or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bye bye gun control
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bye bye gun control - Page 4

post #121 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Clearly, gun shows are safer than schools!"

Not just schools, middy. Luby's Cafeteria. The Long Island commuter train. The post office. Etc. Etc. Etc. But...never once in rooms with 10000 guns in them, held by law abiding people who know how to use them.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #122 of 243
Guys, with America being what it is, why wouldn't banning the possession of firearms blossom yet another third-world cartel that we can't control? More surveillance, more prisons, more courts....

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #123 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Not just schools, middy. Luby's Cafeteria. The Long Island commuter train. The post office. Etc. Etc. Etc. But...never once in rooms with 10000 guns in them, held by law abiding people who know how to use them.

Never once on the face of the moon, either. Or in my house.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #124 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

That's simply... wrong.

You're not giving me enough credit.

Evidence about enforcement problems does nothing to attack the underlying assumption that reducing gun availability reduces gun crime. Frankly, I think that principle is unassailable. How can criminals commit gun crimes if they don't have access to guns? Again, utterly unassailable. Evidence of increased gun crime in a country that banned guns points to the inadequacy of either existing laws or the enforcement of the laws. There shouldn't be any disagreement there. The issue, rather, is *can* we enforce gun-ban laws to the point where we reduce gun availability to the point where it reduces gun-crime. Now that's a complicated policy decision. Gon posted a good link that sets out some of the issues there.
post #125 of 243
Once again, I'm just happy to be living in a place where every instance of gun violence is front page news... and it happens less than once a year.

I guess you're much safer over there in the South where your rights are respected...

You yourself, Jubelum have said that a place where neither criminals nor "law abiders" have guns is preferable. Do you disagree with that now?

A gun-free utopia in a place where guns were once prolific is in fact possible. But to get there, we have to make progress. The only way to make progress is to reduce the flow of guns gradually until we can stop it altogether.
post #126 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

You're not giving me enough credit.

Evidence about enforcement problems does nothing to attack the underlying assumption that reducing gun availability reduces gun crime. Frankly, I think that principle is unassailable. How can criminals commit gun crimes if they don't have access to guns? Again, utterly unassailable. Evidence of increased gun crime in a country that banned guns points to the inadequacy of either existing laws or the enforcement of the laws. There shouldn't be any disagreement there.

So which one is at fault for the rise of drug use despite the "war" on them - inadequacy of existing laws or the enforcement of those laws?
Quote:
The issue, rather, is *can* we enforce gun-ban laws to the point where we reduce gun availability to the point where it reduces gun-crime.

No. The whole "gun crime" concept is a strawman, because no one cares if they are murdered with a gun or with a blunt instrument. If you weren't predisposed against firearms you'd be concerned about what happens to the full spectrum of violent crime instead of what happens to "gun crime".

Prisoners almost never possess a firearm, so obviously you can keep firearms out of the hands of a big part of the populace.. only they can't be free at the same time.
post #127 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

So which one is at fault for the rise of drug use despite the "war" on them - inadequacy of existing laws or the enforcement of those laws?

Drugs are completely different.

Let's stay focused on guns before we veer off wildly into unsupportable analogies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

No. The whole "gun crime" concept is a strawman, because no one cares if they are murdered with a gun or with a blunt instrument. If you weren't predisposed against firearms you'd be concerned about what happens to the full spectrum of violent crime instead of what happens to "gun crime."

I don't see how I'm not concerned about the "full spectrum of violent crime," as if focusing on gun crime here is mutually exclusive with anything else. The deadliness of guns however deserves special focus.
post #128 of 243
I think that the amendment means that everyone is allowed to own and use weapons that militiamen would use (i.e. pistols, rifles, knives, bayonets, etc, not machine guns, bazookas or bombs).

Also, I think that the DC gun laws will be struck down, and that gun violence, mugging, rape and home invasions will drop dramatically after the population gets their guns back. Once that happens, this discussion of hypothetical situations will be dead forever, because the example of DC will be so dramatic that gun control advocates will have no logical way to defend their position.

Based on other areas around the world that have had changes in gun laws (where pretty much all the time gun violence is inversely proportional to ease of gun ownership), the gun control advocates should have been shut down already, but DC will be so close to home that it cannot be denied.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #129 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You yourself, Jubelum have said that a place where neither criminals nor "law abiders" have guns is preferable. Do you disagree with that now?

A gun-free utopia in a place where guns were once prolific is in fact possible. But to get there, we have to make progress. The only way to make progress is to reduce the flow of guns gradually until we can stop it altogether.

Also in what I have previously stated you'll find my corollary point... getting to a gun-free utopia would cost a lot of good people their lives and property. I'm not willing to be the sacrificial lamb for that utopia... neither are most other citizens. Sorry. This gets to a much larger point I'd like to hear your opinion on:

Do you want everyone disarmed, or just criminals? We hear a lot here in the states about "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals"... but that is not the real goal. If it was, we'd really enforce laws regarding criminals and guns. We don't. That leads me to believe that the whole argument is really about taking guns from law-abiding people, because, well, they are the ones that follow the law, not the criminal element... they are, uh, CRIMINALS.

If I could uninvent TNT and gunpowder I would. And then we could have a debate about knife control. With close to 150 million guns in the US, the only ones that will be following the law and handing in guns are people who respect the law. Criminals, by definition, do not respect the law, in addition to being the ones that harm others. In the utopian transition, we'd go through decades of disarmed victims facing armed criminals who access guns illegally... just like they do now without punishment. The way to deal with so-called "gun crime" is to deal with criminals and guns, and stop making ever more laws and restrictions that only affect law-abiding folks.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #130 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

You're not giving me enough credit.

Evidence about enforcement problems does nothing to attack the underlying assumption that reducing gun availability reduces gun crime. Frankly, I think that principle is unassailable. How can criminals commit gun crimes if they don't have access to guns? Again, utterly unassailable. Evidence of increased gun crime in a country that banned guns points to the inadequacy of either existing laws or the enforcement of the laws. There shouldn't be any disagreement there. The issue, rather, is *can* we enforce gun-ban laws to the point where we reduce gun availability to the point where it reduces gun-crime. Now that's a complicated policy decision. Gon posted a good link that sets out some of the issues there.

Unassailable? OK.. let's, as usual, take this out of the theory and into reality. The problematic part is your statement "access to guns." Now... you do know that the majority of guns used in crime are stolen, correct? You need to define "access to guns" - does that tend toward shutting down gun shops? Does that mean ending firearm production? Guns will be available for decades after a full ban on both. There will be a black market much, much larger than the one that is claimed today. With the millions of guns in circulation at this point, shutting down gun shops, ending the domestic firearm industry, and even "taking them all up" will not be a problem for the criminal element. It will however, become very difficult for good people to resist being victims at that point.

Go look up Project Exile... there you can see a real-world example of what happens when we just take the simple step of enforcing existing gun laws and making criminals, not law-abiding people- pay for criminal use of guns.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #131 of 243
A few comments:

1) Neither side (pro-gun or anti-gun) is overly happy with the case since the outcome is unknown even with the current justices. I guess that means it's as good a case as we're going to get.

Personally, I hope the gun ban is upheld given I'm more inclined toward states being able to make their own policies on such issues. I may not agree with the effectiveness of the gun bans or their implementation but I prefer to be somewhat consistent in my beliefs.

2) Jub, I don't belong to or support the NRA for the same reason I don't belong to or support Greenpeace. While there are plenty of good folks in both organizations and while I support both gun ownership AND the environment the positions of both organizations are often extreme and there a bunch of complete flakes/nutjobs members in both.

I don't like associating with or even being associated with flakes and nutjobs with extreme positions.

3) A well regulated militia is more of an oxymoron than military intelligence.

Seriously, if you don't have a regular army for the security of your free state you're hosed. The framers were hopefully brigher than this and even if you construe this to mean that a militia may keep at bay dictatorship you have to admit that this has not proven to been the case in Africa...

4) Assuming they mean the Swiss model they damn well should have been more explicit AND organized the US military around that model. While it works damn well for the Swiss you need a couple hundred years of aculturation to make it work well. Having defensible mountains to retreat to helps a lot too.

Arguably, the US military has at times been fairly close to such a model. We had a fairly small professional military for a large amount of time. Obviously, this isn't happening again for some time. Hopefully not for a long long time.

5) Jub, if you wanted to issue everyone a SiG 550 and 50 rounds after mandatory military training and service with compulsary annual musters, range training, etc you wouldn't get any objection from me.

That might make me buy the 2nd amendment as something with more than a historical significance with little implications on modern american society beyond gun control debates. Typically invoked by the aforementioned flakes and nutjobs.

And I think that having an assault rifle in the house, while somewhat sub-optimal from the perspective of over-penetration, sufficient for home defense. Likewise, I have no problems with making carry permits require mandatory training, range time and background checks.

I see no real need for concealed carry for civs. Permitted handguns should be fairly large (subject to fitting comfortably in a smaller person's hands), well constructed and made of metal for easy detection.
post #132 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Unassailable? OK.. let's, as usual, take this out of the theory and into reality. The problematic part is your statement "access to guns." Now... you do know that the majority of guns used in crime are stolen, correct? You need to define "access to guns" - does that tend toward shutting down gun shops? Does that mean ending firearm production? Guns will be available for decades after a full ban on both. There will be a black market much, much larger than the one that is claimed today. With the millions of guns in circulation at this point, shutting down gun shops, ending the domestic firearm industry, and even "taking them all up" will not be a problem for the criminal element.

You're not listening to me.

Everyone should agree that criminals can't commit gun crimes without guns. Reduce the availability of guns to a certain level and gun crimes will fall. The questions are: 1) How far do we have to reduce gun availability and 2) what policies will bring this about? It's entirely a policy question at this point. Obviously there are issues with emerging black markets and the sheer circulation of guns currently, but I refuse to believe reducing gun violence is necessarily an intractable problem approached this way.
post #133 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

If it is in justified self-defense, you bet your boots that NRA will support law abiding people defending themselves against the criminal element. And if a gun is used criminally, no one has fought harder to lock the perp up than the NRA. See your problem here?

Your statement is a cute, if vain, attempt. How much gun safety and education did YOU do last year? I'm interested...

I didn't have to. I don't have a gun and virtually everyone I know doesn't have one.

The rampant homicides committed with guns in the USA are due to insufficient brochures and courses which are designed to market more guns not less?

It is bleeding obvious what the problem is despite the ludicrous obfuscation of the minority interest groups.

Is this like "Clean" coal, "Lite" junk food, "Safe" cigarettes, Creation "Science"?

BTW The NRA has a clear record of supporting guns for everyone, not just the "law abiding" (who are responsible for a large number of the deaths in family disputes), on the basis that to stop guns for the criminally insane would be just the thin edge of the wedge. The NRA is the one who is stopping guns from being taken from the hands of the criminals not, as you speciously imply, the anti-gun lobby.

PPS Name one case where the NRA has helped prosecute a case against a gunman? Being obsessed by gun addiction they share too much in common. (Cut to Charlton Heston oiling his penis substitute and crooning "My Preeecious, come to me my precious").
post #134 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by gastroboy View Post

I didn't have to. I don't have a gun and virtually everyone I know doesn't have one.

The rampant homicides committed with guns in the USA are due to insufficient brochures and courses which are designed to market more guns not less?

It is bleeding obvious what the problem is despite the ludicrous obfuscation of the minority interest groups.

Is this like "Clean" coal, "Lite" junk food, "Safe" cigarettes, Creation "Science"?

BTW The NRA has a clear record of supporting guns for everyone, not just the "law abiding" (who are responsible for a large number of the deaths in family disputes), on the basis that to stop guns for the criminally insane would be just the thin edge of the wedge. The NRA is the one who is stopping guns from being taken from the hands of the criminals not, as you speciously imply, the anti-gun lobby.

Minority interest group? Stop, go do your homework... go find out how many gun owners there are the United States. 60-85 million, with an "M".

Courses? Brochures? What the hell are you talking about? And BTW... "rampant" is not really so... the murder rate continues to decline in the US... along with the crime rate. Good try, though on the "rampant" thing. (Here is where I should point out that "rampant" homicides are "rampant" in, I dunno, places like WASHINGTON DC, where law-abiding people are, uh DISARMED. Compare murder rates to concealed carry cities to those with full gun bans.) Mmmmm... next.

Answer me this, smart guy... why in the hell would the NRA support your farcical "guns for everyone" lie- when criminal use of guns gives our enemies more public sympathy for taking guns away from EVERYONE? It does not make sense, and I'd love to see your evidence of a "clear record." I'll say again... PROJECT EXILE. Go look it up. Then savor the thought that it works. Next.

And as far as the "criminally insane"... did you just happen to miss the recent NRA-supported bill regarding putting dangerous people into the NICS system? Hmmmm? Next.

Give me some real backup for the "deaths from family disputes" thing. I'm interested.

Quote:
PPS Name one case where the NRA has helped prosecute a case against a gunman?

And not to go for the grand slam... but you're asking for it... it is not the job of NRA to "help prosecute a case" criminally against anyone. That's what we have a criminal justice system for. Have a problem? Call the DA. That's what WE DO.

You are obviously quite confused. Maybe it was something you ate.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #135 of 243
Maths is not your strong point. 65-85 (your concocted figures) of over 300 million?

But then if you have a gun and are willing to use it, I guess that gives you several votes. Right?

You brought up the specious "gun safety and education", an oxymoron if ever there was one. "Now son make sure you use that gun wisely!"

Unless you are feeling pissed off, When the foreseeable becomes "unfortunate".

Who brought up the parallel nonsense that "no one has fought harder to lock the perp up than the NRA"? All they obsess on is that no-one takes away the weapon of choice in the USA to express anger and resentment. Including the "perp". Especially if he is a card carrying NRA member.

Equally you put more weight on what the NRA says every time anyone shines a light on them under their rock, than what they DO. But I'm glad you own up that it doesn't make sense, which is obvious to everyone who hasn't failed the IQ test that gets you into the NRA in the first place.

Having made America the gun murder capital of the world, they backed the war in Iraq to make America look good by comparison. It also served to demonstrate the health and safety benefits of everyone having a gun to defend themselves with.

Quote:
did you just happen to miss the recent NRA-supported bill regarding putting dangerous people into the NICS system?

Yes and I've noticed how the tobacco companies have "recently supported" putting all those warnings on their cigarette packets. Suppose gun owners won't blow their brains out if they don't inhale when sticking it in their mouths when their sad sorry existence comes home to them.

Unfortunately they usually take it out on someone near and dear to them. "A handgun was used in 92% of the incidents."

Exactly how many references do you want, that you will ignore because you don't like the answer?

Confused?

I can still tell the difference between my penis and the desperate substitute you seem to prefer.
post #136 of 243
Quote:
Maths is not your strong point. 65-85 (your concocted figures) of over 300 million?

Go look at the GSS... your attempt to portray over 4 million NRA members and 65-85 million gun owners as some "fringe minority" is simply not true. Do you have some alternate figures for gun ownership in the US?

Quote:
But then if you have a gun and are willing to use it, I guess that gives you several votes. Right?

Correct.

Quote:
You brought up the specious "gun safety and education", an oxymoron if ever there was one. "Now son make sure you use that gun wisely!"

But you see, I and hundreds of thousands of other NRA instructors ARE DOING SOMETHING about gun safety. Tell me what you know about Eddie Eagle. What solution can you offer, other than the lazy and intellectually vacuous "take them all up?"

Quote:
Unless you are feeling pissed off, When the foreseeable becomes "unfortunate".

My being armed helps my "foreseeable" (being robbed in my business) from becoming "unfortunate" (unfortunate he did not have a gun and the perp did) See?

Quote:
Who brought up the parallel nonsense that "no one has fought harder to lock the perp up than the NRA"? All they obsess on is that no-one takes away the weapon of choice in the USA to express anger and resentment. Including the "perp". Especially if he is a card carrying NRA member.

More lies, rehashed again. I'll ask you again to show me where the NRA came to the defense of a criminal. Pathetic FUD. Also... since you missed it last time... PROJECT EXILE. Go read.

Quote:
Equally you put more weight on what the NRA says every time anyone shines a light on them under their rock, than what they DO. But I'm glad you own up that it doesn't make sense, which is obvious to everyone who hasn't failed the IQ test that gets you into the NRA in the first place.

Do you have any IDEA what we do? Or are we the convenient face of those who stand in the way from your victim disarmament? If so, we'll take up that mantle.

Quote:
Having made America the gun murder capital of the world, they backed the war in Iraq to make America look good by comparison. It also served to demonstrate the health and safety benefits of everyone having a gun to defend themselves with.

"They?" Who is this "they?" I didn't see the NRA up there voting on the floor of the Senate like, I dunno, HRC. Ask the Cambodians, the people in the gulags, the Chinese, the Albanian Kosovars, and the Rwandans about the "health and safety" benefits of being disarmed. MILLIONS dead.

Quote:
Yes and I've noticed how the tobacco companies have "recently supported" putting all those warnings on their cigarette packets. Suppose gun owners won't blow their brains out if they don't inhale when sticking it in their mouths when their sad sorry existence comes home to them.

Oh, so now anyone who owns a gun has a "sad sorry existence." My goodness, you are swerving into jimmac territory here. My existence is great, I'm not constantly trying to tell everyone how to run their lives, I have a means to protect my business, family, and self, and enjoy my hours a week at the range. Surely you can come up with better than "sad sorry existence." Surely.

Quote:
Unfortunately they usually take it out on someone near and dear to them. "A handgun was used in 92% of the incidents."

You are quoting IANSA. This Soros-funded juggernaut has had civilian disarmament in the works for years. They got their wish in the UK... gun homicides are up four fold. Go read my earlier post on the UK.

Quote:
Exactly how many references do you want, that you will ignore because you don't like the answer?

Ignore? Where have I done that? And BTW... if I posted a bunch of links from the NRA website, you'd probably tell me they are all bullshit. Just like I am telling you that linking to the websites of groups like IANSA and the VPC are bullshit in kind. Next.

Quote:
Confused?

Not one bit. I know what I believe, will not change, and will not stop advocating peoples' rights to defend themselves from criminal attack.

Quote:
I can still tell the difference between my penis and the desperate substitute you seem to prefer.

Those projections are all you, pal. Go for it with your Freudian psychobabble... I'll be able to take care of myself should the foreseeable become reality... as it does about a hundred times a month in my line of work, TYVM.

Do you think that law abiding people should just go willingly in the face of rape/robbery/etc and not put up a resistance? Should we just be willing to die for your gun control agenda... should we perfect our "please don't kill me, my wife, and children" begging skills? You're either with law-abiding people, or your are in the corner of the perp who takes full advantage unarmed victims. The sad part is, I KNOW where you fall. \ "Wow, that guy was robbed and murdered.. that's awful... but at LEAST he didn't have a gun!"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #137 of 243
Now if only everyone in the Omaha shopping mall had been packing a semi-automatic gun they'd all be alive today! You and the NRA should make it absolutely clear they that failed in their civic responsibilities and just weren't quick enough to stop that bullet in the back of the head.

I presume that you will be heading off to Omaha with the usual sensitive NRA types comforting the community with pro gun demonstrations?

When exactly is the ceremony when you and the NRA posthumously award the gunman his big stuffed toy for getting the eight shoppers in the back row?

Have you advised your family to pack their own automatics for the day when your business and marriage go sour and you reach for your "self defence" and decide to take them with you? Or are you planning to "surprise" them?
post #138 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by gastroboy View Post

Now if only everyone in the Omaha shopping mall had been packing a semi-automatic gun they'd all be alive today!

This is the big problem with the gun control arguments - victims of gun violence are front page news, but the people who die due to gun restrictions vastly outnumber those people (like the 169 people murdered in DC last year - a good number of those people died because the gun restrictions inflated the murder rate).

If DC is forced to allow handguns and it comes out like I think it will, the gun control lobby will fade away.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #139 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by gastroboy View Post

Now if only everyone in the Omaha shopping mall had been packing a semi-automatic gun they'd all be alive today! You and the NRA should make it absolutely clear they that failed in their civic responsibilities and just weren't quick enough to stop that bullet in the back of the head.

I presume that you will be heading off to Omaha with the usual sensitive NRA types comforting the community with pro gun demonstrations?

When exactly is the ceremony when you and the NRA posthumously award the gunman his big stuffed toy for getting the eight shoppers in the back row?

Have you advised your family to pack their own automatics for the day when your business and marriage go sour and you reach for your "self defence" and decide to take them with you? Or are you planning to "surprise" them?

Civic responsibilities? Ceremony? Packing automatics? I'm not going to bother with your active fantasy life. You have a very warped view of gun owners, and are making asinine assumptions with a nice portion of snark. And thanks for the moronic and typical (of you) over-the-top "for the day when you" bullshit. I have my gun for protecting my family... something you just cannot get your little mind around, even in your dotage.

You have nothing to back up your hysterical, distorted posts. You still have no answers to my post from a week ago.

Next, please.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #140 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Next, please.

I protect my family with live, pissed off, rattlesnakes. My position is that if everyone brought live, pissed-off rattlesnakes with them everywhere they went, crises like these would never happen.

And Reagan and Jim Brady wouldn't have gotten shot.

Bad guy? POW! LIVE, PISSED-OFF RATTLESNAKE TO THE FACE!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #141 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

You have nothing to back up your hysterical, distorted posts. You still have no answers to my post from a week ago.

I took the cue from your instant dismissal of the statistics on gun victims, that yours is a "conclusion down" approach. As such that everything gets dismissed that doesn't match your "gut feeling". A Bushism of "don't let facts get in the way of irrational policy".

Such as your ludicrous assertion that any British increase in gun deaths is due to a lack of guns not an increasing excess of guns. Let's ignore the incredibly smaller percentage of gun killings in Britain and virtually every other civilised country, when by your conjecture they should have more due to the "defenselessness" of the general population.

That Americans want to slaughter each other in a spiralling cycle of stupidity would not concern us so much if it wasn't for the NRA trying to export their stupidity to other countries which have largely avoided it.

Also that the use of guns has formed your politics into what it is. A cardboard cutout of a democracy.
post #142 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by gastroboy View Post

Such as your ludicrous assertion that any British increase in gun deaths is due to a lack of guns not an increasing excess of guns. Let's ignore the incredibly smaller percentage of gun killings in Britain and virtually every other civilised country, when by your conjecture they should have more due to the "defenselessness" of the general population.

You have too many variables there - comparing one country to another is a complex thing. However, if you compare a country to itself (before and after changes in gun laws), you find that gun restrictions cause violence.

I agree that banning all handguns outright, if effective, would reduce handgun violence to 0. However, in practice a handgun ban is impossible to achieve in the criminal world - you just disarm their victims.

I admit that abusive husbands killing their wives with handguns is a problem, but there are existing laws to prevent these types of people from getting access to firearms, and they get the guns anyway. If you can't keep a handgun out of the hands of a wife beater when there are laws on the books to do so, what makes you think that you can keep a handgun out of the hands of a criminal via more extensive gun control?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #143 of 243
Where was "Shotgun Joe" Horn when we needed him?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../wtexas130.xml



Why is he wearing a freaking pilgrim hat?
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
post #144 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

You have too many variables there - comparing one country to another is a complex thing. However, if you compare a country to itself (before and after changes in gun laws), you find that gun restrictions cause violence.

I agree that banning all handguns outright, if effective, would reduce handgun violence to 0. However, in practice a handgun ban is impossible to achieve in the criminal world - you just disarm their victims.

You have a culture that has marketed guns and built a myth of righteousness about possessing them. Many other countries have guns but without the sentimental irrationality that they are a God given right that is attached to them in the States.

Properly conducted studies which don't cherry pick the results to suit a desired conclusion do NOT support "that gun restrictions cause violence". Including those cases that the gun lobby itself keeps quoting.

This is just one example with mainly US statistics.

The huge differences in the gun murder rate between the USA and other democratic western countries needs more than just "comparing one country to another is a complex thing" to explain away.

As an American citizen with only limited experience of other countries and cultures and unconscious acceptance of your status quo you may have trouble seeing that. You also may not as critically view the marketing pressures of those who make money out of the gun trade no matter what the cost to the community.

With guns comes killing, as can be seen in the many "lab experiments" around the world from the Middle East to Africa.

A classic one would be Papua New Guinea which was until the 1970's administered by Australia. Inter-tribal conflicts have always been common usually over women, pigs, land and often perceived insults. Whilst the Australian district officers administered the country and fights were usually confined to bows and arrows and quickly stopped, mortality and violence was contained.

Post independence policing became lax and corrupt. A cycle of escalating weapons upscaling lead to an out of control scourge of armed "Rascals" in the cities and towns and tribal killings in the country with guns taking a much higher toll than was ever possible before. Spearing or shooting with an arrow needed a closer one to one confrontation that put the attacker at as much risk as the attacked and probably even left the victim injured but surviving.

Guns let the cowardly chose their victim from a safe distance, taking them by surprise and despatching them more efficiently and in greater numbers. More guns lead to more killings leads to more people arming themselves to yet more people being killed and so on.

The United States is in the advanced stage of this cycle with many people relentlessly pushing on for only more guns to solve the problem of guns. In each phase of this descent into an ever increasing armed camp, incidents such as political assassinations, workplace killings, church killings, abortion clinic killings, school killings, drive-by shootings, Amish killings, shopping mall killings have all been allowed to pass as if none of them ever happened before.

Crime statistics show quite clearly that victims are mostly assaulted not by the mythical stranger but family members or other close acquaintances. The handy access to a gun often escalates a survivable assault into a deadly one.

Americans just can't see the forest for the trees. Many seem not to even believe a forest exists.
post #145 of 243
The murder rate in the US is, IMHO, entirely due to the war on drugs, and it has nothing to do with any gun control laws that are or can be put into place. The war on drugs raises profits for organized crime and gangs, and they bump the murder rate up as they kill each other off - this is much the same as New Guinea in your example, the murder rate there is due to the breakdown in the social order, not due to guns.

Violent death in hunter-gatherer societies was much higher than we have in our current society, and that is before the introduction of guns - there is no way that you can demonstrate that guns are the issue in New Guinea. Genocide was also more common in hunter gatherer societies pre-gun, go read "Guns, Germs and Steel"...

From your study link:

1. kansas city example, they just took away guns from criminals. I agree that taking guns away from criminals reduces crime, but that is not what supply side gun prohibitions do. If they had left the criminals alone, and taken away the guns from homeowners, the results would have been much different.

2. Massachusetts 1974 Bartley-Fox Amendment also focused on criminals, again this is completely different from a handgun ban, and the effects would be much different.

3. The bradly law, again, focused on criminals

etc. Come up with a study that shows that violent crime goes down when you stop law-abiding people from buying guns, if you want to make this particular point, nothing you have produced so far demonstrates anything except "criminals suck, keep them from sucking as much and life gets better".

I am all for keeping weapons out of the hands of felons, wife beaters and the criminally insane. But that is way different from banning handguns for people not in those categories.

You failed to answer my question from before:

"I admit that abusive husbands killing their wives with handguns is a problem, but there are existing laws to prevent these types of people from getting access to firearms, and they get the guns anyway. If you can't keep a handgun out of the hands of a wife beater when there are laws on the books to do so, what makes you think that you can keep a handgun out of the hands of a criminal via more extensive gun control?"
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #146 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by gastroboy View Post

I took the cue from your instant dismissal of the statistics on gun victims, that yours is a "conclusion down" approach. As such that everything gets dismissed that doesn't match your "gut feeling". A Bushism of "don't let facts get in the way of irrational policy".

What a riot.

"Irrational policy" like, I dunno... full gun bans that lead to things like DC murder rates.

Irrational policy that leads to mass killings mostly in "gun free zones," while CCW states are seeing violent crime continue to drop.

Irrational policy that says that criminals give two shits about what law you make... once again since you missed it, criminals do not care about the law. They are criminals.

Irrational policy that says that law abiding people should be disarmed, regardless of what criminals decide to do re: the legal condition of guns.

Irrational indeed. And once again, go do your homework... the NRA supported McClure Vollkmer and the registration and ban on machine guns as far back as 1986. You're dealing in caricatures here, no doubt gleaned from IANSA and crew.

Quote:
Such as your ludicrous assertion that any British increase in gun deaths is due to a lack of guns not an increasing excess of guns. Let's ignore the incredibly smaller percentage of gun killings in Britain and virtually every other civilised country, when by your conjecture they should have more due to the "defenselessness" of the general population.

I'm ready to read any third-party info you might have re: the UK. My previous request for such things a week ago has gone unanswered.

Quote:
That Americans want to slaughter each other in a spiralling cycle of stupidity would not concern us so much if it wasn't for the NRA trying to export their stupidity to other countries which have largely avoided it.

News flash, since you missed it... violent crime is DOWN and has been falling in the US since the 1990s. Again, please do your homework before retreating into "spiraling cycles of stupidity." Do you have any substance (no-snark) to discuss here? And also... re: the NRA internationally- prove it. Show me. Give us more than conjecture. The NRA internationally has been focused on one thing- keeping the totalitarians at the UN from violating the US Constitution.

Quote:
Also that the use of guns has formed your politics into what it is. A cardboard cutout of a democracy.

Oooooo.... "a cardboard cutout." Please clarify this statement. Gun ownership degrades democracy? Please, oh please, take that stand....

Quote:
Guns let the cowardly chose their victim from a safe distance, taking them by surprise and despatching them more efficiently and in greater numbers. More guns lead to more killings leads to more people arming themselves to yet more people being killed and so on.

If this held up in any sort of way... 'splain this to me... WHY has crime DROPPED in places where citizens are allowed to carry a concealed handgun. Please do not ignore this one... it's important. Again, if gun bans worked, Washington DC would be the safest place in the country, followed by LA, San Fran, and Chicago. DC is the crime capital of the nation. It appears that you are 180 degrees out of phase... LESS GUNS leads to MORE KILLING in the DC situation.

Guns are not new to the US... we have about 150 million of them, depending on who you ask. You have ZERO chance of getting them out of the hands of criminals BEFORE people who respect the law. As such, your misguided and politics-in-a-vacuum agenda will cost a lot of decent, hard-working people their lives and property. Fully 1 in every 30 people in my town has a concealed handgun... and guess what... crime is DOWN since concealed carry became law in Texas. Put that in your arrogant pipe and smoke it.

You're wasting your time with me, honestly. In this thread, you have claimed the outrageous:

1. About the NRA. that it defends criminals, advocates "guns for everyone" (complete lie), and does not prosecute criminals (go read your US Govt book please). You still have not responded to Project Exile or any single point I have made to refute your BS and FUD on the NRA.

2. About every gun owner as some sort of monster with a "sad sorry existence", and have even stated that I am planning to murder my family. You demonstrate an utter lack of knowledge, or are just lying outright, about the average gun owner in the US. Stick to what you know... and it isn't the average American gun owner, of which there are 60-80 million. (Still waiting for your response to my request)

You are not interested in answering a single question I have asked of you, especially regarding things like "brochures" ... "gun ownership rates" ... "genocide" ... "who voted for Iraq" and "begging skills." You come in, post in utterly hysterical over-the-top caricatures, then refuse to answer even simple questions about your beliefs. And then you claim I am planning to murder my family just because I own a gun. You, sir, are a troll.

I have to say... thank you. You help keep me motivated for my rights and my sport here in the US. Knowing you are out there makes me work even harder. Hell, I even posted your earlier tripe on the board at the trap and skeet club. Good times... good times.. I might just name my next gun after you... engraved in big letters.

You have no way to reason with someone like me, who sees MY GUN as one of the few things that keeps my business, my family, and myself safe. Because it does in my line of work. Truly... you'll never change people like me. Ever. You do not have the depth to understand why. I've had a criminal's gun in my face... a gun that NO LAW YOU MAKE would have kept from him. You've got a policy paper, and you're ill-equipped to answer a single thing that is not on the page.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #147 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I protect my family with live, pissed off, rattlesnakes. My position is that if everyone brought live, pissed-off rattlesnakes with them everywhere they went, crises like these would never happen.

And Reagan and Jim Brady wouldn't have gotten shot.

Bad guy? POW! LIVE, PISSED-OFF RATTLESNAKE TO THE FACE!

Hell, I would have taken the bullet for Brady if it would have kept Sarah from her own lunatic spree.

As far as rattlesnakes, I can ship you some from the local snake farm here in Texus. Just send me an address... I'll even pay the shipping. You can carry your rattler... just keep your hands off the pistol I might need to kill the little varmint should he get loose and fall into the wrong hands.

Or maybe you should forego the rattler and try a Bushmaster?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #148 of 243
Yeah. I live in an area where the following kinds of things happen:

1) You find a rattlesnake sunning itself on the sidewalk
2) Moose come down from the mountain and terrorize people at the Christmas parade

A few years ago during a hard winter (3 feet of snow on Xmas day), a moose got stuck in someone's basement window well.

In short, I'm set on the crazy, dangerous critters.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #149 of 243
Quote:

Well, in reading the Telegraph, at least I know where gastro is getting his opinions moulded. Amazing in their ignorance of guns, policy, and gun owners. But very typical of the British in regards to the US Second Amendment.

Seems for a country that is sliding toward a full police/surveillance state, and being filled with Muslim extremists, the Brits are mighty concerned about one little issue here in the US. They never miss an opportunity to convince their own citizens that taking up guns was the right choice... when it arguably wasn't.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #150 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Yeah. I live in an area where the following kinds of things happen:

1) You find a rattlesnake sunning itself on the sidewalk
2) Moose come down from the mountain and terrorize people at the Christmas parade

A few years ago during a hard winter (3 feet of snow on Xmas day), a moose got stuck in someone's basement window well.

In short, I'm set on the crazy, dangerous critters.

If you want me to pick you up in UT on the way to Alaska, you're welcome to come along. Not a hunting expedition per se, rather we are camping next summer at Denali.

Every thing's big... the mountains are big, the meeses are big, the grizzly bears are big, and correspondingly so are the guns. Big, ugly, nasty, evil guns held by big, ugly, nasty evil people who are loving their combined "sad sorry existence"

...oh, and none of them are planning on killing their families, either.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #151 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by gastroboy View Post

Now if only everyone in the Omaha shopping mall had been packing a semi-automatic gun they'd all be alive today!

Oh, and since I missed it earlier... the mall in question was a GUN FREE ZONE, with signs at the entrances.
Yep, those GUN FREE ZONE SIGNS really did the trick... stopped that determined shooter cold in his tracks. OMFG... a SIGN!
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #152 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Oh, and since I missed it earlier... the mall in question was a GUN FREE ZONE, with signs at the entrances.
Yep, those GUN FREE ZONE SIGNS really did the trick... stopped that determined shooter cold in his tracks. OMFG... a SIGN!

And those gun toting NRA types really stopped him in their tracks too.

You ably demonstrate your own irrationality. You say you'll read anything I post and everything I post you refuse to read. You have not answered any of the posts on the innumerable examples around the world where more guns = more killing.

Your chin music about being a sane reasonable law abiding gun totin' family man (look at the fatality rate for children) is exactly that and not helped by your diatribes. How many of the people who have snapped and turned their guns on workmates, friends or family or even complete strangers, ever were anything else. But they all had guns when they flipped, so didn't injure. They killed. Like the guy who killed the Amish school children.

You keep raising D.C. as an argument in your favor. That is only because you don't take the full history, only the little snippets you like. D.C. always had a higher rate of gun killings, which kept trending up. The law reduced gun killings from 1976 when it was brought in until 1988 when the Crack epidemic and unemployment turned it back up dramatically. It wouldn't have been so dramatic if it hadn't worked. It is all in the link you refuse to read. And here is another you won't like. And yet another. And another.

You cite a falling gun killing rate over the last 18 years as if this was caused by NRA supported policies. What were those and when exactly were those policies implemented? They spend enough money bribing Congress and the Senate. By coincidence the same 18 years has been a period of prosperity, low unemployment and hence totally unconnected to lower crime rate in your view.

The whole deal with D.C., the Omaha shopping mall and other attempts at gun control (mild by any international standard) is that they are all islands in a nation that ignores those attempts or sabotages them with the active support of the NRA.

Who interfered in local Australian politics when we took firm measures after a massacre at Port Arthur in Tasmania? The NRA. We are not stupid and do not want to go down the same path as the USA. Despite the NRA spreading big fat lies about the success of the Australian gun laws. Despite being imperfectly enforced 350 fewer Australians die each year from gun wounds now than 30-40 years ago.

In your hyperbole it is always an absolute ban not a control that is proposed, the successful Kansas experiment did not even change any law, it just enforced them, taking the guns from anyone who didn't have a gun licence.

What exactly is so magical about the Canadian border that gun killings dramatically drop on the Canadian side? Do they have more guns and the right to bear concealed weapons? Why isn't the NRA citing this successful example of their policies in action?

We like our gun related deaths being only 19% of the American rate which is achieved by licencing and policing. Those who need guns for work or sport have access and are not denied. Our record is not even the best in the world. That belongs to countries with low gun ownership. High gun ownership clearly equates with high gun death rates. Our record would be even better if it also wasn't sabotaged by some of our own citizens, who all seem to be remarkably dim and quote the non-existent "constitutional right to bear arms" which they must have got from the Legal department in their local Video-Ezy.

What exactly makes America the stand out gun murder capital of the world, even beating Northern Ireland by a huge margin?

I think you have answered the question quite clearly.

Your whole politics are built around the problem. From NRA interference to prevent a popular gun control measure, to the shootings of Presidents, Presidential candidates, union leaders and civil rights campaigners, even celebrities like John Lennon.

Colin Powell's wife begged him to not run for President because he would be a likely target. Barrack Obama is bravely going to try and buck the odds. I hope he does not fall victim as so many previously have.
post #153 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

...oh, and none of them are planning on killing their families, either.

Who plans? Takes all the fun out of it.
post #154 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

If you want me to pick you up in UT on the way to Alaska, you're welcome to come along. Not a hunting expedition per se, rather we are camping next summer at Denali.

Heh. My wife might actually take you up on that. I figure, though, with my general life trajectoryNew Orleans, Oklahoma, SLCI'll wind up in the Aleutians before too long.

Quote:
Every thing's big... the mountains are big, the meeses are big, the grizzly bears are big, and correspondingly so are the guns. Big, ugly, nasty, evil guns held by big, ugly, nasty evil people who are loving their combined "sad sorry existence"

Yeah. If you're not from the West, scale takes a while to get used to.

Quote:
...oh, and none of them are planning on killing their families, either.

Well, it's not like people usually plan that, do they? The gun makes a crime of passion potentially much more deadly that it might otherwise be.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #155 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by gastroboy View Post

And those gun toting NRA types really stopped him in their tracks too.

NRA people would have been law-abiding ones... the ones that were willing to follow the law and be DISARMED BY THE SIGN. And to your list of woeful ignorance, add the laws concerning concealed carry. Jeez, we're going in circles here... because you just don't get it.

Criminals don't care about any law you make... why is a murderer or rapist willing to follow a gun law, but not a law against the more serious and violent acts?

Until you give me some rational, doable way to "take em all up" without endangering people like me and my family, all your regurgitated talking points will do little... remember:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

You're wasting your time with me, honestly.

I'll be glad to get to your Amazing and Wonderful Stat machine soon... first you need to address what you have stated earlier.... first things first- "especially regarding things like "brochures" ... "gun ownership rates" ... "genocide" ... "who voted for Iraq" and "begging skills." And don't forget that "cardboard democracy" and "killing my family" shit while you are at it. If you want to have a real debate, then clear up your earlier mess of lies and hyperbole. Until then, go somewhere else, I'm all out of troll food.

I'll say again:

You have no way to reason with someone like me, who sees MY GUN as one of the few things that keeps my business, my family, and myself safe. Because it does in my line of work. Truly... you'll never change people like me. Ever. You do not have the depth to understand why. I've had a criminal's gun in my face... a gun that NO LAW YOU MAKE would have kept from him. You've got a policy paper, and you're ill-equipped to answer a single thing that is not on the page.

In your non-US utopian vacuum, no guns equal no gun crimes. ShawnJ actually posted this same thinking a few weeks ago with much stronger reasoning skills than you have... but no one, NO ONE here can put forth a workable plan for the USA that will take guns away without leaving a LOT of people like me open to a criminal's whim. Until I see something like that from you, and I know I will not because it is the unicorn of small arms control, you can go fly a kite.

I deal with realities... mine chiefly. That reality is governed by the daily threat of being hurt or killed, or having my family hurt or killed... and that threat increases exponentially should a criminal have a good chance that I have been disarmed. That's why I say- go get HIS gun, and leave the rest of us that are decent, hard-working people alone. No law, that's right.... NO LAW THAT ANY U.S. POLITICIAN COULD HAVE MADE would have kept the gun that was put in my face out of the criminal's hand. It was stolen from a POLICE STATION in MEXICO. Criminals that want guns will get them, and gun laws have little effect on determined people who, (broken record here) don't .... care... about... the.... law.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #156 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Heh. My wife might actually take you up on that. I figure, though, with my general life trajectory—New Orleans, Oklahoma, SLC—I'll wind up in the Aleutians before too long.

Bring a coat. That and a big gun, or your friendly law-abiding NRA life member neighbor with a big gun. But especially the coat.

Quote:
Yeah. If you're not from the West, scale takes a while to get used to.

I noticed that one time when I went from Moyock to Boston to DC to Juno in two days. It was a lot like "holy cow... SPACE."

Quote:
Well, it's not like people usually plan that, do they? The gun makes a crime of passion potentially much more deadly that it might otherwise be.

I'd love to see some stats on "crimes of passion." I'm honestly interested. Much more interested than some waking dream that gastrokid has about me "surprising" and then killing my family.

And since I've been dealing with the insane... and you are generally much less likely to head off into batshit territory ... I completely agree with a number of gun control measures. Like machine gun registration. And domestic violence permanent disqualification. And felons being LOCKED UP if they are caught with a gun, or even for TRYING to buy a gun. And for mandatory federal minimums for ALL gun crime.

I also agree that there should be more info given to gun owners... those educational reasons are the reason that I became an NRA instructor in five disciplines as well as the Eddie Eagle program. In 2007, I have taught over 150 gun owners completely free of charge, because getting them the right info is vital. People that own guns have a responsibility to understand the function of their firearms, know the three big safety rules, and know the laws concerning guns in their state. If they don't, I personally don't want them around guns at all. The eeeevil NRA has educated more people in the above areas than any group in the nation.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #157 of 243
Thread Starter 
The Supremes heard the case. It looks like they are falling to individual rights. So time to up armor the homestead.


High Court Considers Right to Bear Arms

Quote:
WASHINGTON A majority of the Supreme Court appeared ready on Tuesday to embrace, for the first time in the countrys history, an interpretation of the Second Amendment that protects the right to own a gun for personal use.

...
post #158 of 243
not so quick... if they do fall on the side of individual rights, there is that pesky detail over how much of a right they will grant...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #159 of 243
Thread Starter 
Yea yea yea. The tea leaves seem to be that DC will see it's gun ban go down. I guess Chicago too? What other cities have gun bans? LA, San Fran and NY?
post #160 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

not so quick... if they do fall on the side of individual rights, there is that pesky detail over how much of a right they will grant...

How much?

It seems like they'll find enough of a right to overturn the ban. Unless they specifically restrict the holding to the factual circumstances of *this* case, we'll likely see similar gun bans vanish. It'll happen in either of two ways: 1) cities will eliminate their bans proactively or 2) someone will challenge remaining bans in court, win, and the SCOTUS will deny certiorari on the cities' appeal.

Moral of the story:

Shouldn't have elected Bush.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bye bye gun control