I have an "assault rifle" now. fear me you liberals!

[Richard G]

I bought a black glass filled nylon stock for my SKS with a hand grip and everything. I just slipped it in and it now looks like an "ASSAULT RIFLE." I AM DEATH. I AM HELL ON WHEELS. MY BLACK STOCK AND PISTOL GRIP WILL ENABLE ME TO DESTROY ENTIRE CIVILIZATIONS. High capacity 30 Round magazines make me the manifestation of PURE SATANIC EVIL.

[Tony]

let us know when you've bagged your first gun-control advocate. :D

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Richard G
I bought a black glass filled nylon stock for my SKS with a hand grip and everything. I just slipped it in and it now looks like an "ASSAULT RIFLE." I AM DEATH. I AM HELL ON WHEELS. MY BLACK STOCK AND PISTOL GRIP WILL ENABLE ME TO DESTROY ENTIRE CIVILIZATIONS. High capacity 30 Round magazines make me the manifestation of PURE SATANIC EVIL.

LOL.

BTW, I'm one of those militant liberals, I own guns too ;)

No, I'm not really militant, but I do own guns, and plan to get more. I've been shooting since about age 10 and hunting since I was about 14, that's what happens when you grow up in Arkansas ;)

Anyone who thinks that guns give them any real power are fools. Maybe if anarchy breaks out, otherwise, its pretty much for home defense, target shooting and hunting. Whoopie.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Malachi151


LOL.

BTW, I'm one of those militant liberals, I own guns too ;)

No, I'm not really militant, but I do own guns, and plan to get more. I've been shooting since about age 10 and hunting since I was about 14, that's what happens when you grow up in Arkansas ;)



Perhaps you do have some redeeming qualities after all. :p

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Malachi151


that's what happens when you grow up in Arkansas ;)


That explains some things. From the "speedtraps" north or the "catfish hut" south part?

[Checkmite]

Got a pump-action 12-guage in the closet. I don't think I have any rounds for it, I used them all last winter. However, Eddie the Burglar doesn't know that; and if he's smart enough to figure out a way to somehow circumvent my Elvis the German Shepherd Security System(TM), then he's smart enough not to take the chance that my gun isn't loaded, if I present it correctly. Even if he does decide to chance it, being smacked firmly upside the head with a 12-guage war club ought to convince him to dream peacefully while I wait for the boys in blue.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by corplinx


That explains some things. From the "speedtraps" north or the "catfish hut" south part?

Well actually I grew up in both Flroida and Arkansas, divorced parents. Mostly catfish hut south and Little Rock though. Arkansas is like one big city. You don't stay in one part of Arkansas, you travel to all parts just tryng to find something to do. People in Arkasnas dirve A LOT :D

I spent more time in Flroida actually, I'm in Arkansas now, and moving back to Florida within like a month.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Richard G
I bought a black glass filled nylon stock for my SKS with a hand grip and everything. I just slipped it in and it now looks like an "ASSAULT RIFLE." I AM DEATH. I AM HELL ON WHEELS. MY BLACK STOCK AND PISTOL GRIP WILL ENABLE ME TO DESTROY ENTIRE CIVILIZATIONS. High capacity 30 Round magazines make me the manifestation of PURE SATANIC EVIL.

Post pics!

[Frostbite]

Do you have kids? One day they'll open the broom closet, take the rifle and play with it and kill themselves. Won't be us liberals' fault.

[KelvinG]

Just out of curiousity, what do you primarly use an assault rifle for? Hunting? Target practice? Or is it just a conversation piece?
I'm not trying to make a morale judgement on gun ownership, I'm just curious.

[Monketey Ghost]

And is the penis pump working? Or is it still tiiiiny?

[DavidJames]

"I bought a black glass filled nylon stock for my SKS with a hand grip and everything. I just slipped it in and it now looks like an "ASSAULT RIFLE." I AM DEATH. I AM HELL ON WHEELS. MY BLACK STOCK AND PISTOL GRIP WILL ENABLE ME TO DESTROY ENTIRE CIVILIZATIONS. High capacity 30 Round magazines make me the manifestation of PURE SATANIC EVIL."

So I guess that penis enlargement device didn't work

[Khalid01]

You won't be using that new-fangled gun of yours to kill those strawmen of yours, will you?

[Silicon]

I don't care. Since you're 33 times more likely to shoot a member of your own family with it than an intruder.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Silicon
I don't care. Since you're 33 times more likely to shoot a member of your own family with it than an intruder.

Jesus, the comedy.

There are 80 million gun owners in the United States. If they were shooting their families, no one in the country would be left alive, would they?

JK

[Silicon]

That's right!

"Oopsie, is that an intruder? Or junior getting a sandwich in the night? "

"Hey, wanna see where my dad keeps his gun?"

"Don't worry, it's not loaded."

"I swear, Ellie-may, you go kissin' on my brother again, you don't even wanna know me!"



The Gunnies can kill their families.

And the meek will inherit the Earth!

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Do you have kids? One day they'll open the broom closet, take the rifle and play with it and kill themselves. Won't be us liberals' fault.

Only a moron would leave an unsecured gun in a house with kids.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Just out of curiousity, what do you primarly use an assault rifle for? Hunting? Target practice? Or is it just a conversation piece?
I'm not trying to make a morale judgement on gun ownership, I'm just curious.

I once had the chance to hold a banned "assault rifle". It was a top of the line AK-47. The fit and finish was excellent. The 7.62mm round it fired was nice enough. The 30 round clip meant you could fire a good time without breaking your stance to change magazines. It fed like a champ.

You couldn't rapid fire with this weapon. It is semiautomatic and if you shoot too rapidly you lose all possibility of hitting thr target.

The wood stock on the gun and the hole which formed a sort of grip were so ergonomic. It was a pleasure to hold.

A properly made ak-47 is a feat of machinery and ergonomics. Its art that only those who can see beyond their programming can understand.

You could use it for hunting deer. You can manually feed one round into it and use no magazine so that it will be lighter to carry. The military sights are excellent for sporting purpose. You don't need a scope if you are actually a good shot.

For military fans or machinists, it can make a good "non shooting gun". Simply put, don't ammo for it. Have fun breaking it down and putting it back together. Elian Gonzales should know how to field strip one now in less than minute. See what kind of fun he is having.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by corplinx


Only a moron would leave an unsecured gun in a house with kids.
absolutely correct, and you all do such a good job of fighting for the rights of morons to continue to do it. Apparently, If morons are not allowed to leave unsecured loaded guns in houses with children then the liberty of americans is destroyed.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by The Fool

absolutely correct, and you all do such a good job of fighting for the rights of morons to continue to do it. Apparently, If morons are not allowed to leave unsecured loaded guns in houses with children then the liberty of americans is destroyed.

unfortunately that is true, i prefer the liberty for many over fascism designed to protect .0001% any day

[Ian Osborne]

I don't know why gun-control advocates bother posting here. All they need to do is wait for someone like Richard G or Tony to post garbage like this, and sit back and watch while their case is made for them.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
I don't know why gun-control advocates bother posting here. All they need to do is wait for someone like Richard G or Tony to post garbage like this, and sit back and watch while their case is made for them.


The thing is, there is no "case" to be made. The second amendment is a fundamental right. Like freedom of speech.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Richard G
I bought a black glass filled nylon stock for my SKS with a hand grip and everything. I just slipped it in and it now looks like an "ASSAULT RIFLE." I AM DEATH. I AM HELL ON WHEELS. MY BLACK STOCK AND PISTOL GRIP WILL ENABLE ME TO DESTROY ENTIRE CIVILIZATIONS. High capacity 30 Round magazines make me the manifestation of PURE SATANIC EVIL.

Are you compensating for something?

[King of the Americas]

...ahh, those weapons of vast destruction.

I don't own any, but I know folks who do because I've seen them with mine own eyes, AK-47's, SKS's, M-16's, and even a 55 mm tripod mounted hamburger maker.

My lead slinger is but an over sized hand cannon at .357 mag.

'I' wouldn't own an assault rifle, because in ANY kind of assault, I would be killed fast and easy (due to my wheelchair bound status). Nah, I'd take a higher position, and a high power centerfire round, and a scope to put the crosshairs on the bad guys from far away.

Why is it important to have 'guns' who's purpose is beyond hunting?

Because 'hunting' is the last on the list of valid reasons to keep guns accessible to the citizenery.

[Frostbite]

In the case of a burglar entering my home, I'd rather let him run away with whatever he wants and claim insurances rather than use a damn firearm to put an end to his days. Thieves are human beings, they don't necessarily deserve death or near-fatal injuries for material things. However in the case of a rapist or murderer, I guess that's another story...

[King of the Americas]

....not to mention the law breakers...

I think when it comes to justice, one would HAVE to weigh the infraction blindly. Murder is Murder is Murder, and it is NOT jaywalking. Three candy bar theifs does NOT a felon make.

I think it would be very difficult for me NOT to shoot someone full of holes who I 'found' to be raping and or murdering any one of my loved ones.

I just hope that I don't try to make them suffer...much...before they die.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Frostbite
In the case of a burglar entering my home, I'd rather let him run away with whatever he wants and claim insurances rather than use a damn firearm to put an end to his days. Thieves are human beings, they don't necessarily deserve death or near-fatal injuries for material things. However in the case of a rapist or murderer, I guess that's another story...

If you have the opportunity to shoot and kill a dangerous home-invading predator but choose not to because of 'insurance', that is stealing from the insurance company. It is not the insurance company's fault your home got invaded. It is not your fault either. Never question the motives of a dangerous criminal predator engaged in a crime against you.

JK

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Do you have kids? One day they'll open the broom closet, take the rifle and play with it and kill themselves. Won't be us liberals' fault.

No. But even if I did, unless they beat each other over the head with it, they can't kill themselves - because I don't have any ammunition.

[Dancing David]

Cool man! Some of us liberals are gun nuts too, I thought firing an AK-47 was cool, although I tore up the turf at first. My most favorite weapon so far has been aSprinfield M-1 grand, I put the second shot through the hole from the first, Man that thing is sweet. I still hope to fire one of those big Brownings someday.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


If you have the opportunity to shoot and kill a dangerous home-invading predator but choose not to because of 'insurance', that is stealing from the insurance company. It is not the insurance company's fault your home got invaded. It is not your fault either. Never question the motives of a dangerous criminal predator engaged in a crime against you.

JK

In Illinois you'd better make sure that the burglar actaully poses a threat. So after you shoot them it is best to put a weapon in thier hand. There was a case where some poor guy was charged and convicted for manslaughter or assault because he shot a home intruder who was on thier way out the door.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Dancing David


In Illinois you'd better make sure that the burglar actaully poses a threat. So after you shoot them it is best to put a weapon in thier hand. There was a case where some poor guy was charged and convicted for manslaughter or assault because he shot a home intruder who was on thier way out the door.

The home-invader poses a threat just by being inside your home. It probably all boils down to the person doing the shooting and their professional history.

Take me, for example. Chances are I would not have to kill any home intruder because I am that good. But some single 125 lb. female with a gun isn't going to be sent to jail for gunning down a 210 pound masked home intruder, and I don't care what state she lives in.

Now, if there are two or more people in your home invading it, you can gun them all down because that is a very high threshhold of danger to you. A shotgun or high-velocity handgun ammunition is ideal for such circumstances (any ammunition that travels at least 2000 feet per second). Wearing steel toe boots to kick the intruders in the areas you shoot them always helps to keep them subdued. Just ignore the screams. If you have a wife or girlfriend living with you, make sure that they have tools too like a baseball bat for secondary attacks to subdue the invaders. Shooting an intruder in the leg followed up with a nasty strike with a baseball bat by your girlfriend or wife on that same leg usually can take care of the situation pretty quickly. Stun guns work great too, if you can teach your kids how to fire those. So between the wife with the bat bashing the intruder's brains in, the kids with stun guns, you with a shotgun or Desert Eagle sending rounds through them, chances are you will do well in a home invasion. An angry pit bull helps too.

After they are gunned down and beaten into submission, duct tape works good for taping their hands together like handcuffs or if you have flex-cuffs handy they are ideal. The police will appreciate how well you have taken care of the situation when they arrive and you will be community heroes.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Hey, that would make a great movie. I like it.

JK

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight



After they are gunned down and beaten into submission, duct tape works good for taping their hands together like handcuffs or if you have flex-cuffs handy they are ideal. The police will appreciate how well you have taken care of the situation when they arrive and you will be community heroes.

JK

JK, you are out of your mind if you let them live. Dead men tell no tales nor do they bring lawsuits. My advice to my wife was (and is) "just keep pulling the trigger till it clicks".

[kittynh]

Never try to scare an intruder with an empty gun, unless you have emtied it into the intruder.

My sweet little doggies (that have been trained by my psycho neighbor -the ATF is gonna invade him soon), don't bark unless given the order to bark. They bite whenever they think they should. My last defense is the guinea pig "whoopwhoop!" If someone gets past all that, heck, take whatever you want.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


If you have the opportunity to shoot and kill a dangerous home-invading predator but choose not to because of 'insurance', that is stealing from the insurance company. It is not the insurance company's fault your home got invaded. It is not your fault either. Never question the motives of a dangerous criminal predator engaged in a crime against you.

JK

My insurance will apply if there was forceful entry.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


No. But even if I did, unless they beat each other over the head with it, they can't kill themselves - because I don't have any ammunition.

Whatever, it's still a bad example to own a gun.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ed


JK, you are out of your mind if you let them live. Dead men tell no tales nor do they bring lawsuits. My advice to my wife was (and is) "just keep pulling the trigger till it clicks".

lol

JK

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Frostbite


Whatever, it's still a bad example to own a gun.

A bad example to whom?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Frostbite


Whatever, it's still a bad example to own a gun.

Owning a gun is a constitutional right, a god-given right. It is an example of the free-man, the moral man.

It is a 'bad example' not to follow the 2nd Amendment as an American citizen.

JK

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Owning a gun is a constitutional right, a god-given right. It is an example of the free-man, the moral man.

It is a 'bad example' not to follow the 2nd Amendment as an American citizen.

JK

Are you saying that anyone who chooses not to own a gun is a bad citizen?

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Owning a gun is a constitutional right, a god-given right. It is an example of the free-man, the moral man.

It is a 'bad example' not to follow the 2nd Amendment as an American citizen.

JK

It's a right, not an obligation. And owning a gun is a bad example for kids. They should be taught to solve their problems using words, not violence.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Frostbite


It's a right, not an obligation. And owning a gun is a bad example for kids. They should be taught to solve their problems using words, not violence.

Gun ownership does not imply violence.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Frostbite


Whatever, it's still a bad example to own a gun.

Allowing an unsecured weapon in the home is a bad example.

The worst example is toy guns! Never, ever , ever, I was raised in a gun family.
Rule One: Guns are never toys, toys are never guns.
Rule Two:You never point a gun at something you don't want a hole in.
Rule Three: Youi fool with a gun and you don't get it back.



Guns are worse than swords and knifes only becasue of thier power. The reason that I don't let my son have toy guns is because guns are never toys. The chances that my son will come across a live sword blade are very slim.

[Gideon S]

My friends and I have concealed carry permits (texas), so my gun (a 9mm automatic) is sort of part of my everyday wardrobe. Mostly, I leave it home (or in my car) if I'm going out bar-hopping or whatever, since it is technically illegal to carry a weapon into a bar.

The other night, I was at a bar with some of my friends (and some friends of friends, two of them being off duty cops). We were standing outside on the patio area, passing a joint in a circle, and one of my friends looked down and saw his boot was untied. He bent down to tie it, lost his balance and fell over. His weapon became exposed, and one of the cops laughed at him and said "Whoa buddy, doing drugs, drunk in public, and carrying a concealed firearm. Good thing you aren't black!" and the two cops had a good laugh at his expense.

moral of the story? There's no moral. Carrying a gun in public is kinda dumb, and laws can be ignored as much as possible as long as there's no disturbance. Had he taken his gun out and waved it around, he'd be in jail for a long, long time.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Allowing an unsecured weapon in the home is a bad example.

The worst example is toy guns! Never, ever , ever, I was raised in a gun family.
Rule One: Guns are never toys, toys are never guns.
Rule Two:You never point a gun at something you don't want a hole in.
Rule Three: Youi fool with a gun and you don't get it back.



Guns are worse than swords and knifes only becasue of thier power. The reason that I don't let my son have toy guns is because guns are never toys. The chances that my son will come across a live sword blade are very slim.

My dad (God bless his soul) took me out shooting his M-1 Garand when I was 10 years old. As I was firing it he taught me how important it was to learn the weapon because he used it to kill Jap soldiers in WWII.

Looking back on it, the training my father gave me helped me when I later joined the army and went to war. Even though I used an M-16, an M2 .50 caliber machine gun, an M-203 and an M-60 in war, starting out with the M-1 Garand was a great first step in learning how to engage enemy soldiers on the battlefield.

All thanks to dad. :)

JK

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Gideon S
My friends and I have concealed carry permits (texas), so my gun (a 9mm automatic) is sort of part of my everyday wardrobe. Mostly, I leave it home (or in my car) if I'm going out bar-hopping or whatever, since it is technically illegal to carry a weapon into a bar.

The other night, I was at a bar with some of my friends (and some friends of friends, two of them being off duty cops). We were standing outside on the patio area, passing a joint in a circle, and one of my friends looked down and saw his boot was untied. He bent down to tie it, lost his balance and fell over. His weapon became exposed, and one of the cops laughed at him and said "Whoa buddy, doing drugs, drunk in public, and carrying a concealed firearm. Good thing you aren't black!" and the two cops had a good laugh at his expense.

moral of the story? There's no moral. Carrying a gun in public is kinda dumb, and laws can be ignored as much as possible as long as there's no disturbance. Had he taken his gun out and waved it around, he'd be in jail for a long, long time.

Again, I just want to point out that I'm not making a morale judgment on gun ownership. Naturally I have my opinions on the issue, but there are many other threads to discuss that in.

But I can say with certainty that I would feel less than safe living in a place where anyone could be walking around carrying a gun. Perhaps I'm just saying this because I grew up in a culture where gun ownership was relatively rare (handguns for sure), so the idea just strikes me as totally odd.

So, if some of you feel that being allowed to carry guns around is a good thing, more power to you.
I'm just glad I'm not living in one of those places.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by KelvinG
So, if some of you feel that being allowed to carry guns around is a good thing, more power to you.
I'm just glad I'm not living in one of those places.

We're glad you aren't either. It takes moral men and extraordinary gentlemen to live like we do.

JK

[corplinx]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
....not to mention the law breakers...

I think when it comes to justice, one would HAVE to weigh the infraction blindly. Murder is Murder is Murder, and it is NOT jaywalking. Three candy bar theifs does NOT a felon make.

I think it would be very difficult for me NOT to shoot someone full of holes who I 'found' to be raping and or murdering any one of my loved ones.

I just hope that I don't try to make them suffer...much...before they die.

In Memphis recently, a criminal who got out of jail went back in business. He started burglarizing homes in a few neighborhoods. He became a local scandal. He couldn't be caught.

Imagine you are in your wheelchair and he broke into your home. Imagine how powerless you would feel. Imagine how violated you might feel as he robbed your home right in front of you.

Those feelings never go away.

Police patrols were increased in the area. People actually thought this would help for soem reason. People are still programmed to think that somehow police magically prevent crime. However, they merely respond to it. In this case, they responded to over _60_ burglaries.

Finally this man was stopped. (http://www.abc24.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=0B4C95A1-577B-4B5B-A394-77223EE8C4C8)

Just think, you could have been another victim or a hero.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


We're glad you aren't either. It takes moral men and extraordinary gentlemen to live like we do.

JK

I think I'm with Kelvin on this one. I've been in a few interesting situations in my time. I think if I lived in a country where people habitually carried guns I'd be dead by now.

I don't like the sound of that.

I've never been threatened by a criminal with a gun or even seen a gun away from the hands of a policeman (and a special branch chappy at that - the regular police are, of course, unarmed).

The only time I've seen guns in any number is when we were kids and we used to drive through Northern Ireland on our way to see my grandparents. I've never seen anyone so young and scared looking as the British soldiers at the border checkpoints. Not the sort of expressions you want on the faces of en with guns at all, IMO.

Anyway, maybe one of you gun-toting types could explain to my how I would be better off if guns were freely available.

I don't want to hear about your constitutional rights or anything. What you do in your own country is up to you. What I'd like to know is - do you think my country and I would be better off if people habitually and legally carried firearms.

Thanks,

Graham

[Graham]

Sorry, I told a little lie there (but accidentally . . . honest).

I once went salmon fishing on Lough Foyle with a guy who kept a shotgun in the boat for taking potshots at seals when they got in the nets.

Other than that though, no guns!

Graham

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Graham


do you think my country and I would be better off if people habitually and legally carried firearms.


Productivity would probably go up overnight seeing as how it would probably be against the law to carry while intoxicated. Who am I kidding though, I seriously doubt an Irishman would pick concealed carry over the pub.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Graham

Anyway, maybe one of you gun-toting types could explain to my how I would be better off if guns were freely available.

I don't want to hear about your constitutional rights or anything. What you do in your own country is up to you. What I'd like to know is - do you think my country and I would be better off if people habitually and legally carried firearms.


Exactly. Never once in my life have I felt my rights were being infringed upon because I can't carry a handgun.
In fact, I've always felt my rights to safety and security were enhanced by the fact that others aren't walking around with guns.

I can indeed think of some ugly situations that I've encountered that might have gotten a lot uglier had the participants had guns.

[Graham]

Originally posted by corplinx


Productivity would probably go up overnight seeing as how it would probably be against the law to carry while intoxicated. Who am I kidding though, I seriously doubt an Irishman would pick concealed carry over the pub.

Racial slurs aside, is it against the law to carry whilst intoxicated in the States?

Graham

[John Harrison]

Originally posted by Silicon
I don't care. Since you're 33 times more likely to shoot a member of your own family with it than an intruder.

I don't suppose you could actually provide some type of cite for this, can you?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Graham


Racial slurs aside, is it against the law to carry whilst intoxicated in the States?

Graham

There are many laws. You can't carry in a federal government building. You can't carry in a public park in some states. You can't carry into any private establishment with a sign posted saying you cannot (most private establishments don't post these signs ofr obvious reasons, someone lawfully carrying a firearm is not the person who robs you). You can't carry into a bar in most states. Each state has its own laws but most of them are pretty similar.

Here in my state they are trying to have the law changed from carrying in bars to carrying while intoxicated because so many american bars are also restaurants nowadays.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by corplinx

Here in my state they are trying to have the law changed from carrying in bars to carrying while intoxicated because so many american bars are also restaurants nowadays.

You mean they are just figuring out now that carrying a gun while intoxicated is not such a good idea!!

[Graham]

Originally posted by corplinx


There are many laws. You can't carry in a federal government building. You can't carry in a public park in some states. You can't carry into any private establishment with a sign posted saying you cannot (most private establishments don't post these signs ofr obvious reasons, someone lawfully carrying a firearm is not the person who robs you). You can't carry into a bar in most states. Each state has its own laws but most of them are pretty similar.

Here in my state they are trying to have the law changed from carrying in bars to carrying while intoxicated because so many american bars are also restaurants nowadays.

Interesting. Presumably any and all of these laws infringe upon your rights but in a manner that is considered acceptable by the majority. This would imply that the right to carrry a firearm is a contingent right (ie a righat as long as you're not in a park ro a school or a pub or on designated-gun-free private property, etc, etc) rather than an absolute right.

Can you provide a sensible answer to my initial question? How would we be better off if our society had free access to guns?

Graham

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Graham


Can you provide a sensible answer to my initial question? How would we be better off if our society had free access to guns?

Graham

About 100 miles east of me lie the country roots of my mother's family. They need a weapon for simple stroll through the woods. Once in a while, there is a confrontation with a feral dog, wolf, or some other nice beast. They also use weapons for hunting. They live in relative poverty. Not miserable poverty but the kind you get from having simple needs and a good outlook. They stock up on venison, rabbit, and squirrel during hunting season. They can vegetables every year. Guns are just a tool to them like a plow or a fishing rod. They don't have trigger locks and gun safes. Violent crime is nonexistant. Children are taught how to handle, clean, and respect a firearm as soon as they are old enough. There are very few accidents. Most "hunting accidents" are caused by city dwellers on excursions. Their society does quite well with firearms and they don't comprehend the outright fear some people have of them.

I live in a metropolitan area. In fact, its the metro area of the on and off again most violent city in America. Memphis is usually the carjack and murder capital of the states. In most cases, its the unarmed victimized by the illegally armed. I am one of the few legally armed. 1 in 6 people in Tennessee have a concealed carry permit. Unfortunately, they are also the types to live in a gated community, have a security system, and are generally more aware of their surroundings. Ergo, they are less likely to have to draw that firearm. In case they do, studies show that an armed intended victim has a much higher rate of surviving a crime and a much higher rate of not being victimized altogether.

So, I think my urban society is much better off with _legal_ firearm carry than without, for the few people who take advantage of it. Memphis is a stopping point in the drug pipelines coming out of Mexico. I have no doubt that a gun ban would be just as useless as the drug ban. In short, a gun ban would only prevent law abiding me from owning a firearm, not the gangs.

[Jedi Knight]

Europeans are pretty hilarious. They rag on Americans for owning guns, yet when ethnic cleansing was taking place in the former Yugoslavia they were like: "close the borders."

Hundreds of thousands of unarmed men, women and children were ethnically cleansed because of that.

Anyone who seeks to disarm men of the god-given right to bear arms is an enemy of freedom and an enemy of life.

JK

[Gideon S]

Originally posted by Graham


Racial slurs aside, is it against the law to carry whilst intoxicated in the States?

Graham

There are a lot of laws about where and how one can carry a gun in my home state: bars are off limits, so are banks and convenience stores, liquor stores, schools, etc. However, like many other laws they are often ignored when inconvenient or ignored completely.

Laws only stop law-abiders.

FUN FACT: it is also illegal to carry a handgun in your car in TX without a concealed carry permit *unless* you are crossing county lines for a duration of more than a day. So if stopped, most cops assume (unless they're going to haul you in for it) that you are "spending the night with some friends in the next county."

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Anyone who seeks to disarm men of the god-given right to bear arms is an enemy of freedom and an enemy of life.

Does that include the US army, who are currently imposing firearms restrictions in Iraq? And do you up[hold the rights of the Iraqi gun-owning population to resist these measures with force?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Richard G
I bought a black glass filled nylon stock for my SKS with a hand grip and everything. I just slipped it in and it now looks like an "ASSAULT RIFLE." I AM DEATH. I AM HELL ON WHEELS. MY BLACK STOCK AND PISTOL GRIP WILL ENABLE ME TO DESTROY ENTIRE CIVILIZATIONS. High capacity 30 Round magazines make me the manifestation of PURE SATANIC EVIL.

How DARE you come in here and say this and not post a picture!!!! :eek:

Come on, man! Let's see it!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Silicon
I don't care. Since you're 33 times more likely to shoot a member of your own family with it than an intruder.

Source?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Frostbite
In the case of a burglar entering my home, I'd rather let him run away with whatever he wants

Including your daughter? Son? Wife?

However in the case of a rapist or murderer, I guess that's another story...

How do you know what his intentions are at the time it breaks in? What will you say to your daughter when you refuse to act until he starts to rape her, subjecting here to intense psychological trauma, possible for life?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
If you have the opportunity to shoot and kill a dangerous home-invading predator but choose not to because of 'insurance', that is stealing from the insurance company.

:eek:

D*mn...Not only do I agree 100% with JK on something, I have to admit that he made a REALLY good point!

Excuse me...I'm going to look for more signs of the apocalypse... :p

[shanek]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Are you saying that anyone who chooses not to own a gun is a bad citizen?

The Second Amendment gives someone the right to bear arms. It doesn't force them to. Upholding the Second Amendment doesn't mean you have to own a gun yourself, it just means you can't act to deprive others of that right.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Frostbite
It's a right, not an obligation. And owning a gun is a bad example for kids. They should be taught to solve their problems using words, not violence.

How is a pubescent girl being raped by two heavyset guys supposed to "solve her problem using words"?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


Does that include the US army, who are currently imposing firearms restrictions in Iraq? And do you up[hold the rights of the Iraqi gun-owning population to resist these measures with force?

That is one of the biggest strawmen I have seen in months.

JK

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by shanek


How is a pubescent girl being raped by two heavyset guys supposed to "solve her problem using words"?

Sh*t happens. Still, let policemen do their jobs. I don't think people should have firearms in their homes.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Frostbite


Sh*t happens. Still, let policemen do their jobs.

Nobody is saying the shouldn't. A policeman's job is to respond to a crimes when they are reported. They arrive, take a report, and leave. Nobody is saying they should not do this. However, if you do not wish to be victimized by crime, the best way is to carry a firearm.

[corplinx]

Woohoo, another career burglar with over 60 suspected homr robberies has been shot dead by his victim!

That makes two in the past week. Unlike the justice system, guns solve the problem of repeat offenders. If only more people were armed _and_ trained these career burglars would have much shorter careers.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Frostbite


Sh*t happens. Still, let policemen do their jobs. I don't think people should have firearms in their homes.

When the US Supreme Court declares that government is responsible for crime and the US government is liable for $25,000,000 per person killed in crime in the United States--then we can talk gun-control.

JK

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by corplinx
Nobody is saying the shouldn't. A policeman's job is to respond to a crimes when they are reported. They arrive, take a report, and leave. Nobody is saying they should not do this. However, if you do not wish to be victimized by crime, the best way is to carry a firearm.

So, you seriously think you can make a better world by carrying a firearm? I think it's a vicious circle. I think you can make a difference by taking the initiative of NOT carrying a firearm. You can help making the world a place where people talk it out instead of gun toting around. I know it sounds idealistic, but I think it's at least possible.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by corplinx
Woohoo, another career burglar with over 60 suspected homr robberies has been shot dead by his victim!

That makes two in the past week. Unlike the justice system, guns solve the problem of repeat offenders. If only more people were armed _and_ trained these career burglars would have much shorter careers.

I don't think killing someone solves any problem unless it's a serial killer or repeated child mollester (for the record, I am for the death penalties for these extreme cases). A robber! What bad has he done except steal material possessions? Instead, you're living in an environment where people are getting killed everyday for (although potentially dangerous) illegal entering on private properties. I think it's ridiculous.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Frostbite


So, you seriously think you can make a better world by carrying a firearm? I think it's a vicious circle. I think you can make a difference by taking the initiative of NOT carrying a firearm. You can help making the world a place where people talk it out instead of gun toting around. I know it sounds idealistic, but I think it's at least possible.

You just don't get it because you don't understand nature is cruel. No one in the US is liable for your death in crime--the USSC said so. They said government has no liability in your protection. All police action occurs after the crime. There is no pre-crime and no rights for victims.

That is where your right to bear arms comes into play. If you think nature isn't cruel, run around disarmed. That is your right. But you do not speak for the millions of other gun owners and their rights.

Just ask the politicians that got laughed out of office last election when they didn't figure that out.

JK

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Frostbite


I think you can make a difference by taking the initiative of NOT carrying a firearm. You can help making the world a place where people talk it out instead of gun toting around. I know it sounds idealistic, but I think it's at least possible.

You are simply naive. Me carrying a gun doesnt make the world any worse. In the worst case scenario, I might prevent a crime and there would be one less crook in the world.

I think you've watched too many old westerns with cowboys toting guns and talking trash.

Legally carrying a concealed firearm can make this world a better place much better than being a victim can.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You just don't get it because you don't understand nature is cruel. No one in the US is liable for your death in crime--the USSC said so. They said government has no liability in your protection. All police action occurs after the crime. There is no pre-crime and no rights for victims.

That is where your right to bear arms comes into play. If you think nature isn't cruel, run around disarmed. That is your right. But you do not speak for the millions of other gun owners and their rights.

Just ask the politicians that got laughed out of office last election when they didn't figure that out.

JK

Which doesn't change the fact that as a human being, you have the choice to make your part to make the world a better place to live in. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be comfortable living in a world where everyone has a firearm in their house.

[Jim Lennox]

I guess everyone uses non lethal ammo for self defence, don't they?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Frostbite


Which doesn't change the fact that as a human being, you have the choice to make your part to make the world a better place to live in. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be comfortable living in a world where everyone has a firearm in their house.

I don't care what people have in their houses. I hope they all have assault rifles with tens of thousands of rounds of ammo at their disposal.

It is none of my business what people do in their homes, nor is it any of yours and especially governments.

JK

[Frostbite]

That would be a good start. Replace killer guns with rubber bullets, pepperspray, tasers and other neutralizing weapons.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Frostbite
That would be a good start. Replace killer guns with rubber bullets, pepperspray, tasers and other neutralizing weapons.

Yes. I prefer to use rubber bullets against a criminal with the real thing.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You just don't get it because you don't understand nature is cruel. No one in the US is liable for your death in crime--the USSC said so. They said government has no liability in your protection. All police action occurs after the crime. There is no pre-crime and no rights for victims.


JK

This is so true. It came out of a case in DC a few years ago where two women called the cops who came and left and a bad guy came back and raped them. They sued and it was found that the PD had not legal obligation to protect. Don't believe it? Go to any PD website and find what they will commit to in terms of their obligations.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by corplinx
Yes. I prefer to use rubber bullets against a criminal with the real thing.

Rubber bullet or the real thing, the guy goes down. What's the difference to you if the guy gets sent to the hospital or to the morgue?

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
I don't care what people have in their houses. I hope they all have assault rifles with tens of thousands of rounds of ammo at their disposal.

It is none of my business what people do in their homes, nor is it any of yours and especially governments.

JK

Well then it's not worth debating if you don't care.

[John Harrison]

Originally posted by Frostbite

Rubber bullet or the real thing, the guy goes down. What's the difference to you if the guy gets sent to the hospital or to the morgue?

I'm curious: How much experience do you have with the use of less lethal ammunition? It appears from your statements that you know very little, but I want to be sure before I explain how they work.

[John Harrison]

Originally posted by Frostbite

Which doesn't change the fact that as a human being, you have the choice to make your part to make the world a better place to live in. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be comfortable living in a world where everyone has a firearm in their house.

Am I to understand that sacrificing your life to a violent criminal will make the world a better place? How exactly does that work? (Please be specific)

[Ed]

Originally posted by Frostbite


Rubber bullet or the real thing, the guy goes down. What's the difference to you if the guy gets sent to the hospital or to the morgue?

If a person is a threat to your life the only reasonable response is to eliminate the risk, the only way to do that is to kill him. If you wish to play the odds with your own life by either doing nothing or begging or using rubber bullets or throwing pies that is strictly your business.

[Jim Lennox]

So how come you can't get proper assault rifles?

What if your home is invaded by loads of ethnically generic men who want to rape your daughter/wife?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox
So how come you can't get proper assault rifles?

What if your home is invaded by loads of ethnically generic men who want to rape your daughter/wife?

I understand your wit. Please understand this: There are some people who would protect themselves by use of deadly force. If such an action is not for you, so be it. Surely self defence is understandable to you and you will not gainsay a persons right to it. As I pointed out, there are alternatives to self defence by violent means, you are free to avail yourself of them if the unfortunate need arises.

[Jim Lennox]

Ed,

Thank you for you reply.

I understand and respect your position.

So why does Richard G want his pistol to look like an assault rifle?

It sounds to me like he wants to scare people.

There is far too much mystique and prestige associated with gun ownership which I think causes the problems rather than the actual weapon itself.

If guns are just viewed as tools (which I'm sure they are in some communities) then why do 12 year olds get them out to play with?

Why do you need more than one gun?

Fair enough, it's a hobby. I can answer that one.

Guns have become a part of American culture. There's no escaping it.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox

Guns have become a part of American culture. There's no escaping it.


Guns have always been part of american culture. Its not a recent obsession.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Sh*t happens.

Wonderful. Go to a rape crisis center sometime and tell that to the victims there.

Still, let policemen do their jobs.

As has been shown in this forum many times, court case after court case has shown that the police have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to defend individuals.

[Jim Lennox]

Guns have always been part of american culture. Its not a recent obsession.

So why don't you just say that to the anti-gun crowd?

It's part of our culture!

Nobody could argue with that.

Is it Mozambique that has a picture of an assault rifle on their flag? No-one is moaning at them.

I say you need to give guns to geeks to make them uncool. Even better, anyone who wants to carry a gun has to wear a Star Trek t shirt and thick specs.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox
So how come you can't get proper assault rifles?

What if your home is invaded by loads of ethnically generic men who want to rape your daughter/wife?

Your sarcasm aside, many LA shopowners wondered that very thing during the riots. Many of them tried to get them to defend themselves and were denied.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Rubber bullet or the real thing, the guy goes down.

That just isn't true. Usually the worst you ever get from a rubber bullet is a concussion or broken ribs. Yeah. Make the guy mad. That'll work so well for your personal safety... :rolleyes:

Rubber bullets are great for crowd control, but lousy for personal defense. It's laughable that you would even bring it up as an option.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox


So why don't you just say that to the anti-gun crowd?

It's part of our culture!



I don’t think the anti-gun crowd really cherishes American culture, or the constitution for that matter. If they did, they wouldn’t lobby to take away a constitutional right.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Frostbite


Rubber bullet or the real thing, the guy goes down. What's the difference to you if the guy gets sent to the hospital or to the morgue?

Let's make a deal. You take a handgun self-defense class and come back and discuss this again. They will spend much of the class "deprogramming" you of the misinformation you have picked up.

No, a rubber bullet does not drop someone well. The purpose of a bullet is to punch a hole. You don't see big splatters and massive hollywood exit wounds. It pokes a hole in the person's body. For self-defense, you aim right at the middle of the assailants chest. The idea is you keep shooting holes until their blood pressure drops enough so that they collapse. A modern trauma center will be able to keep this person alive. A rubber bullet simply does not suffice for self-defense, nor does pepper spray. Self-defense ammo is made to mushroom on impact so that the tissue damage will be greater and ergo the blood pressure will drop faster. When you hear a horror story about cops shooting a guy 17 times, its because the person didn't fall to the ground and ergo still presented a threat. You fire until the problem is solved. You don't "leg" someone to leave them for authorities or tell them to "freeze".

Rubber bullets are for riot control.

I will make a deal with all the gun-control fans that live in america on this forum. Attend a handgun self-defense class and then lets have a debate. There is just too much misinformation I see in these threads about basic gun safety, operation, and tactics.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox

Thank you for you reply.

I understand and respect your position.

So why does Richard G want his pistol to look like an assault rifle?

[b]God knows. I, personally, never saw the appeal of military looking weapons, though I like some military weapons. For example, I think that the Luger pistol is a masterpiece of design. The modern stuff is plastic and alloy and has a repellant look, C'est la vie. Guns are like women in this respect: You critisise a man's choice at your peril. Let me be clear, I absolutely support his ownership of any gun (ugly as it might be) completely

It sounds to me like he wants to scare people.

Well ... some styles (like Goths) have an element of shock intrinsic to them. Underneath Richard's firearm simply replaces an expended cartridge with a new one with one pull of the trigger, like 100's of other firearms. If we really wanted to scare people and ever brandished his firearm, he would be locked up. I'd love to start a thread on the aethetics of weapons but it would quickly degenerate to to an argument on ownership, per se.

There is far too much mystique and prestige associated with gun ownership which I think causes the problems rather than the actual weapon itself.

Maybe. I'd argue that the weapon itself gets in the way of serious discussion of the nature of the collecting

If guns are just viewed as tools (which I'm sure they are in some communities) then why do 12 year olds get them out to play with?

Criminally negligent parents

Why do you need more than one gun?

From a utilitarian standpoint, different guns have different uses. From a collecting standpoint ... Well do you collect anything? Would one of anything be enough?

Fair enough, it's a hobby. I can answer that one.

Guns have become a part of American culture. There's no escaping it.


I contributed to a thread some time ago where I pointed out that we here are two generations away from having frontiers. There is a place called "number 3" that is about 200 miles from me (on the Connecticut river) that was a fort that defined the frontier between the British colonies and areas controlled by Indians. How old is Hadrians wall, again? My Dad could have shaken hands with Bat Masterson and Wyatt Earp. It was not that long ago. Custer was massacered just over 100 years ago. Bat Masterson died thirty years before I was born. See what I mean?

[Richard G]

How DARE you come in here and say this and not post a picture!!!!

I would love to. I've never bought a digital camera though. I'm far too busy investing in, and keeping my armory up to date.

[Frostbite]

Ok Ok, I don't know jacksh*t about rubber bullets or any other type of weapon. You got me there. But from up here (Canada), you guys sounds like a bunch of gun-toting homicidal maniacs. You guys wanna have guns in your homes? Can't wait for the next opportunity when you get to actually shoot a trespasser down? I have NO PROBLEM with that. But I'm not gonna bring a firearm into mine. Not in my country. And YES, I'd ABSOLUTELY prefer being a martyr and an example than to shoot someone down.

Thank you. Have a nice day.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tony
I don’t think the anti-gun crowd really cherishes American culture, or the constitution for that matter. If they did, they wouldn’t lobby to take away a constitutional right.

At least not without going through the proper procedure of amending the Constitution.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Ok Ok, I don't know jacksh*t about rubber bullets or any other type of weapon. You got me there. But from up here (Canada), you guys sounds like a bunch of gun-toting homicidal maniacs. You guys wanna have guns in your homes? Can't wait for the next opportunity when you get to actually shoot a trespasser down? I have NO PROBLEM with that. But I'm not gonna bring a firearm into mine. Not in my country. And YES, I'd ABSOLUTELY prefer being a martyr and an example than to shoot someone down.

Thank you. Have a nice day.

Excellent. Do you have any loved ones, martyr? How do they feel about that? There is no one you know or love that you would defend? No one? Are you saying that your wife, mother, kids, whoever should be allowed to die so that you can make a political statement?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Ok Ok, I don't know jacksh*t about rubber bullets or any other type of weapon. You got me there. But from up here (Canada), you guys sounds like a bunch of gun-toting homicidal maniacs. You guys wanna have guns in your homes? Can't wait for the next opportunity when you get to actually shoot a trespasser down? I have NO PROBLEM with that. But I'm not gonna bring a firearm into mine. Not in my country. And YES, I'd ABSOLUTELY prefer being a martyr and an example than to shoot someone down.

Thank you. Have a nice day.

Unfortunately, I do not live in low-crime Canada. I live near to the most violent crime ridden city in America. I think you and I have different realities that dictate our needs.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by corplinx


Unfortunately, I do not live in low-crime Canada. I live near to the most violent crime ridden city in America. I think you and I have different realities that dictate our needs.

Cause, meet Effect. Effect, Cause.



I neeeeeeds me some guns to protekt me from alll theeeeesse GUNNNNNNZZZZ!!!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Silicon
Cause, meet Effect. Effect, Cause.

Presumption, meet post hoc ergo propter hoc. Post hoc, presumption.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by shanek


Presumption, meet post hoc ergo propter hoc. Post hoc, presumption.

Poster, meet "brevity is the soul of wit."

Wit, meet the fact that a snappy retort can't possibly be humorous with the addition of long strings of latin phrasiology from a Logic 101 text.


The point I was making is, you can't end a cycle of violence with more violence. Putting more guns into the equation doesn't reduce the causes of violence, so it doesn't actually provide security, it lessens it.


That's the old saw "If force doesn't work, you aren't using enough!"

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Silicon


The point I was making is, you can't end a cycle of violence with more violence.

That is nice enough sounding, but unfortunately it isn't true.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by corplinx


Unfortunately, I do not live in low-crime Canada. I live near to the most violent crime ridden city in America. I think you and I have different realities that dictate our needs.
You live near Chicago? (http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2003/01/01/news/local_illinois/accc9671358a116c86256ca00074163d.txt)
As of Tuesday, Chicago had recorded 645 homicides for the year, compared to 656 for Los Angeles, which last updated its total on Sunday. New York recorded 575 homicides as of Sunday.

In 2001, Chicago topped the list with 665 homicides. New York had 646, and Los Angeles had 596.

When populations are taken into account, though, it is a different story. In killings per 100,000 people, Chicago had a higher rate than Los Angeles, which has about 800,000 more residents. And Chicago was far higher than New York, which has more than 5 million more residents than Chicago.
BTW, Chicago has had a ban on handguns since 1982. You can see for youself it's effectiveness.

Also, from here: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0211270185nov27.story)
If the theory conjures up mathematically painful school classes you loved to skip, here's a real-world application, based on the verity that many homicide cases (at least 53 in Chicago last year) begin as robberies:
Apparently many robbers aren't only interested in your wallet, they want your life too. I have met many people here who have used a handgun to thwart a robbery (usually senior citizens), these aren't reported to police here as it would get the potential victim arrested for violating the handgun law, which is a felony here. No, you don't have to kill the robber, just showing them the gun will suffice.
I know several cops here, none of them think the gun ban is a good idea. In fact, I have never met any cop who thought so. The only ones who support the ban are the police chiefs, they do so because the mayor wouldn't give them the job if they thought otherwise.

[WildCat]

Oh, BTW, Mayor Daley is a big proponent of gun bans. He also has a 24 hr. armed police guard around his home and person. :rolleyes:
Apparently it's only ok for him to be protected by firearms.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by Ed
Excellent. Do you have any loved ones, martyr? How do they feel about that? There is no one you know or love that you would defend? No one? Are you saying that your wife, mother, kids, whoever should be allowed to die so that you can make a political statement?

No, I'm saying that there's 0.00000000001% chance that an armed person will get inside my home and kill me so it's not worth living in a state of constant fear for that. I'm also saying that as a free individual you have the choice to abandon old constitutional rules that were written 200 years ago in a climate of war and make the first step in ridding your country of intentional and unintentional violence.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by corplinx


Unfortunately, I do not live in low-crime Canada. I live near to the most violent crime ridden city in America. I think you and I have different realities that dictate our needs.

Well in that case, I'm sorry. I understand we live in two different contexts so it's logical we don't think alike.

[Frostbite]

For the record, I'm also against a gun ban. A ban simply means more black market.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Silicon
Poster, meet "brevity is the soul of wit."

Wit, meet the fact that a snappy retort can't possibly be humorous with the addition of long strings of latin phrasiology from a Logic 101 text.

Poster, meet "sarcastic comment."

Meet the fact that the addition of long syllables is a quite effective use of sarcasm.

And meet the fact that the main point is that you never established causality to begin with; you assumed it based on nothing more than your own biases.

The point I was making is, you can't end a cycle of violence with more violence. Putting more guns into the equation doesn't reduce the causes of violence, so it doesn't actually provide security, it lessens it.

That's not what the statistics show. Read More Guns, Less Cime by John Lott.

That's the old saw "If force doesn't work, you aren't using enough!"

What you fail to understand is that you are the one advocating force here—disarmament has been a very effective force used by tyrants throughout history.

What we're advocating here is freedom. And as history has proven time and time again, freedom is very effective at ending cycles of violence.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Frostbite
No, I'm saying that there's 0.00000000001% chance that an armed person will get inside my home and kill me so it's not worth living in a state of constant fear for that.

Here's that old, tired tactic again! Who says any of us are living in a state of fear?

I'm also saying that as a free individual you have the choice to abandon old constitutional rules that were written 200 years ago in a climate of war

Maybe you should take the time to actually research the history of the Second Amendment. It was the most highly debated of all the Constitutional articles. Check it out; I think what the debate was really about may surprise you.

[tedly]

Dear shanek

I'm a pistol shooter, and Canadian, and a gun nut of long standing. But... It behooves us sometimes to examine the most self-evident things we believe in. You have cited Lott's "More guns, Less Crime" several times. Would you take a look at "Nine Crazy Ideas in Science: A Few Might Even Be True" by Robert Ehrlich?

Dear corplinx

You talked of your family that use guns as tools. Here's my favourite non-data point on the rural-urban split on guns. I was at a Public Health Science cocktail pary with my wife and several socially conscious friends. One of them, a consultant and Ph.D. in lactation, aka Ms Breast-feeding, got into me on gun control. She felt that guns put people, particularly children, at risk, and they should be banned. I suddenly realised that, where I lived, all -ALL- my neighbours owned guns, and I felt secure enough there that I didn't lock my house or my car. I pointed this out to her and then remembered that she lived in West Bentknee, Manitoba. As I recall the converstaion went
Tedly: But you live in Bentknee, don't you? Don't your neighbours own guns?
Ms B-f: No, we live on a farm outside town, and none of our neighbours have GUNS!
Tedly: You're on a farm, and you dont't have a gun around?
Ms B-f: Of course not!... Oh well, there is the shotgun.

Orwell told us that doublethink is he ability to hold two conflicting thoughts or values at the same time without noticing it. This woman has two visions, one is a powder actuated pest control device, and when she sees a skunk she thinks of getting the shotgun. But in any discussion of social values when you say the word gun she sees an AK-47.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by shanek


What you fail to understand is that you are the one advocating force here—disarmament has been a very effective force used by tyrants throughout history.



Actually, I didn't speak in favor of disarmament by force, you inferred that's what I meant.

I meant disarmament by choosing to understand that owning a gun lessens your own personal security.

By a large margin, people are murdered by someone they know. If you are so threatened for your life that you need a gun to protect you, you'd be much better off just changing the people in your life. That's real security, not imagined.

The idea that a gun is a deterrent to crime can only work if the following things are true:

1. Everyone, armed and unarmed, is sane, rational, and values self-preservation.

2. Guns only fire when their proper owners desire it, and only when lethal force is justified.

3. Bullets always hit their intended targets, and nobody else.


If all those three things were true, I'd be handing out guns right and left.


As it is, yeah, I've had two cars stolen while I was in college. But here I am, 36 years old, and I'm damn glad I didn't have a gun when either was happening.

I'd rather be sitting here as a 36 year old man who had two cars stolen, than as a man who killed a 15 year-old-boy out for a joyride. And I'll tell you, I was probably mad enough to kill when both happened.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by tedly
Dear shanek


Dear corplinx

You talked of your family that use guns as tools. Here's my favourite non-data point on the rural-urban split on guns. I was at a Public Health Science cocktail pary with my wife and several socially conscious friends. One of them, a consultant and Ph.D. in lactation, aka Ms Breast-feeding, got into me on gun control. She felt that guns put people, particularly children, at risk, and they should be banned. I suddenly realised that, where I lived, all -ALL- my neighbours owned guns, and I felt secure enough there that I didn't lock my house or my car. I pointed this out to her and then remembered that she lived in West Bentknee, Manitoba. As I recall the converstaion went
Tedly: But you live in Bentknee, don't you? Don't your neighbours own guns?
Ms B-f: No, we live on a farm outside town, and none of our neighbours have GUNS!
Tedly: You're on a farm, and you dont't have a gun around?
Ms B-f: Of course not!... Oh well, there is the shotgun.

Orwell told us that doublethink is he ability to hold two conflicting thoughts or values at the same time without noticing it. This woman has two visions, one is a powder actuated pest control device, and when she sees a skunk she thinks of getting the shotgun. But in any discussion of social values when you say the word gun she sees an AK-47.

That was so well put, I am surprised to see it on this forum and in a gun related thread. Good points.

[John Harrison]

Originally posted by Silicon
I meant disarmament by choosing to understand that owning a gun lessens your own personal security.


Another person posted a similar comment, but ignored our requests for a cite. Can you provide one?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Silicon
I meant disarmament by choosing to understand that owning a gun lessens your own personal security.

That quote is the gun-control lie of the century.

Tell me this Silicon--if you are sent into a war without a weapon, is your personal security increased or are you stupid for not having one?

JK

[Ed]

Originally posted by Silicon


Poster, meet "brevity is the soul of wit."

Wit, meet the fact that a snappy retort can't possibly be humorous with the addition of long strings of latin phrasiology from a Logic 101 text.


The point I was making is, you can't end a cycle of violence with more violence. Putting more guns into the equation doesn't reduce the causes of violence, so it doesn't actually provide security, it lessens it.


That's the old saw "If force doesn't work, you aren't using enough!"

I examined the data contained here
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

It contains a variety of data for deaths due to fire arms, both homicide and suicide. Unfortunately most of the countries contained in this data set do not have information regarding % of households having guns, 17 do, however.

Taking a quick crack at at analyzing the data demonstrated, to me at least, that the presence on guns (as they defined it) has a very weak relationship to firearm homicides. I dropped both the US and N. Ireland from the computation since they are significant outliers (if I add them back in the net effect is a weaker relationship :D ). That said for the 15 remaining countries the rsquare is less than 10% (9.87 as I recall). This means that less than 10% of the reported variation in gun homicides is due to changes in the presence of firearms in the home. Granted that this is a simple model but it suggests that >90% of the varience in gun homicides is due to the factors other than home gun availability. In the world of analysis, when you are looking for a big effect, this is a non-starter. The MOST you can say is that there is a weak positive relationship between guns in the home and gun related homicide. For reference, about 85% of the sales of a product in the store is due to price. That IS a relationship that you can leverage.

Firearm sucide is another matter. Fully 40% of those deaths can be explained by the availability of guns. Sad but true.

But, and this is a big but, there is a very strong relationship between non gun suicide and gun suicide (46%) which suggests that "where there is a will there is a way. To put it another way, people who wish to kill themselves, will. Non-gun suicide, incidentially has an essentially random relationship to the presence of guns.

So, unless there is data to the contrary, I'd pretty much afferm that guns, per se, do not beget violence.

[Ed]

I found stats by state for %hh with a gun and gun deaths/100000 population.

Nothing there, at all.

[shanek]

Originally posted by tedly
You have cited Lott's "More guns, Less Crime" several times. Would you take a look at "Nine Crazy Ideas in Science: A Few Might Even Be True" by Robert Ehrlich?

Sure, when I get the chance. I don't recall hearing about that title before. Thanks!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Silicon
Actually, I didn't speak in favor of disarmament by force, you inferred that's what I meant.

I meant disarmament by choosing to understand that owning a gun lessens your own personal security.

Then I apologize. If your intention is to rid the world of guns through peaceful persuasion, then all the best to you.

By a large margin, people are murdered by someone they know.

And a lot of people are murdered by complete strangers. So what? In either case, personal disarmament removes one method of defending yourself.

The idea that a gun is a deterrent to crime can only work if the following things are true:

1. Everyone, armed and unarmed, is sane, rational, and values self-preservation.

How so?

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, in "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research Report (July 1985), 3/5ths of all felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun," and 74% of felons agreed that, "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."

2. Guns only fire when their proper owners desire it, and only when lethal force is justified.

And the alternative is, what? Guns going off on their own????

Or maybe you're considering the criminal would be firing a gun. But how are you going to stop that? Criminals, by definition, don't follow the law.

3. Bullets always hit their intended targets, and nobody else.

What the (*&^ is this supposed to mean?

It's irrelevant, anyway, since, as has already been pointed out, over 80% of the time it's not necessary to even fire the gun.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by John Harrison


Another person posted a similar comment, but ignored our requests for a cite. Can you provide one?


"Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill an intruder."

That's the oft-quoted figure from Arthur Kellerman's article "Protection or Peril" published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
(New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.)


It's a figure that I often found myself quoting, as it came from a reputable source.

Reading some critical writings on it now, I'm not sure I'd cite it anymore.

Here's a great website I found that sheds doubt on the study. It's from a second-amendment advocacy group, but the logic looks sound. It seems the data that the original study was based on was flawed.

I'll take a look at it and maybe amend my opinion on the merits of keeping a gun as self-protection in the home.

Thanks for forcing me to take a critical look at the data.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

[WMT1]

Originally posted by corplinx
Unfortunately, I do not live in low-crime Canada. I live near to the most violent crime ridden city in America. I think you and I have different realities that dictate our needs.

Originally posted by Silicon
Cause, meet Effect. Effect, Cause.

Pay close attention:

Cause = Bad guys using guns to commit crimes against good guys.
Effect = Good guys needing guns to defend themselves against the bad guys.


The point I was making is, you can't end a cycle of violence with more violence.

Actually, you can certainly make strides in that direction with properly directed violence, if the effect is to remove from the "cycle" some of those who are initiating the violence in the first place.


Putting more guns into the equation doesn't reduce the causes of violence, so it doesn't actually provide security, it lessens it.

Your comment makes no distinction between putting more guns into the hands of those who would use them to commit aggression, and those who would use them for protection. It's a distinction that matters.