Guns

[shadow_dragon]

I'm still confused on your wording here. I'm oversimplifying, but when it all boils down, you need two things to commit a gun crime: a gun, and a crime. The gun is self-evident. Where is the crime?

Within the context of the example the crime can be anything, what i'm saying is how any gun crime boils down to 50/50 situations when the victim also has a gun due to the fact that should that victim manage to thwart the gun crime with his gun then some people will happily use the situation as an example of crime prevention and clearly forgetting it was a gun crime to start off with. (I never said the victim was guilty of a crime only that without the gun crime there would be no crime to thwart)

For example the one you used, Dimebag Darrel i think you said, i know nothing of the actual circumstances but you said someone started shooting up the place and was eventually thwarted when someone else shot him.
This is not a simple case of crime prevention because the gun crime doesn't fizzle into nothingness just because it was ended.

There is no distinction, just because the victim wins doesn't make the crime non existant, it just makes it a failure, it is infact a gun crime AND a gun related crime prevention and thus nullifies the example. The only example for crime rpevention that would work is one where a gun was not involved on the criminals part, then those examples would make more sense. To me at least.

In fairness to stop a gun crime you need a gun because the whole point in a gun is to keep your foes at a distance and thus you need an equally matched weapon to tackle them but the whole idea is that if the criminal didn't have access to the gun in the first place.

I apologise if it still doesn't make sense, i never did make a good student.

 

[Israphel]

Motz, cheers for the reply.

When I said the gun ownership in the UK has never been a right like it is in the US, what I meant was the right to CARRY guns. Now, in England, even before the handgun ban, while you were permitted to own a handgun, carrying it in public (in your bag, in the glovebox of your car) was against the law. This law exists basically because of the belief that there is no reason why people should take a gun into a public place.
I believe in the US it's different, (isn't it called "concealed carry" or something), and that with a legal firearm, you can carry it in your bag or car in some states.

So, when handguns were banned in the UK, there wasn't any change in the number of people carrying guns to protect themselves in public, because no-one had ever done so before. So there was no realisation for muggers et al to think that it was easier to rob the general populace in the street now that they were unarmed...as they hadn't been armed in the first place. Therefore, as the vast majority of shootings in the UK happen in the street (where there has been no change in the legal status of peoples right to carry guns), then I don't think that there is any real connection between the legislation and the rise in shootings.

So what it the cause? Well, I had a look round on the internet for articles, and obviously found 10 articles giving 10 different reasons (such is the use of the internet for "facts"). One thing that I will state though is that for years now the Police in the UK have been stating for the need to have more officers on the street. When I was a kid growing up in England, you regularly used to see police walking the street....now you don't. The Police Chiefs claim that they don't have the manpower anymore, and a significant reason for this is the rise in beaurocracy that is endemic in ALL aspects of England at the moment, and the obssession with security from terrorism since the 9/11 attacks.

I'm not saying this is the definitive reason why gun crime has increased in the UK, I believe there are many contributing factors, but many high ranking Police officials believe that this is a significant one.

The point that you raised about whether I would have been attacked if I had been carrying a gun I think is a void point. When someone is going to mug you, they arm themselves with a weapon that will give them an advantage. In the society that I live in, a knife is enough. However, if I lived in a society where guns were more prevelent, then he would almost certainly feel the need to arm himself with a gun to maintain his advantage..and that was my point. Better a ripped coat, than him thinking that because I might be armed he should arm himself with a gun in order to mug me.

The point raised about Hitler is interesting, but inaccurate. Hitler's national socialist party was democratically elected in March 1935. He was supported by the people of his country because he made huge economic improvements to the country..the populace had no interest in getting rid of him. Even at the height of WW2, when the Holocaust was at its worst, the majority of German people were not aware of the atrocities (they were told that the Jews were deported), and still supported the government. The media are a powerful tool, and one that Hitler used, along with peoples need for patriotism, to keep power.

Compare with Iraq, where the population were armed (not just the ruling Baath party) yet still suffered a tyranical leader. And if you don't like that example, then how about Portugal (my home) which suffered 60 years of dictatorship, despite the fact that guns were widespread within the general populace.

I accept your reasons for owning a gun, and thinking about it this morning it occured to me that because of centuries of dense population in Europe, we have no real wilderness left (at least, not in the West)...not like America which has only a few hundred years of major inhabitation. Perhaps this is why hunting, both for sport and food, is so much more popular in your country than here...And I also accept that there are major cities that border these widerness' (like LA and the Mojave) and that its not unusual for dangerous animals (like Coyotes) to enter peoples gardens or whatever. In Portugal, we just have a particularly vicious jelly-fish , so guns have no place.

You raised an interesting point in a later post:

Education diminishes curiosity. Both my kids know what my guns are, what they are for and why they are not toys to be touched by them. I take them hunting and they know what happens when things are shot. They know where their food comes from. It's not always the market.

And I have to say that this made me think a lot. Despite my abhorrence for guns, I generally (against my principles on firearms) think that you are right here. When I was a kid, it was common for me to have a glass of wine with my family at dinner..even from the age of about 9. The first time I drank too much when I was around 11 was when I learned about how you deal with alcohol. Portugal has a very similar culture, people drink at home with their family from childhood, and there is no culture here of being stupidly drunk when you get to adolescence...in short, alcohol kind of loses its cache of as something cool, it's everydayness makes it normal..and as people are used to it, the abuse of it (ie drunkeness) is looked upon as something stupid and really uncool. Hence Portugal has no problem with drunken anti-social behaviour. Go in any bar here, you will rarely see people getting drunk...and this is in a country with very few restrictions on alcohol. Bars open all night, they are very cheap, and people can more or less find a bar to go to that will serve them alcohol from pretty much 14 years upwards. The reality is that people don't want to get drunk.

So I guess education is the only answer. For sure, legislation will not work...especially not in a country like the US where guns are already so much a part of your culture. And perhaps your point about teaching kids at an early age is the only way forward.

I hate guns. I do not want them in society. But realistically, prohibition and legislation does not work and never will...so better ways have to be found.

EDIT: Shadow Dragon, your point makes perfect sense, and I believe \/\/orf understands it too. I suspect he is being disingenius..but the reality is that you'll never agree. Worf believes (as he has every right to do so) that it is his right to carry a weapon if he chooses, and that legislating against it wouldn't help prevent gun crime (and because guns are so prevelent in America, he's probably right). You are using the logic of what I said in my story about the knife attack above...that when you have a gun to defend yourself, then attackers will also use guns to maintain an advantage...and this therefore cannot be called crime-prevention., just an increase in the stakes. I agree with you, but then again, we both live in cultures where guns aren't as everyday as they are in the US.

 

[W0RF]

Can you describe this myriad of uses? What non-violent or threatening use does a gun have other than hunting? can opener?

Hobbyist's collection. Next.

I can't believe this is even a discussion...im not even talking about taking them away regardless of threat here, im just on the basics that having a machine lying around that is specifically designed to be efficient at killing people (yes, with the bullets *sigh*) is a good thing?!?!?

Yes. So you're right, why is this even a discussion?

Within the context of the example the crime can be anything, what i'm saying is how any gun crime boils down to 50/50 situations when the victim also has a gun due to the fact that should that victim manage to thwart the gun crime with his gun then some people will happily use the situation as an example of crime prevention and clearly forgetting it was a gun crime to start off with. (I never said the victim was guilty of a crime only that without the gun crime there would be no crime to thwart)

But now you're assuming that every instance of guns as prevention has to involve the criminal having a gun. If a criminal pulls a knife on me, and I pull a gun on him, I'd be surprised if he decided to go through with it. I have just prevented a NON-GUN crime.

As for Dimebag, obviously the cop didn't prevent the killings that already happened, do you really think someone here is saying that? I'm saying look at the FURTHER lives he saved by using his firearm.

 

[_Zd_Phoenix_]

Hobbyist's collection. Next.

Condescending as ever, but that is neither a myriad, or a practical use.

Yes. So you're right, why is this even a discussion?

Because when i said it before, you didn't take it in the way it was intended and ascribed a pedantic flase meaning when there was non.

 

[shadow_dragon]

But now you're assuming that every instance of guns as prevention has to involve the criminal having a gun. If a criminal pulls a knife on me, and I pull a gun on him, I'd be surprised if he decided to go through with it. I have just prevented a NON-GUN crime.

Not entirely!

.........The only example for crime prevention that would work is one where a gun was not involved on the criminals part, then those examples would make more sense. To me at least.

Though i understand why you'd have that impression from what i said.

As for Dimebag, obviously the cop didn't prevent the killings that already happened, do you really think someone here is saying that? I'm saying look at the FURTHER lives he saved by using his firearm.

Even if he had prevented those that did die, (Remember the actual circumstances were unknown to me, i meant no malice or suggestion that the prevention was failing for not being 100% succesful, the fact it saved lives at all is a good thing.) it was still a gun crime only seen as a gun prevention by the fact that it was eventually ended via one and when you think about it, or at least when i think about it, how else do you counter a gun crime?
The best defense is a good offense but then sint it easier to merely take the offense away, i guess like Bush tried to do with Iraq's supposed WOMD. You wouldn't need to prevent crimes with guns if crimes weren't commited with guns, if you get me, though i admit they'd still be handy for preventing crimes without guns.

 

[W0RF]

Condescending as ever, but that is neither a myriad, or a practical use.

It's not condescending. And you never said it had to be practical. And why on earth do you NEED a practical use anyway? What's the PRACTICAL use of a video game console? It doesn't cure cancer or feed the homeless, guess we shouldn't be allowed to have them because they're not practical...

Because when i said it before, you didn't take it in the way it was intended and ascribed a pedantic flase meaning when there was non.

And YOU are still accusing the guns of doing the killing.

how else do you counter a gun crime?

That's exactly why you shouldn't take them out of the hands of responsible citizens who have never committed a crime with them.

You wouldn't need to prevent crimes with guns if crimes weren't commited with guns

You don't take away cars to prevent vehicular homicides. You don't take away a Ginsu collection to prevent stabbings. You don't take away fertilizers to prevent another Oklahoma City. So why take away guns to (ostensibly) prevent gun crimes?

 

[O.S.T]

Guns don't kill people......


people with guns kill people

no sh't, dude?

 

[shadow_dragon]

You don't take away cars to prevent vehicular homicides. You don't take away a Ginsu collection to prevent stabbings. You don't take away fertilizers to prevent another Oklahoma City. So why take away guns to (ostensibly) prevent gun crimes?

You don't take away cars to prevent vehicular homicides because it's not homicide, it's not a crime it's an accident and the vehicle is used for transport not killing ,or destroying from a distance.
You don't take away a Ginsu collection to prevent stabbings. I have a feeling concealed weapons/knives are considered the same thing as a gun but kitchen knives have another purpose as do vehicles.
You don't take away fertilizers to prevent another Oklahoma City because they're being used on farms for another purpose other than what happened in oklahoma city. (To which i am ignorant of the circumstances i admit)
So why take away guns to (ostensibly) prevent gun crimes? because guns ahve no other purpose.

Is it not also true that oxygen itself responsible for the slow decay of most life forms? Why did you not use that as an example it's just as valid as vehicles and the counter arguments for msot of that have already been produced in this thread i believe.

Also would you consider me a hipocrate if i told you that i infact own two fully battle ready swords, three battle axes and three throwing axes aswell as a seven foot halberd? If so is that because you consider there is no difference between a sword and a gun?

(I should say that, for the most part i agree with what Israphel said in his post, it was well thoguht out and made i believe.)

 

[})FA|Snake]

That's not quite my point either. My point is that jsut because a gun is used in thwarting a crime doesn't mean it's not a gun crime in the first place. Example = if niether of them had guns in the first place would it have happened?

Banning guns does not remove them, our point is the criminal would have that gun regardless of what the law says....cause i mean the law saying you can't mug someone didn't stop him.

Just as an example, Florida passed shall-issue concealed carry laws in 1987. In the following ten years it issued 350,000 Concealed carry permits. Out of those 350,000 permit holders, only 1 homicide was ever commited

Somthing from my research paper:

Washington DC, our nation's capital, also known as the murder capital of the USA, by far having the highest murder rate of any city in the United States. Interestingly enough this city also another distiction, that is since 1976 it has been the only city in the United States to have in place a complete and full handgun ban. According to statistics compiled of thirty-two major American cities from FBI and Police department homicide units accross the country, our nations capital has a murder rate of 45.8 murders per 100,000 residents, a far cry from the national average of 13.73 murders per 100,000 residents. Additionally while nationwide homicides decreased by an average of 1.2%, Washington DC saw an increase in murders by 13%. Washington DC is but a single example showing how banning the legal ownership of firearms by private citizens not only does not prevent violent crime, it can in many circumstances lead to an increase in crime rates. By stripping law abiding citizens of the right and ability to protect themselves, we only leave them vunerable to assault by those who hold no regard for the law.

 

[shadow_dragon]

Banning guns does not remove them, our point is the criminal would have that gun regardless of what the law says....cause i mean the law saying you can't mug someone didn't stop him.

I hate this argument by the way.
Yes! Criminals who break the law will still break the law and probably manage to get a gun if it is against the law to own one. God forbid you make it hard for them to get it though eh? Also it would be nice to think you ahd some faith in your countries law enforcement.

Just as an example, Florida passed shall-issue concealed carry laws in 1987. In the following ten years it issued 350,000 Concealed carry permits. Out of those 350,000 permit holders, only 1 homicide was ever commited

one homicide commited in ten years?.............

That washington business though is a poor example. If you have a large continent where everyone has guns and then make a small area where people aren't allowed guns, then where do you think the criminals will flock....... with their guns.
Implementing it in a small area was a very naive idea on washingtons part it has to be country wide or what's the point? it's not like you even need to export it over sea's or anything you just have to sneak it over one single border.

 

[})FA|Snake]

Also it would be nice to think you ahd some faith in your countries law enforcement.

Why should I have faith for them to stop the criminal from getting a gun, when they've already proved they can't keep the criminal from attacking me?

Its not like your law enforcement is more effective anyways, my question is why do you put so much faith in your law enforcement to protect you?

Thats the real point of contention here, you guys want the government to take care of you, whereas we want the government to leave us alone

 

[shadow_dragon]

Why should I have faith for them to stop the criminal from getting a gun, when they've already proved they can't keep the criminal from attacking me?

Its not like your law enforcement is more effective anyways, my question is why do you put so much faith in your law enforcement to protect you?

Thats the real point of contention here, you guys want the government to take care of you, whereas we want the government to leave us alone

I dont' believe i used my goverment or law as a comparison and if i did, i did not mean to, though i tihnk you might find that it is not at all the real point of contention. I thoguht this was debate on guns in the hands of the general public not on how competent anyone government is, if you'd care to look into my posts you will find i have no great love for any government at all, let alone my own.

My question to you though is this? If all "you" want your government to leave you alone, why do you even have one?

 

[Metakill]

You will never change American's attitudes regarding guns. Dispensing death is our most profitable industry, and it is wired into us though our enculturation.

 

[Motz]

Israphel thank you for the reply. It contained some information I was unaware of. I am now ARMED with more accurate info.

I tried to search for information on Hitler's election and kept coming up with accounts to the contrary. That he did not get majority vote. Only 30%
ex.(Rise of Hitler)
I do agree that most Germans at the time were not aware of the attrocities being committed by their leaders. His propaganda machine was very effective.

I have spoken my mind on this subject. We all have the right to our opinions and noone is going to change anothers ,so I will now leave it alone.

 

[MÆST]

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

 

[W0RF]

You will never change American's attitudes regarding guns. Dispensing death is our most profitable industry, and it is wired into us though our enculturation.

Never mind Snake's statistical point about the utter lack of homicide by registered gun owners in Florida, right?

because it's not homicide, it's not a crime it's an accident and the vehicle is used for transport not killing ,or destroying from a distance.

um... why do you think the crime is called "vehicular homicide"?

So why take away guns to (ostensibly) prevent gun crimes? because guns ahve no other purpose.

But see, that's not even remotely true. How can we have millions of firearms in this country, and only a few THOUSAND deaths each year, if that is the only purpose they serve? Obviously not everyone who has them uses them, and not every one who uses them kills people with them. There is zero basis in logic or fact for your statement.

Also would you consider me a hipocrate if i told you that i infact own two fully battle ready swords, three battle axes and three throwing axes aswell as a seven foot halberd?

Yes.

If so is that because you consider there is no difference between a sword and a gun?

Depends on what you mean by a "difference". I mean, there's a "difference" between a sword and an axe. I can't answer the question because I don't know the basis for your comparison between them. Plus, do you mean to suggest that swords were NOT designed primarily to kill?

I thoguht this was debate on guns in the hands of the general public not on how competent anyone government is

Unfortunately, you are tying your entire argument on the competence of the government. Here's why.

Liberty is handcuffed to responsibility. Our freedoms are neither absolute nor irrevocable. For example, we are free to speak our minds at will, but we can't yell fire in a theater, or slander someone openly, without facing a penalty of some sort. So it's not an absolute right, and even within our rights, it's incumbent upon us to use that freedom, that POWER, responsibly.

Look at other arguments, many of which come from the liberal side. "You can't stop people from getting abortions, so you should educate them and let them choose responsibly" (although I don't know what's so responsible about killing babies). "You can't stop kids from having sex, so you should educate them and let them choose responsibly." "You can't stop people from smoking the wacky weed, so we should tax the hell out of them and increase government revenue. I mean, educate them and let them choose responsibly". All of these actions have consequences, and some of them can be negative or even quite harmful, but any suggestion of reigning in these practices is met with charges of fascism and whatever else. But apparently no one thinks people should be educated on guns so that they are used responsibly?

You say that the cops should do all the protecting, but when you take the RESPONSIBILITY away from the people, you also take away their FREEDOM. They are intertwined. That's the reason for the general conservative opposition to social welfare. It's useful for its purpose, but some people use it to abscond their financial responsibilities. And even those who desperately need the service, are dependent on the government to get by. And if you're dependent on the system, you are not free. Take away the guns, and you make unarmed citizens dependent on the state for protection from armed criminals. If we need the state to keep us safe, we're not free. Don't believe me, ask all the Patriot Act haters on this board.

 

[})FA|Snake]

If you have no faith in the government why would you give up your right to defend yourself and only rely on the hope they will keep you safe?

 

[shadow_dragon]

um... why do you think the crime is called "vehicular homicide"?

I thought it was called vehicular man slaughter. Maybe i'm wrong but i thoguht even in america there was a distinction between a murder and an accident.

But see, that's not even remotely true. How can we have millions of firearms in this country, and only a few THOUSAND deaths each year, if that is the only purpose they serve?

You answer your own question!

Obviously not everyone who has them uses them, and not every one who uses them kills people with them. There is zero basis in logic or fact for your statement.

Zero basis in logic or fact for my statement? umm! The only purposes for guns are to kill or destroy from a range, ive' asid this already. The only other reason there can possibly be is for the sake of collecting, in which case, if it is only for the sake of a collection what neccessity is there for it to be functional?
(I've already stated my exceptions for certains cases for neccessary hunting)

Also would you consider me a hipocrate if i told you that i infact own two fully battle ready swords, three battle axes and three throwing axes aswell as a seven foot halberd?

Yes.

If so is that because you consider there is no difference between a sword and a gun?

Depends on what you mean by a "difference". I mean, there's a "difference" between a sword and an axe. I can't answer the question because I don't know the basis for your comparison between them. Plus, do you mean to suggest that swords were NOT designed primarily to kill?

There is one fundamental difference, guns or specifically handguns are concealable "ranged" weapons, you don't even need to be able to see someone to deal out damage with one and, if your only collecting then, as i said it doesn't need to be functional.
I have such things as swords for collectors purposes i respect the weapons and the craftmanship that wen't into it, i've never once tried swinging anyone of them against anything. In fairness you can say in return a gun owner can do the same, have somethingmerely to respect the craftmanship and never ever use it but again, why does it have to work if it's not intended for use?

Liberty is handcuffed to responsibility. Our freedoms are neither absolute nor irrevocable. For example, we are free to speak our minds at will, but we can't yell fire in a theater, or slander someone openly, without facing a penalty of some sort. So it's not an absolute right, and even within our rights, it's incumbent upon us to use that freedom, that POWER, responsibly.

Look at other arguments, many of which come from the liberal side. "You can't stop people from getting abortions, so you should educate them and let them choose responsibly" (although I don't know what's so responsible about killing babies). "You can't stop kids from having sex, so you should educate them and let them choose responsibly." "You can't stop people from smoking the wacky weed, so we should tax the hell out of them and increase government revenue. I mean, educate them and let them choose responsibly". All of these actions have consequences, and some of them can be negative or even quite harmful, but any suggestion of reigning in these practices is met with charges of fascism and whatever else. But apparently no one thinks people should be educated on guns so that they are used responsibly?

Proper education, examinations, licensing and regulations would be a first step atleast.

You say that the cops should do all the protecting, but when you take the RESPONSIBILITY away from the people, you also take away their FREEDOM. They are intertwined. That's the reason for the general conservative opposition to social welfare. It's useful for its purpose, but some people use it to abscond their financial responsibilities. And even those who desperately need the service, are dependent on the government to get by. And if you're dependent on the system, you are not free. Take away the guns, and you make unarmed citizens dependent on the state for protection from armed criminals. If we need the state to keep us safe, we're not free. Don't believe me, ask all the Patriot Act haters on this board.

Which i'd agree with, however i see two evils not jsut one, i believe both government AND guns remove freedom, I have no love for either of them.

My point is not anout governments, nor is it based on statistics, (Which i disliek also) it is very simply, Why should people be allowed to own such lethal devices if their only justification is that those that would oppose them might have them also?

Freedom, to my eyes, is not having to arm yourself to the teeth. Whether it be a perfect world fantasy or not.

 

[_Zd_Phoenix_]

It's not condescending. And you never said it had to be practical. And why on earth do you NEED a practical use anyway? What's the PRACTICAL use of a video game console? It doesn't cure cancer or feed the homeless, guess we shouldn't be allowed to have them because they're not practical...

Oh now that's just a ridiculous argument. A kid can't pick up a console and shoot themselves in the head with it.

Why are you making stupid arguments??? Guns are meant to be lethal and be as efficient as possible...unless you think that killing other people is a good thing, what guns are meant to be for is bad.

Fine they have spread and have uses of protection and hunting, but other than them they are bad, and we should be aiming for a world where they are not around, no matter how much fun you think they are.

And YOU are still accusing the guns of doing the killing.

No. I. Am. Not. I'm just not. Not once have I personified guns. I said that they are machines. AGAIN NOT PERSONIFYING. I said that they are designed to kill. AGAIN NONE. I took these two statements and joined them by calling guns death machines. STILL NONE.

I know full well that a person has to USE a gun, that is what a machine is for, to be used. However, I am talking about the object and what is wrong with the object.

So stop trying to make out i'm using an argument that i'm not!

 

[Metakill]

Never mind Snake's statistical point about the utter lack of homicide by registered gun owners in Florida, right?

Yes, never mind that. I'm tired of people taking one example (which I do not believe anyway) and acting as if that makes it the rule. Show me that the majority of gun deaths in this country were caused by weapons illegaly smuggled into this country and then I'll happily support and encourage everybody in the US to arm themselves.

If the mere ownership of guns were illegal in this country then criminals would NOT be able to get ahold of them if our border and port security did its job, which it has no excuse not to in this day and age.