

AmateurScientist

3rd November 2003, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

No, I simply don't get your argument. And I simply don't believe you would acrually want to live in the world you advocate. The history of the world (and humans)

My argument is basically that superfluous or unnecessary legislation is a bad thing.

Banning private possession of nuclear weapons is no more necessary than legislation criminalizing blowing up the moon.

It's pointless and unnecessary. I believe the default position should always be no bans of any sort. The government should have to show some compelling reason to outlaw the possession of any thing.

Again, it is the use of a thing to commit a crime which should be prohibited, not the thing itself.

Which has what to do with this debate? My neighbour isn't a member of Al-Quida either.

You imply that not prohibiting the possession of nuclear weapons would mean that they are freely available and affordable. One could purchase them on Aisle 7 of Wal-Mart. That's ridiculous.

The lack of a ban on something does not make it readily available. It has to be in demand and cheap enough to produce at a profit. Nuclear weapons aren't either on a personal level.

Certainly, many governments have a demand for such weapons, but they lack the access to suitable material and the expertise to produce them effectively. It isn't because of an effective internal law preventing them from access. International law is mostly a misnomer anyway.

If governments have a hard time, how do you expect individuals to fare any better?

Since 1944 atomic bombs have been under "prohibition". You tell me the effectiveness.

I'm not sure what you mean. Nuclear proliferation since 1945 has been rampant. The only serious attempts to curb it are international treaties between and/or among certain ostensibly cooperating countries who have routinely broken them.

Countries who are not parties to such treaties face no legal prohibitions. The only ones they have are difficulties in obtaining necessary quantities of fissionable material of weapons grade quality and the techinical expertise to build them. Otherwise, any government not subject to a treaty prohibiting it is free to build them.

AS

Blarg

3rd November 2003, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
The reason I haven't gone into my usual detailed arguments is because the gun-as-phallic-extension types won't listen to them anyway, and if you argue the point with facts and evidence and logical arguments long enough, you only get accused of 'spouting leftist crap' by some hayseed with twelve pairs of chromosomes and a large pool of drool on his bib overalls. Who needs it?
Thank you for bringing the ugliness of stereotyping to the "facts and evidence and logical arguments" of this debate.
Originally posted by Zep
OK, for my own education here, for what specific purposes other than killing people and/or animals and/or trees very quickly and messily are weapons like M-16's, Kalashnikovs, H&K's, Skorpions and Uzi's used for?
As has been pointed out, many law-abiding people own fully automatic firearms and shoot them recreationally (http://www.machinegunshoot.com/). Recreationally. Yes, many perfectly normal, well-educated, mentally stable people enjoy this sort of thing, even if you don't think that you would. They aren't selling machine guns to gangs, practicing to repel Black Helicopters full of New World Order troops, vaporizing cute furry woodland creatures in a hail of lead, taking potshots at neighbors/passing cars/aircraft, or living up to any other "redneck and/or paranoid gun nut with a machine gun" stereotypes.

Here (http://reason.com/9511/GUNSfeat.shtml) is a very informative article about the "assault weapon" controversy.
(my bolding)
From the beginning, stories about "assault weapons" blurred the distinction between semi-automatics and machine guns. Machine guns are automatics: They fire as long as the trigger is held back. The possession of such firearms has been strictly regulated (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html) by the federal government since 1934. They have long been banned in some states, and no new automatics have legally entered civilian circulation in the United States since 1986. But semi-automatics, regardless of how much some of them may look like machine guns, fire one shot per trigger pull. Civilians have commonly used them for recreation and self-defense since the turn of the century.

If you want to legally own a fully automatic firearm in the US, it first must be legal in your state, county, and city. Then you fill out a buttload of paperwork (http://www.ontarget-inc.com/smgpurchase.htm), undergo an FBI background check, send in your photograph and fingerprints, and pay a $200.00(that is not a typo, two hundred dollars) tax PER GUN. Also, due to the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986, the gun must have been manufactured in 1986 or earlier(this does not apply to military or police issue). The problem is NOT the legal civilian ownership of such guns.

"Assault weapons" are SEMI-automatic(one and only one shot per trigger pull) lookalikes of military arms. This is the core of the uninformed emotional and histrionic furor(or deliberate deception (http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/assault.weapon.html#IIIC) by anti-gunners, take your pick) over these guns. No matter how much they look like M16s, AK47s, DeathMaster 6000s, or whatever, they aren't. Before anyone brings up full-auto conversion, it is already illegal if you have not filled out the right Federal paperwork in advance(see above (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html), insert quote here about enforcing the laws we already have instead of making new ones). It is also not as easy as movies and TV would have you believe.

Cosmetic features: Many rifles are listed as "assault weapons" because of cosmetic, military lookalike features such as pistol grips, bayonet lugs, or barrel shrouds. While these features may help a fully-automatic military arm, they are nigh-irrelevant to the effectiveness of a semi-auto only civilian gun. How many drive-by bayonetings have there been? What is the BFD about owning a gun that looks like a military weapon but that isn't one?

More information:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fuo.htm
http://reason.com/9407/ed.jacob.9407.shtml
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/assault.weapon.html
http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/
http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/rational.htm
This article (http://www.claremont.org/projects/doctors/990914wheeler.html) describes how the California state AWB outlawed olympic target pistols(yes, smallbore Olympic target pistols) by accidentally classifying them as "assault weapons". Kneejerk. hasty, ill-researched, excessively-hyphenated, feel-good, look-busy legislation like this seldom achieves the intended goal and often screws ordinary citizens.

The other side:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunlaws/awb.asp
Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire.
This is a lie, or at least a severe mistake. "Semi-automatic assault weapons" fire as fast as the trigger is pulled, but only one shot per pull, just like "semi-automatic hunting rifles".
Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, Also an utter screwup or lie. No military force in the world teaches firing(semi or full auto) rifles from the hip. I ask any veterans to correct me if I am wrong.
and because of their design, a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession.
Irrelevant hysteria. They still can't go bang any faster than you can pull the trigger, just like "semi-automatic hunting guns".
Opponents of the ban argue that such weapons only "look scary." However, because they were designed for military purposes,
WRONG, or maybe even a lie. Many armies use full-auto capable assault rifles. No military organization that I know of uses semi-automatic-only assault rifle lookalikes in combat.
assault weapons are equipped with combat hardware, such as silencers,
WRONG. Silencers are regulated like full-auto firearms. See the federal laws already mentioned above, and doubtless in other threads.
folding stocks and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns.
Irrelevant military look-alike features. A folding stock must be unfolded to hit jack squat. and not all "assault weapons" have them anyway. BFD on the bayonet lug, it is a cosmetic feature unless you plan a drive-by bayoneting.
Assault weapons are also designed for rapid-fire
Once again, they are semi-automatic, and cannot fire any faster than you can pull the trigger, just like PC "semi-automatic hunting rifles".
and many come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing 50 more bullets to be fired without reloading.
I assume that they mean "50 or more". Actually very few have such large magazines, 20-30 is the usual upper limit. Also, the AW ban affects such magazines(and any magazine holding 11 or more rounds) that are manufactured after 1994, just like the guns. The issue is irrelevant for hunting, since various laws forbid mags with more than 3-6 rounds depending on state, gun, and prey. Perhaps I'm clueless, but I fail to see how one 30(or even 50)-round magazine makes a gun able to kill more people than reloading with 20 10-round magazines.
So there is a good reason why these features on high-powered weapons should frighten the public.
A common misconception. Their ammo is often LESS powerful than "hunting" ammo, for better control of full-auto fire in the actual military gun. In the semi-auto-only verson, it is just an underpowered rifle. For example, the AR-15 uses .223 ammo, which is illegal for deer hunting (due to insufficient power) in many states.

The above is just the tip of the iceberg concerning the misconceptions, and mistakes, if not outright lies, pushed by anti-gun groups and the media. If they feel that certain guns should be banned, I could at least respect their beliefs, even if I did not subscribe to them. This sort of hyperbole by either side insults the intelligence of the reader and damages credibility on both sides of the issue.

http://www.nationalreview.com/17apr00/kopel041700.html
http://secure.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/news/sr20000105.html
http://secure.mediaresearch.org/columns/news/col20000106.html
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2331
Originally posted by AmateurScientist
My argument is basically that superfluous or unnecessary legislation is a bad thing.
Banning private possession of nuclear weapons is no more necessary than legislation criminalizing blowing up the moon.
It's pointless and unnecessary. I believe the default position should always be no bans of any sort. The government should have to show some compelling reason to outlaw the possession of any thing.
Again, it is the use of a thing to commit a crime which should be prohibited, not the thing itself.
Well said, sir.

Tony

3rd November 2003, 06:19 PM

In ]this (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27148&highlight=unjust+laws) thread Mr Manifesto said:

I go with Thoreau who, I'm told, said that people have the right to disobey unjust laws.

And in this (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28000&highlight=politics) thread he said:

If you aren't hurting anyone, there shouldn't be a law against it.

I guess he was lying.

Tesserat

4th November 2003, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

As to your stance in this post, I can say this:

Well, now you are trying to decide public policy--whether guns should be legal or not--simply on the basis of how dangerous to one's self or to others a product may be.

How on earth do you get that from what I posted? Where did I post that guns should be illegal? I thought your analogy was bad.
I wrote:

AS, going back to your gun/potato peeler/kitchen knife analogy, I don't think it's very accurate. Guns, knives, apples, whatever aren't evil or bad, but some things are much easier to kill people with.

If I had to fight a ten year old armed with either a gun or a knife, I'd rather go up against a knife. A ten year old with a gun could kill me before I got close enough to touch him.

A question for people who live in places where it's legal to carry weapons in public. Are you required to buy insurance, as you would be for a car?

I had one point: It's easier to kill somebody with a gun than with a potato peeler, and one question, if insurance is required for gun ownership. If you want a chance to spout statistics, you don't need to warp my post to do so.

About what you wrote:

On that basis, we should ban all sorts of things. Banning left turns at intersections (OK, this one is an activity, not a thing), for instance, would tremendously reduce auto accidents, including many fatal ones, as failure to yield while making a left turn is the number one cause of accidents on city streets.

Motorcycles kill and maim a hugely disproportionate number of their riders compared to cars, so they should be banned.

Ladders kill a lot of people. Ban 'em.

Football causes a lot of injuries, and some deaths. Ban it. While you're at it, ban sledding, skateboarding, soccer, and trampolines. In the year 2000, for instance, the number of children between ages 5 and 14 in the U.S. treated at emergency rooms for traumatic injuries resulting from these activities were as follows:

Football: 186,000
Skateboarding: 50,000
Sledding: 23,500
Soccer: 85,000 (in 1999)
Trampoline: 82,000

While we're at it, add bicycling to the list. It's the most dangerous. In 2000, 373,000 kids between 5 and 14 in the U.S. were treated at ERs for bike related injuries, and 173 kids in that age group died in 1999 from bike accidents.

(Source: Sports Injuries Stats (http://www.chw.org/display/PPF/DocID/1759/router.asp) )

Deaths Due to Unintentional Injuries, 2000 (Estimates) (Chart compiled by GunCite. Source of data, except as noted, National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 2001 Edition, pp. 8-9, 84)

Compare the number of accidental deaths to kids in the same age group in the U.S. from firearms in 2000: 80.

Bikes are more than twice as likely to kill kids as guns accidentally.

Who is advocating banning bikes?

Actually, here's a link to a good chart showing rates of fatal injuries from various activities, broken down by age group, which got its data from the National Safety Council:

Link to Chart (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html)

According to the chart in the link, clearly automobile accidents kill far more kids under 15 each year than guns--about 2,400 versus 80. Drownings kills about 800.

The accidental deaths and injuries resulting from firearms is not the best approach to use to ban them. Doing so would require giving a free pass to automobiles.

AS

You write like a laywer
:D

I like how you've made this about banning. I support gun control, not banning of guns. I enjoy shooting them. I own a paint gun, but not a real one (yet). I can't argue gun control from a constitutional viewpoint, 'cause that doesn't apply to me.

And you've cleverly focused on accidents. Probably because very few people try to rob a bank with a bicycle. ("put all the money in this bag, or I'll pedal even faster!")

And there's a very good reason that not many armies arm their soldiers with left turns and skateboards. Or force the enemy to play football.

If you want to add to your list of accidents that can cause death,
you could have
falling down wells
matches
power tools of all kinds
food of all kinds
alchohol

Why don't you go through your list, and see how many of them have been used as murder weapons, and then compare that to guns? It's possible to find examples for cars. I can't find one that has a bike as a murder weapon. With soccer, your can get riots, but I haven't seen many reports of violent crime commited with a sled.

By using accidents, you're just picking something that can look good when you quote a lot of statistics. If you're selective enough with your age groups, activities, times, it's not hard to make your point look valid. But it's just spin.

edit - some spelling stuff...

Tesserat

7th November 2003, 02:58 AM

I was working on Smallville yesterday, -a TV series shot in Vancouver,- doing some stunt work, and got to fire a brazillian copy of some italian gun. (I can't even remember what kind of gun).

The level of security on set was enormous. There was a woman in charge of my gun, and after each shot, she'd stand by me to make sure that I didn't put it down or do something equally stupid. On a couple of takes, I had to point the weapon at the actor, and each time, the weapons wrangler would show the actor that there was nothing in the chamber, and the magazine was empty before giving me the gun.

I had to shoot full load blanks in another shot, and I was told that I had to aim at least 3 feet away from any of the other stuntpeople. I was lucky, the gun had a laser site, otherwise, there'd be no way I could be sure I wasn't aiming at someone.

The gun was not loaded until the AD called "Rolling", at that point, the gun was loaded and passed to me. The weapons wrangler would shout "live weapon, five rounds, full blanks". That would be repeated by all the AD's, and only then the director would yell "Action"

It was a rush to shoot the gun, especially with everything else going on, but part of the rush came from seeing the level of safety and professionalism around the weapons. I wish it was always like that.

My point? None, really. Bump

Richard G

7th November 2003, 10:46 AM

It was a rush to shoot the gun, especially with everything else going on, but part of the rush came from seeing the level of safety and professionalism around the weapons. I wish it was always like that.

You will find that any responsible gun owner is equally anal about safety. It is the people who villanize firearms that are ignorant, and unsafe with them.

Look at this idiot gun grabber, waving an automatic weapon around with her finger on the trigger. No one there is concerned, because they are equally ignorant.

http://www.alphadogweb.com/firearms/images/dftf1.jpg
http://www.alphadogweb.com/firearms/images/dftf2.jpg

Forth Worth Star-Telegram columnist Jill Labbe wrote, “Guns (are) nowhere as dangerous as liberals who can’t handle them. There stood Dianne Feinstein, the anti-gun senator from California, posing for all the nation’s media to capture on Kodachrome, holding an AK-47 with her finger firmly planted on the trigger. Here’s a woman so concerned about the supposed recklessness of gun manufacturers…who wouldn’t know firearm safety if it bit her in the end of her upturned San Franciscan nose.”

The reporters, dignitaries and innocent bystanders packed into the room were too ignorant to be terrified as Feinstein swept the crowd with the muzzle of the automatic rife, bolt closed, finger on the trigger, high-capacity magazine locked in place.

San Francisco resident William A. Levinson wrote a certified letter to Mayor Willie Brown, Jr., demanding legal action against the blatant gun safety violations of the illustrious “Ms. Gun Control,” who holds a rare California concealed weapons permit.

When asked earlier why she carried that .38 Smith & Wesson concealed in her purse while promoting gun control for the rest of us, Feinstein answered, “I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I’d walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.”

Only a couple of months earlier, however, Feinstein has gone on 60 Minutes to announce, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban…I would have done it.”