How Anti-Gun/Anti-American Tyrants Lie

[Tony]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113094,00.html ...full article


Last week’s release of police documents and evidence on the April, 1999, Columbine school shootings has sparked many questions — not only on the specifics of Columbine but also on the general issue of guns.

The answers are unsatisfying on all counts.

Take, for example, the issue of how many children die each year in gun-related incidents. That question has been prompted not just by the new Columbine evidence, but by the impending Million Mom March on Washington, D.C., planned for Mother’s Day.

The first anti-gun MMM in 2000 attempted to redirect the focus of Mother’s Day from flowers and card giving to the gun deaths of children. The 2004 event continues this focus as its press release reminds us, "[W]ith memories of the horrible events at Columbine High School … people gathered [in 2000] on the Mall in Washington, D.C., to demand saner gun policies." The release quotes Mary Leigh Blek, the "president emeritus" of MMM, as saying that almost 14,000 children "have died from gun violence" since "our last march."

Where does that figure come from?




Sorry you stupid cnuts, lying hurts your cause more than it helps it.

[Tmy]

They must be lying. After all Mothers Against Drung Driving said those 14,000 were killed in alcohol related accidents!

Truth is all those zealot organization misuse stats fortheir own good. NRA, MADD, Anti-gun, whoever. They all lie through statistics. 32% of Americans know that.

[Thanz]

Read the whole article. The 'fair and balanced' people at Fox News calculate the number of accidental firearm deaths, which is not what the woman is talking about. She says "died from gun violence".

The article goes on to say:Indeed, the only way to arrive at that number at the CDC site is to include suicides and gang-related deaths, and to define a child as "anyone under the age of 21." In short, MMM has padded the statistics.
If I were counting the number of child deaths due to gun violence, why would I exclude suicides and gang-related deaths? The quibble that the article has is not that the woman is lying - it is that they disagree with what she is counting, even though suicides and gang activity are clearly part of "gun violence".

Is this article an example of how gun-nuts lie?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Thanz

The article goes on to say:
If I were counting the number of child deaths due to gun violence, why would I exclude suicides and gang-related deaths? The quibble that the article has is not that the woman is lying - it is that they disagree with what she is counting, even though suicides and gang activity are clearly part of "gun violence".




No. The original claim was that 12,000 children die from gun violence. A claim that is demonstrably false . Furthermore, the author goes on to say that suicides and gang activity are things on which gun laws have no effect.

The 5,732 also includes deaths that result from gang activity in which the guns are usually illegal. These deaths would not have been prevented by gun control any more than gang members’ drug use is prevented by drug laws.

Suicide is not committed because there is a gun. Studies show that our suicide rate is on par with other industrialized nations, including ones with very strictly regulated guns."

This is a either good example of how YOU lie or selectivly use quotes to support your stance. It helps to read the whole article before you jump to knee-jerk conclusions.


Ohh, and the article isnt from FoxNews, it's from ifeminist.com. Again, if you would actually READ instead of jumping to knee-jerk conclusions, you would see that.


http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0303.html

[Luke T.]

Just compiling here, not verifying anything. I am looking around to see what various organizations claim about children and gun deaths.

Children's Defense Fund (http://www.cdfactioncouncil.org/children_and_guns_brief_stats.htm)


Gunfire killed 3,761 infants, children, and teens in 1998, dropping below 4,000 for the first time since 1988. Although the number of young victims was the lowest in ten years, the death of each one is a tragedy.


Between 1979 and 1998, nearly 84,000 American children and teens were killed by firearms. That is almost 36,000 more than died in combat in Vietnam.
Between 1979 and 1998, 563 American solders were killed in action. During that same period, 2,042 children younger than 5 were killed by firearms, almost four times as many.

CATO Institute (http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html)


Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn't know it from listening to the mainstream media. In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642. More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings. The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes "children" up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence.

Interesting that CDF gives figures for 1998, and CATO says the last year for which data are available is 1997. But the CATO article is dated 2000, while I don't see a date for the CDF page.



Common Dreams News Center, (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0301-04.htm) which bills itself as "Breaking News and Views for the Progressive Community," if that gives you a hint of where they are coming from:


While other studies have shown links between teen suicide and guns, this is the first national study to examine the connection between firearm ownership and violent death among younger children, said Miller, associate director of Harvard's Injury Control Research Center.

The study looked at data from all 50 states from 1988 to 1997. In that period, 6,817 children between 5 and 14 years old died from firearms: 3,447 from homicides, 1,782 from accidental shootings and 1,588 from suicide.



David Kopel, (http://home.speedsoft.com/theashes/koppel.html) who I know nothing about:


How many children die in senseless gun accidents? One of America's leading gun control advocates, a physician, puts the figure at "almost 1,000 children" per year. The National Safety Council, however, reports a considerably lower figure. In 1988, 277 children under the age of 15 were killed by accidental firearms discharges. In 1990, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, the number fell to 236.

Most of the children who are involved in fatal accidents are older children. In 1990, the most recent year for which data are available, 34 children under the age of 5 died in gun accidents. Among children aged 5-9, there were 56 fatal gun accidents; and among children aged 10-14, 146 fatal accidents.

In recent decades, the American firearms supply has risen, and now stands about 200 million guns, a third of them handguns. But as the number of guns has risen, the number of childhood gun accidents has fallen sharply, declining by nearly 50% in the last two decades.

So. Is somebody lying?

[Tmy]

The artilce writer is also misleading.

To say the suicides and gang deaths (illegal guns) couldnt be prevented by gun control is not accurate. Laws regarding proper storage of firearms are created specifically because of these problems.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Tony

No. The original claim was that 12,000 children die from gun violence. A claim that is demonstrably false . Furthermore, the author goes on to say that suicides and gang activity are things on which gun laws have no effect.
If you want to quibble about what age to cut off the stats, go right ahead. But to exclude suicides and gang activity from a stat that talks about "gun violence" is just stupid. You can argue, as the article does, that gun laws would have no effect on these figures. But that doesn't exclude them from the global figure of deaths from "gun violence" and then claim that the people who include are lying for the inclusion. It is a separate issue.

Ohh, and the article isnt from FoxNews, it's from ifeminist.com. Again, if you would actually READ instead of jumping to knee-jerk conclusions, you would see that.
You mean that when I go to YOUR link to a fox news site, I am jumping to conclusions when I cite it as a fox news article? Whatever.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Thanz

If you want to quibble about what age to cut off the stats, go right ahead. But to exclude suicides and gang activity from a stat that talks about "gun violence" is just stupid.

Not if those stats are used to justify gun control and gun laws, which have no effect on suicides and gang activity. That's the point you obviously are missing.

You mean that when I go to YOUR link to a fox news site, I am jumping to conclusions when I cite it as a fox news article? Whatever.

Fox News runs articles from many different sources, Ifeminist and The Associated Press being two of them. Just because you can read an article on Fox News doesn't make it a Fox News article. My point stands.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy
To say the suicides and gang deaths (illegal guns) couldnt be prevented by gun control is not accurate. Laws regarding proper storage of firearms are created specifically because of these problems.

This is silly.

If current gun-laws don't stop suicides and gun violence what makes you think MORE gun laws will?

And how is a law requiring "proper" storage of firearms going to stop gang violence and suicide?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Tony


This is silly.

If current gun-laws don't stop suicides and gun violence what makes you think MORE gun laws will?

And how is a law requiring "proper" storage of firearms going to stop gang violence and suicide?

Passing laws to prevent suicide is like passing laws to prevent Tuesday. Suicide happens; people get depressed, people get angry, people kill themselves. It's not happy, but it is a fact. And as far as I know--I could very well be wrong--gunshot is not a very popular suicide method.

Anyone who thinks regulating or outright banning guns will have the slightest effect on gang violence, to say nothing of suicide, is naive at best.

[Tmy]

Do you lock your car doors? Why?


Well Lil Jonny cant blow his head off if he cant get into daddys gun locker. Or get the trigger lock off.

Gun Lockers can also prevent gang member thug from stealing Joe Lawabiding's gun and turning it into an illeagle gun.

But when you leave your gun loaded and in your desk drawer, then theivery is alot easier.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy

Well Lil Jonny cant blow his head off if he cant get into daddys gun locker. Or get the trigger lock off.


Lil Jonny will just go get one of mommy's kitchen knives and slit his wrists. Or kill himself some other way. You are fooling yourself if you think such things will prevent suicide.

Gun Lockers can also prevent gang member thug from stealing Joe Lawabiding's gun and turning it into an illeagle gun.

That's ok. The gang member can just buy a gun from a gun dealer. Another useless gun law circumvented.

As you can see, even using the most basic reasoning, it can be shown how such laws are pointless.

But when has reason ever stopped the unreasonable?

[ASRomatifoso]

Originally posted by Cleon


Passing laws to prevent suicide is like passing laws to prevent Tuesday. Suicide happens; people get depressed, people get angry, people kill themselves. It's not happy, but it is a fact. And as far as I know--I could very well be wrong--gunshot is not a very popular suicide method.

Anyone who thinks regulating or outright banning guns will have the slightest effect on gang violence, to say nothing of suicide, is naive at best.

Is it naive to think that removing guns would force gangs to use knives, bats, etc. thereby killing a few less people. It is always amazing to me how anyone can defend guns. They are created to kill things, that is their purpose, their essence, to kill just like an axe is made to cut a tree or a hammer to drive a nail. Yet somehow people argue that taking them away won't lessen killing. Comical.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by ASRomatifoso


Is it naive to think that removing guns would force gangs to use knives, bats, etc. thereby killing a few less people.

It's naive to think banning guns would remove them from the hands of gangs.


It is always amazing to me how anyone can defend guns. They are created to kill things, that is their purpose, their essence, to kill just like an axe is made to cut a tree or a hammer to drive a nail. Yet somehow people argue that taking them away won't lessen killing. Comical.

It's naive, as I said, to think that banning them will "take them away." Not the case. It will simply make it slightly more difficult for people to get them.

Yes, guns are made for killing. Killing what? Sometimes animals, sometimes people. I believe people have the right to hunt, and they have the right to self-defense.

[Tony]

Originally posted by ASRomatifoso


They are created to kill things, that is their purpose, their essence, to kill...


This is just ignorance. Gun's aren't created to kill anymore than cars are created to run people over.

[Hutch]

Originally posted by Tony


This is just ignorance. Gun's aren't made to kill any more than knives are made to kill.

That is about as smart as Pickett's Charge, Tony.

Guns are made to shoot charges of metal at high velocities into other things with the sole intent to do damage that often results in death if the other thing happens to be living. Guns are not for slicing the Thanksgiving Turkey or any other uses knives are put to.

Now you can argue with some degree of success that killing with guns is a conscious act by a human being and how the scarity/availability of guns affect humans doing each other in, but you really need to shape up those one-sentence arguments.

PS, on your initial post on this thread were you trying to insult Norwegians (cnuts) or did you mean to insult women (c***s). Just curious.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Hutch

PS, on your initial post on this thread were you trying to insult Norwegians (cnuts) or did you mean to insult women (c***s). Just curious.

Niether. I was trying to insult these women.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Tony
This is just ignorance. Gun's aren't created to kill anymore than cars are created to run people over.
Interesting. When I quoted this, I thought the example was knives, not cars...

But anyway, please enlighten us as the what purpose guns are created other than to cause injury to another living thing, which may or may not (depending on the aim of the shooter) die as a result of the wound?

[Monketey Ghost]

*ahem* targets. Clay pigeons and so forth.

[corplinx]

The whole point of the criticism of the numbers in the article was that proponents use the word "children" which conjure images of well.... little children. A more apt term would have been young adults or late teens since that is the majority of the people making up the statistics cited. The use of the word children is an obvious shilling and misdirection tactic. I think its a shame that some of you are defending. If you think guns are evil and need to be banned, whatever. I can live with that. Just don't be a tool for these groups on this forum, thats annoying.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by No Answers
*ahem* targets. Clay pigeons and so forth.
Those are simply ancillary to the main purpose of the gun, the purpose that it was invented for. Target shooting and clay pigeons and so forth developed as ways for owners of guns to practice their aim. They are not the purpose of the gun.

[kittynh]

well, one place I lived had laws that required parents to keep guns they owned carefully away from children. (no not the US) If your underage child used YOUR gun to commit a crime you were also held resposible to a lesser degree. Parents try to keep their kids from taking their cars, so they were expected to do the same with their firearms. Oddly enough, it seemed to work as parents didn't want to get a hefty fine and lose their firearms (their entire collection was confiscated, though they could buy new ones). sort of like in wisconsin when they denied welfare benefits to families where the children were missing too much school. You would think just keeping your kids in school would be reason enough, but money talks.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Thanz

Those are simply ancillary to the main purpose of the gun, the purpose that it was invented for. Target shooting and clay pigeons and so forth developed as ways for owners of guns to practice their aim. They are not the purpose of the gun.

Actually, target shooting has become a sport in and of itself, especially clays. It's not unprecedented--the sport of fencing got its start from nobles learning the very-necessary skill of how to kill (or at least, not die) by sword.

[Tony]

.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Thanz

Interesting. When I quoted this, I thought the example was knives, not cars...

But anyway, please enlighten us as the what purpose guns are created other than to cause injury to another living thing, which may or may not (depending on the aim of the shooter) die as a result of the wound?
Have you ever fired one? Maybe a nice 38 special? Magnums are bit much. Rifles?

And yeah, they are made to "equalize" situations.

[pupdog]

I enjoy playing with guns; I get a certain satisfactiion from being able to hit what I aim at. But when someone begins a debate by accusing the other side of being "un-American", that person has already started with a low level of credibility. In fact, it's obvious that the person has not intended to debate, but merely shout his point of view.

[The Fool]

Tony

Don't worry, its not your fault and there is nothing you can do about it.

Your country being awash with firearms is in no way even remotely linked to your high level of gun deaths. If anything, even more guns would make things better.

Please don't ever attempt to do anything about gun related deaths of children as it will make you think someone is trying to take away your personal freedoms, it is better that the children die.

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool
Tony

Don't worry, its not your fault and there is nothing you can do about it.

Your country being awash with firearms is in no way even remotely linked to your high level of gun deaths. If anything, even more guns would make things better.

Please don't ever attempt to do anything about gun related deaths of children as it will make you think someone is trying to take away your personal freedoms, it is better that the children die.


Typical. No argument, just an appeal to emotion.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by The Fool
Your country being awash with firearms is in no way even remotely linked to your high level of gun deaths. If anything, even more guns would make things better.


Remotely? Yes. Directly causual? No, I really don't think so. And will outlawing guns eliminated said deaths? Absolutely not.

As Michael Moore showed in Bowling for Columbine, Canada has higher per-capita gun ownership, but much lower gun violence.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by corplinx
If you think guns are evil and need to be banned, whatever. I can live with that. Just don't be a tool for these groups on this forum, thats annoying.

Corp, this is a point that always frustrates me during gun discussions. I can't remember anyone on this forum ever describing guns as evil, I don't remember anyone ever suggesting guns should be banned...can you find some for me..... However, in every single gun thread it seems to be compulsory for someone to suggest that this is the position of peope proposing changes to gun restrictions? Why?

I have yet to find a single person on this board who does not agree with some restrictions on gun ownership, Isn't it simply a case of disagreement over the levels of those restrictions?

[Blarg]

So. Is somebody lying?Yes. Even CNN (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030519-110144-7123r.htm). More here. (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/states/florida/counties/broward_county/5907337.htm)

http://secure.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/news/sr20000105.html
http://chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=5300
http://chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=6082
http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_MAGAZINE/winter2003/precis_arming.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/17apr00/kopel041700.html
http://secure.mediaresearch.org/columns/news/col20000511.html
http://www.tpgfaq.org/gfhome.htm

There are extremists on both sides of the issue. Hatred, vitriol, ad hominem attacks, etc. reduce credibility on both sides of the issue.

My gripe is that damn near all you ever see or hear about guns in the media are stories about school massacres, the "gun show loophole", "cop killer bullets", "assault weapons", "allowing concealed firearms will cause blood to run in the streets", etc., etc., ad nauseam. A mostly antigun media deliberately sensationalizes antigun stories without thoroughly checking the facts(or simply lies outright), and deliberately underreports positive(or even neutral) gun stories.
A few examples, including the "plastic gun", "assault weapon", and "cop killer bullet" hysteria:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment072700a.html
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=25
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvcopk.html
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=55
http://reason.com/9407/ed.jacob.9407.shtml
http://reason.com/sullum/050903.shtml
http://reason.com/9511/GUNSfeat.shtml
http://reason.com/0006/fe.ks.loaded.shtml
http://reason.com/sullum/081401.shtml

I guess stories about how 90 million gun owners didn't kill anyone today would be too boring to get good ratings.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony



Typical. No argument, just an appeal to emotion.
So tell us, what do you think should be done about the level of gun deaths in your country? let me guess....nothing?

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool

So tell us, what do you think should be done about the level of gun deaths in your country?

Which gun deaths are you talking about? Accidents? Suicides? Gang related? Drug related? Organized crime? Plain old fashion murder?

"Gun deaths" is a broad category encompassing many deaths under many different circumstances. Not all gun deaths have the same cause and thus need different solutions.

[Hutch]

Originally posted by No Answers
*ahem* targets. Clay pigeons and so forth.


Entering George Carlin Mode (best read if you also enter that Mode)

Well, a long time ago, some people got the idea "Gee, I'd like to take a piece of metal and stick it in that other guy's heart. Hey, rocks and clubs just don't do it for me--gotta be something metal."

So people went out and made swords and spears and other neat stuff that they could stick into other peoples hearts. But there was a problem with that, you see--you had to get close enough to stick it in and if you did the f***** you were trying to stick might have a LONGER piece of metal and STICK YOU IN THE HEART. And wouldn't that just ruin your f***** day!!!

So some guy said, well, if I take this metal tube, close it off at the one end, put in some of that gunpower s*** we stole from those yellow people out east, add a lump of metal and introduce a spark, then HEY, I can put that lump of metal into that other guy from a distance before he can stick with his lump of metal!!! F****** A!!!

And that, my children, is how guns were invented. Not for target practice, not so some fat, rich (very bad words, indeed) businessman can go blow away clay pigeons. They are to stick lumps of metal into other living things!!!

Now exiting George Carlin Mode.

[Ranb]

Originally posted by ASRomatifoso


Is it naive to think that removing guns would force gangs to use knives, bats, etc. thereby killing a few less people. It is always amazing to me how anyone can defend guns. They are created to kill things, that is their purpose, their essence, to kill just like an axe is made to cut a tree or a hammer to drive a nail. Yet somehow people argue that taking them away won't lessen killing. Comical.

I think living in a violent area like Washington DC has warped your perception of what it is like to live in an area where people do not regularly murder each other. As it was noted below, guns only do one thing, shoot bullets fast. Nothing else. As far as I know, no one ever accidentally picked up a gun, then accidentally loaded it, pointed it at a person, then accidentally pulled the trigger. Killing is something done on purpose. Yet you would side with those nasty individuals who would and do criminalize gun procession and make owning them a felony. I own rifles and handguns, I do not like someone trying to make me guilty by association when a firearm is involved in a crime.

Would you find it amazing that anyone can defend guns if you find yourself in the position requiring the use of deadly force to protect yourself or the ones you love? This is not a trick question. Can you give a yes or no answer? Thanks.

Ranb

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Tony


Lil Jonny will just go get one of mommy's kitchen knives and slit his wrists. Or kill himself some other way. You are fooling yourself if you think such things will prevent suicide.



That's ok. The gang member can just buy a gun from a gun dealer. Another useless gun law circumvented.

As you can see, even using the most basic reasoning, it can be shown how such laws are pointless.

But when has reason ever stopped the unreasonable?

Yaeh but other messy forms of cry fpor help suicides may not be as successful as the old bullet to the head.

Were talking child deaths, so Im thinking child gang violence. Where I live a teen just cant waltz into the gun store and buy a gun.

The gun laws are not "useless". The problem is that gun laws are like air pollution laws. if one state has ****** laws it infects the other. Mass can do a good job of keeping guns away from thugs, but if Texas is handing them out thru vending machines you KNOw theyll make there way to Mass. So its unfait to call Mass law a failure when its being sabotaged by Texas.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by No Answers
*ahem* targets. Clay pigeons and so forth.

CLAY PIGEONS!?!?!? Thats a good one. I can imagine 200 years ago the earth was under siege by millions of clay pigeons who theatened to overrun man kind. Finnally, the invention of the gun was born, and the clay pigeon scourge has been kept in check since!


Thats like saying cars were invented because we wanted to make use of all these empty NASCAR racetracks.

[Hutch]

Originally posted by Tmy


Thats like saying cars were invented because we wanted to make use of all these empty NASCAR racetracks.

Down here in Alabama people would say "Y'all saying they WEREN'T made for that reason? What kind o'commie are you'ns, anyway." :D :D

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony


Which gun deaths are you talking about? Accidents? Suicides? Gang related? Drug related? Organized crime? Plain old fashion murder?

"Gun deaths" is a broad category encompassing many deaths under many different circumstances. Not all gun deaths have the same cause and thus need different solutions.
I would suggest you think along the lines of finding a commonality among all those different forms of gun violence. You may want to consider ways that factors that may be common to all gun violence may be addressed....any ideas what may be common to all gun deaths? How about if I say gun one more time?

[Bentspoon]

Quote from Fool: "Corp, this is a point that always frustrates me during gun discussions. I can't remember anyone on this forum ever describing guns as evil, I don't remember anyone ever suggesting guns should be banned...can you find some for me..... However, in every single gun thread it seems to be compulsory for someone to suggest that this is the position of peope proposing changes to gun restrictions? Why?

I have yet to find a single person on this board who does not agree with some restrictions on gun ownership, Isn't it simply a case of disagreement over the levels of those restrictions?"
End quote

Very nicely made point and it is the reason I don't engage in these much anymore - it is just pointless. You cannot make a point or statement that it isn't immediately construed as "ban the guns". There can be opinions that re different but it always is interpreted as "ban the guns" no matter what you say.

I have often talked about the cowboy mentality and this is truly a problem of people as opposed to guns. However, whenever I try to get a gun advocate on this board to see this line of reasoning, I get a bunch of rhetoric about "ban the gun".

The most adamant of gun supporters on this forum preach this cowboy mentality and will not discuss it civilly.

Those people that walk around with guns, ready to enforce what's right at a moment's notice and has utter and complete confidence in their ability to accurately and safely discharge their guns in the face of some chaotic situation are scary. It is not about guns, it is about the people that use them. The gun advocates on this forum have left me thinking that gun advocates are of this metality.

It is not un-American to have a conflicting opinion.

Bentspooon

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Bentspoon
gun advocates on this forum have left me thinking that gun advocates are of this metality.

Bentspooon

But not all of them are like this. Talk to Wolverine for a perfectly rational, reasoned argument for keeping guns in America

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy

Were talking child deaths, so Im thinking child gang violence.

Child gang violence?? No such thing exists. Do gangs of armed 5 years olds roam the streets where you come from?

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool

I would suggest you think along the lines of finding a commonality among all those different forms of gun violence. You may want to consider ways that factors that may be common to all gun violence may be addressed....any ideas what may be common to all gun deaths?

Don't be so shallow. You're attacking the symbol of the problem, not the problem itself (what else is new?). The reasons for those criminal activities go much deeper than the gun.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Bentspoon


It is not un-American to have a conflicting opinion.



That's a strawman.

Besides that, nice post.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony


Don't be so shallow. You're attacking the symbol of the problem, not the problem itself (what else is new?). The reasons for those criminal activities go much deeper than the gun.
Shallow? attacking the symbol of the problem?....Lol.

I believe we are discussing Gun violence.
Gun violence requires guns.

The sheer volume of cheap available handguns is most definitely a part of the problem. How may cheap thugs do you imagine would be packing a handgun down thier pants if handguns cost $2000 on the black market? Dammit, people would just have to go back to punching and kicking each other to decide who was the toughest dude ....would you rather be involved in a fistfight or a gunfight?


by all means lets consider and work on the underlying reason why people are criminal and violent. In the meantime, while you are doing your research, how about we do something about the massive number of cheap unregistered handguns you are flooded with. I've seen violence without guns and I've seen violence with a few guns and I've seen violence with a lot of guns....guess which one leads to more dead people.

[DaChew]

Originally posted by Bentspoon
Those people that walk around with guns, ready to enforce what's right at a moment's notice and has utter and complete confidence in their ability to accurately and safely discharge their guns in the face of some chaotic situation are scary.
Bentspooon

Do you find police officers scary?

Originally posted by The Fool
The sheer volume of cheap available handguns is most definitely a part of the problem. How may cheap thugs do you imagine would be packing a handgun down thier pants if handguns cost $2000 on the black market?

Don't you think this will lead to a situation in which only the wealthy will have guns?

Aristotle:
Hippodamos planned a city with a population of ten thousand, divided into three parts, one of skilled workers, one of agriculturists and a third to bear arms and secure defense. But the legal restriction of arms bearing to a given class would mean that the farmers have no arms, the workers have neither land nor arms; this makes them virtually the servants of those who do possess arms. In these circumstances, the equal sharing of offices and honours becomes an impossibility. And since those who possess arms must be superior in power to both the other sections the constitution proposed by hippodamos would breed inequality and discontent.
(Aristotle, Politics 71 [trans. T. Sinclair, 1962])

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool

how about we do something about the massive number of cheap unregistered handguns you are flooded with.

By all means do something, but don't infringe my rights while you are doing it.

[Tmy]

Im actually for gun ownership. I dont own one now, but maybe someday. At the same time Im cool with some gun regulations. These are dangerous instruments. I dont think its a horrible thing to try and keep them out of the hands of criminals, crazies, and kids.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy
I dont think its a horrible thing to try and keep them out of the hands of criminals, crazies, and kids.


So I guess results mean nothing to you? As long as they are trying?

[Tmy]

Of course Im into results. The fox article really tells us nothing about results. Theyre national numbers, but we have different state laws.

Your right when the press coverage is biased. When I hear shooting stories I wonder if the guns were legal or if not, where they came from. That info is usually not known or given by the news.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy
Of course Im into results.

Then why is simply trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and kids good enough?

And why should we try to keep guns out of the hands of kids? What makes you think it will work anymore than trying to keep kids from having sex or doing drugs? Shouldn't emphasis be put on education?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Tony


Then why is simply trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and kids good enough?

And why should we try to keep guns out of the hands of kids? What makes you think it will work anymore than trying to keep kids from having sex or doing drugs? Shouldn't emphasis be put on education?

How about doing both?

By guns away from kids, I dont mean supervised hunting and the like.

Just cause soem criminals and kids will slip through doesnt mean we stop trying. Ifthat was the standard then why have any laws, there will always be people who circumvent them!

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Cleon
As Michael Moore showed in Bowling for Columbine, Canada has higher per-capita gun ownership, but much lower gun violence.
Hmm. An interesting point. If I may draw a parallel, we invaded Iraq because we didn't want them to have Weapons of Mass Destruction. It is was not because WMDs are inherently bad, after all, the US has them. Lots of them. It is because we did not trust the Iraqis to use them responsibly. Perhaps the reason for taking guns away from Americans is not because guns are bad, but because Americans have shown that they are not capable of using them responsibly, as compared to much of the rest of the world.

But this is just a interesting idea, not an opinion.

And I'm guessing a much higher percentage of Canada's guns are of the more traditional hunting variety.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy

Ifthat was the standard then why have any laws

Gun laws are different because they create a victimless crime by trying to control guns (drug laws are the same). Thus the standards should be different. If those laws fail, why should we continue to infringe on people's freedom?

[DaChew]

Originally posted by Tricky

Perhaps the reason for taking guns away from Americans is not because guns are bad, but because Americans have shown that they are not capable of using them responsibly, as compared to much of the rest of the world.

But this is just a interesting idea, not an opinion.

When I first read your post, I thought you were trying to draw a comparison between Saddam Hussein and law abiding American gun owners. You're not are you?

However, I don't think that Americans have shown they are not capable of using guns properly. Considering the millions upon millions of law abiding gun owners in the U.S. who own and use millions upon millions of firearms safely and lawfully every year, don't you think that, on the whole, the vast majority of Americans have shown themselves capable of using them responsibly?

I think it would be interesting to see the number of gun crimes committed by law abiding gun owners. Take the total number of gun crimes and eliminate the suicides and those committed by those not legally allowed to have firearms such as felons and minors.