quote: As for the oppressive regime, if you really think that you can always leave the country (which, I will point out for the slow, is a salient point and not merely a rude remark).
...or, as someone on here said, we could arm and shoot the oppresive regime. Hmmm...
posted
I suppose I have a lot of things to say about gun control and what not. The fact is there are many things in American society that lead to our high rate of homocides. Just look at Canada, lots and lots of people there own firearms, but their murder rate is much much much lower. We've created alot of our own problems with issues like prohibition, and the simple cultural divides that have never really been fixed in our society. How many of the crimes out there do you see done by an assault rifle anyhow. Plus the fact is a high powered deer rifle can be amuch more effective tool for urban terror than an assault rifle ever could be simply due to their higher caliber.
In my mind it is the ultimate liberty to allow a populace to walk around with a "ticking timebomb" as some would say. Yes people should have that right, simply because we are not peasants. I say that in the sense that not so long ago a lot of people needed a rifle not just for protection, but survival in the woods. Yes for the most part in THIS time and day we don't require all of the weapons a lot of people have. The thing is a liberty and freedom such as that is not for today or yesterday, it is for tomorrow. You may not excercise your right to free speech in protest in your entire life. Do you want it taken away.
You say what could an urban miliia equipped with assault rifles do? Well quite a bit if you ask me. I know that I have enough training to do enough hurt in an enivornment which I'm familiar with.
I'm sure most of you know about the war on drugs and the war on terror. I can give you one major reason why both of those campaigns have done so poorly in my humble opinion. They target the product. We try to kill the terrorists, get the drugs off the street. The fact is the desire is still there, while it is there something will happen. You're worried about armed thieves etc. Well are they going to quit stealing because they don't have a pistol anymore? For the most part I think there should be a detailed look into what part of society is killing people and their motives. Really fix the problem, don't go for something that simply seems to fix the problem to the rest of society so you can get some free votes.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
I am against limiting the types of weapons that a law abiding citizen can own. If the founding fathers were alive today they would insist on the general public being able to have assault weapons to protect against tyranny. Even with assault weapons a third revolution would be difficult in this day in age...but without them it would be impossible. I don't foresee it being necessary...BUT the founding fathers did put the line in there for a reason.
I do agree with putting limits one WHO can own guns. I am for the 3 day waiting period, and background checks (which the purchaser should have to pay for). If someone has committed a crime with a gun, that should take away their right to own guns in the future. They have shown that they cannot be trusted. If you are going to have assault weapons, sniper riffles, silencers and such there should be extra licensing and background checks (again you should have to pay for them). People should also be held accountable for what their guns are used for. If you leave guns unlocked and your kids get to them and use them, you should be punished. It should be manslaughter at the very least.
While guns are a right...they are also a responsibility. If you are going to have a gun, you need to secure it...and make sure that you are adequately trained to use it.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since people are so focused on "shall not be infringed" and invoke the old "what isn't clear about that?" how come they are so quick to overlook the whole "well regulated militia" part of it? Nothing about a bunch of random citizens carrying loaded weapons into Wendy's for a burger strikes me as "well regulated" or "Militia." Just curious.
thanks!
fil
PS Don't shoot me.
PPS Guns don't kill people. People with guns do.
PPPS "3 days? But I want to shoot someone now!" -Homer Simpson.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of the opposite of CCW...carrying it out for all to see! I am wondering if the fictional world of "Kill Bill" would be more to people's tastes. In that world, motorcyles, cars and air planes have slots so that everyone has a place for their samurai swords. Do gun advocates also think it would be fine to get rid of that whole length limit with blades that we have? I think it would be cool to have gun toters walking among dudes with samurai swords on their backs. Finally, my life can LOOK and FEEL like the video games I am told I shouldn't play!
posted
I'm fine with people walking around with swords. Heck, I think it would look kind of cool to see someone come into the office wearing a broadsword.
Though, since they are major weapons, they should be licenced as well.
posted
I think it's clear we're talking about a different level of oppression. At first glance it seems like the biggest obstacle would be rousing popular support especially if the threat came from within "the establishment," but militia power is very clearly a defensive thing only. Turning it into an offensive force would get them massacred. Thus, we're really only talking about foreign invasions and military coups.
Would the South have won a guerrilla war? Tough. They certainly wouldn't have outright lost as is possible when you bleed tens of thousands of men in a day's fight. OTOH, despite the stereotype, most Southern soldiers did not have military-grade weapons already. Even the Confederacy itself was short on inventory.
It's an interesting question, though, especially once they realized that guys like Sherman would show no leniency for civilians. If they had taken that as a sign to abandon the battlefield and fortify the cities, they could've made occupation life hell for years if not decades despite the disparity in arms and manpower. Keep in mind that unless the scenario is a Chinese invasion, the ratio of attacking regulars to "militia" is vastly less than the conscripted labor force of the entire North vs. an antebellum South.
But really, urban warfare just wasn't in the vocabulary. Guerrilla tactics yes, but the goal was to defeat the army of the North just as we did to Cornwallis and thus gain independence by offense. Militias can't do that -- and frankly, the Confederate army was much less prepared for open battle than a group of sharpshooting vets would be today. Moreover, the last century has taught us that independence by brute force doesn't always work, but opportunistically blowing up lots of soft targets often does.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fil, I really do think that yes, the Founders really did intend for the citizens to be able to overthrow the government by force, as a last resort. Remember, they had just done exactly that. (Whether it was really a "last resort" is open to question, but that's how they saw it.)
At the same time I suspect that the point is basically moot by now. I suspect the military experts are right that a newly assembled militia isn't going to defeat government troops on the battlefield; at the same time the Revolution does show it can at least buy time to get some training in or move better trained troops where you need them. Or rather, it did; at this point a fairly disorganized militia isn't going to do a lot of good.
So even though I disapprove of gun control in theory, I'm willing to support it in practice iff it will actually reduce crime. *watches and waits*
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I really do think that yes, the Founders really did intend for the citizens to be able to overthrow the government by force, as a last resort. Remember, they had just done exactly that. (Whether it was really a "last resort" is open to question, but that's how they saw it.)
Really? You really think that the rich landbarons that made up the Continental Congress wanted their citizens armed so that if they had a bad year in Congress, the people could up and shoot them? I doubt that very seriously and would LOVE to see some backing for this.
I think they created a Democracy where loser representatives could be voted out of office if they became tyranical. I think they created three sides to the government that could balance each other out so that a government couldn't become tyranical.
I go back to "well regulated militia." I think the Congress wanted to have a standing army so that they wouldn't have to work so hard to get up and running when the English came back, or the French or the...whatever. A well regulated militia, being necessary (for what? revolution? why?) for defense, I would think.
fil
PS I would be much more supportive of a "arm everyone" bit if "everyone" had to do time in the military, like those in Sweden, was it? Or, better yet, you have to do time in the military if you want to carry a gun outside of your home...and can be called up to go back to war if the country needs it. Well...regulated...militia.
quote: Really? You really think that the rich landbarons that made up the Continental Congress wanted their citizens armed so that if they had a bad year in Congress, the people could up and shoot them? I doubt that very seriously and would LOVE to see some backing for this.
I'll look for what I can find. Sadly, I never remember where I read things. I'm sure I've read this in a dozen places, but it could be anywhere at all.
Also, you keep saying things that seem to reduce "tyranny" to an unpopular law or two ("if they had a bad year in Congress"). I'm not sure I understand why you're suggesting such a low threshold.
quote:I think they created a Democracy where loser representatives could be voted out of office if they became tyranical. I think they created three sides to the government that could balance each other out so that a government couldn't become tyranical.
Obviously those are in the Constitution too, Fil, and I don't mean to discount them. But the best laid plans of mice and men go awry. The Founders did the best they could, but even they couldn't be sure exactly how things would work. Consider Washington--he was influential enough that if he had told Congress what to do, they'd likely have done it, and once that had gone on for a few years, it could easily have become "the way things are done". Or if he'd decided to keep running for president and stay in office till the day he died--well, think how much influence a president could build up in that time.
All kinds of things could have gone wrong--some still could go wrong, I would say. (It wouldn't surprise me if twenty years from now the Supreme Court was ordering the other two branches of government around.) And if they go too far wrong, votes aren't going to cut it.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sweden still has mandatory conscription on the books, but nobody actually does it in the absence of a Red Army breathing down the Finns. You're thinking of the Swiss.
As for the Framers' opinon on militias and so on...I'm more of a Jefferson scholar than anyone else, so I'll sum up his view.
- America should never have standing armies except in times of war (he did support a navy). - Drafts are affronts to liberty. - The militia are absolutely vital to the defense of a nation, especially in the first moments of defense before regulars can be formed (no standing army, remember). - As such, we must make sure able-bodied men are always armed and trained. Every citizen must be willing to be a soldier, both for maximum military strength and for fairness. Tactics should be required study in colleges. (The more radical of these views came about when the Canucks burned our Capitol.)
On revolution: - Even good governments go bad. When this happens, be ready to fight as we once did. - A healthy country should have a rebellion every 20 years at least. (Rebellion being something that inspires a minority to take up arms, showing they still care about the process, NOT necessarily a successful overthrow of the government.) - Actual revolutions are dangerous because even when despotism is toppled, democracy is hard to come by. A revolutionary generation usually cannot overcome its entire history at once. The French suck at it.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe gun control types feel comfortable witht the idea that the only people who would have gun access if they had their way would be the police and the military.
I don't feel comfortable with this.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.
Full details are available at the link above.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As many people here know, I hate it when people assign motives to their political opponents without proof. Here's another example where the side I'm on (generally anti-gun control, with some reasonable regulation allowed) is painting the other side as repressed, psychologically weak, or otherwise incapable of thinking clearly.
The linked article is mostly pop-psychology which assumes the worst about the people who don't agree with the author. For example, it's just as easy to say that the author can't imagine someone fearing being murdered by a gun-owning neighbor having a bad day without thinking he would do that himself because the author can't imagine someone fearing another's actions without wanting to do that action themself.
His reasoning is false from the get-go. Gun control advocates have a colorable argument. Most of the guns sought to be banned are specifically designed to kill people. Having lethal force that requires little training to use does heighten the stakes of many confrontations. The U.S. does have one of the worst murder rates in the industrialized world and one of the highest gun ownership rates.
I think there are perfectly good responses to each of these, as well as some good reasons beyond these to allow private gun ownership. But it does no good to dismiss these arguments as proof of psychological weakness.
The author purports to be an advocate. He has basically stated that the people's minds he should be changing (those that disagree with him) are not capable of rational thought. Does he honestly expect to change someone's mind by saying, "Here's why you're a little nuts; don't you feel better knowing it was just projection and weakness?"
The problem with political advocacy in this country is that too many people are trying to show how bad their opponents are not how good their own ideas are. Sure, refute your opponents ideas. But you should be trying to convince people who disagree with you, not insult them.
Pardon me for being lazy, but does elsewhere in the link define the state guard units as "militia"? The ambiguity of the term militia is what I was saying. The units that are currently the National Guard and etc. were not considered militia at the time, but regular forces. Also, what would the sense be of maintaining private and personal weapons for units equipped by the state and federal governments?
I think the militia refers exclusively to the private citizens in a town engaged in armed resistance...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim-Me, The supreme court ruling does not boil down into sound bites very well. I strongly suggest that you take the 5 to 10 minutes necessary to read the entire thing.
The statement below is explains in part why the term well-regulated milita in the constitution refers to a a state governed force.
quote: The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
Since the term "National Guard" post dates the constitution and could be changed at anytime, the Supreme Court statement does not use this terminology. Their ruling does how ever make it clear that states have the authority and responsibility to regulate these militias and at this time I know of no militia's that meet the definition given in the supreme court ruling other than the National Guard.
This rule is the primary reason that the anti gun regulation lobby does not fight this battle in the courts, they lobby against regulations in legislatures. Furthermore, I do not know of any case where the supreme court has ruled that state laws regulating the ownership of arms were unconstitutional. In fact, they have consistently ruled that states have the right to regulate private gun ownership. If you can find any supreme court ruling to the contrary, I would be pleased to see it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm... it does certainly seem that the states are responsible for regulating and maintaining militia forces, but, again, this calls into question the need for a "right" to keep and bear arms if we are merely expecting the states to simply pass out the guns if and when it deems it necessary. Even if the national guard and reserves are the only existing organizations that fit this criteria, it needn't mean that they are the only ones possible or plausible, nor does it mean that the application of the second amendment is limited to them.
I'm sure several veterans organizations would consider themselves as fitting the description, even though their rank and drill are strictly ceremonial these days.
As I haven't said this yet, I would also agree that there is a massive difference between firearm restriction and firearm banning. My problem with the Brady Bill is that it is stupid and ineffective... not that it actually violates the second amendment.
Also, as I and others have alluded to, firearms are not the olny weapons to be addressed.
Here in the supremely armed state of Texas, where it is absolutely legal to carry loaded rifles in your gun rack and legal to carry a concealed weapon with a license, it is illegal to carry a knife or stick larger than certain sizes, period. I have known friends who were harassed for leaving baseball equipment in their car (the bat was an "illegal weapon") and have been myself accosted for carrying a walking staff. If I were jumped on the street in close quarters, I'd much rather have my ash quarterstaff than a Glock, but the option is denied me... because a quarterstaff is not of any military significance.
Edit: forgot to note, for the person who suggested that those who have committed crimes with guns not be allowed to own them... it's already illegal for any convicted felon to own a gun.
posted
Jim-Me, Please just read the whole ruling. I explains quite clearly that when the constitution was written, Militia's consisted of men who used their privately owned firearms as part of a well-regulated militia. States weren't passing out guns to the members of the militia, they were expected to bring their own. The key point of the ruling is that the Supreme court sees the "well-regulated milita phrase" and the "right to bear arms" as integrally linked and that the right to bear arms is only protect where it can be reasonably expected that these arms will be used for the common defense with-in the context of a state regulated militia. This means that the supreme court believes that the constitution offers no protection for ownership of arms used, individuals for sport or for personal protection.
Note that I am not saying that such uses should be banned, only that the Supreme Court, which has the final say on constitutional matters, has clearly ruled that ownership of arms for purposes other than those connected with a state regulated militia is not constitutional protected.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: If the founding fathers were alive today they would insist on the general public being able to have assault weapons to protect against tyranny
Lupus -- I would love to see how you could possible "prove" this statement you made, seeing as how it is improbable that back then they could even imagine some of the types of weapons now currently available to us.
I just don't like it when one person says how he is SURE how others would think.
posted
FG, I agree with that. I think if the Founding Fathers saw what weapons could do today, their wigs would fly off. I am all for keeping in mind what the Founding Fathers were thinking at the time...a single-shot musket above the fireplace in case the Brits attack! Of that, we can be sure.
posted
I'm not disagreeing with you, Rabbit, that the right to bear arms is inextricably linked with the idea of the militia. I was the one who brought up that precise point, saying that the second amendment is applicable to military weaponry.
I disagree with the idea that the current National Guard is the only thing that the second amendment applies to. I don't see them saying, in the ruling, that he, as a private citizen, doesn't come under these protections... only that the weapon in question doesn't serve a purpose for a militia under the state's direction. The militia, as they have described them in that ruling, have certainly fallen by the way side, but I do not see that they have ruled that the second amendment is in any way rendered inapplicable by this.
I'm no legal scholar, and I am reading quickly and distractedly, but the sense I get from the ruling is precisely what I was previously maintaining it was: the second amendment applies to military weaponry, held by the common citizen with the intent of resisting armed conflict, and not to having a sawed off shotgun to defend your house or a goose gun with which to feed your household or decorate your mantle.
I would also note, again, that the ownership and transport of the weapon are not the crime, but the failiure to posess the appropriate tax stamp for it. I reiterate that the ownership of restricted weapons is not illegal if you can afford the tax and pass a background check... i.e. - if the government likes you and you pay them enough.
Current firearm law, I maintain, is one of the more deeply inequitible laws towards the poor and marginalized on America's books at the moment.
quote:Edit: forgot to note, for the person who suggested that those who have committed crimes with guns not be allowed to own them... it's already illegal for any convicted felon to own a gun.
Actually, that's only a very recent thing. from the earlier link:
quote:In 2000, more than 3,300 licensed concealed-carry owners were arrested for crimes between the beginning of January and the end of April for that year in Texas. Four months! And these are not just traffic or fine violations, either. Murder, rape, assault, sexual assault, and various weapons violations were rampant. Beginning February of 2000, in Utah, the state began doing regular background checks of licensed handgun owners. By April of 2001, there was over a 200% increase in license revocations. The largest reason for revocation was for outstanding warrants. Since 1990 in Florida, at least 690 known criminals applied for concealed carry permits. At one point, more than 150 of them managed to get and keep a permit for up to two years. Almost 300 others were convicted of crimes after recieving the permit.
And these are just conceal-and-carry permits, not just licenses to own. What this means is that while the purpose is to keep guns out of the hands of felons, it is by no means definitively effective. On the other hand, legislating to death is never going to solve the issue of heat-of-moment violent crimes or known criminals getting their hands on weapons. There is no single answer, and this is the largest flaw of the majority of pro-gun-legislation groups and arguments.
Richard, you seem to be somewhat mistaken about what the author there was saying. He didn't say that police are better trained, but that there is normally not even the training a novice officer has had as a requirement to be issued a gun. Whether police officers heed the training they receive is not stated, and the statement he made, "Even police are trained in methods to prevent such situations, and it's still happened. To police. What makes you think that someone with criminal intent won't take advantage of you?" pretty much agrees with what you said. Also, the statement about pistols has to do with their not being as common as motion pictures portraying them. Rifles were a staple on frontier property, but pistols were not common for several reasons (cost, skill, manufacturing, etc.). I believe you are misundersstanding the statements that were made, because they seem to be a different context than what you disagreed with. Forgive me if I misunderstand, though.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not a recent thing. It is unlawful for a convicted felon to own a gun and has been for some time. G. Gordon Liddy mentioned frequently on his radio program (in the early 90's when I used to listen to him) that that was precisely why he didn't own one. Just because there were failures in the background check system does not mean it wasn't on the books.
As an aside, I find the Texas statistics, in particular, a little hard to believe, but I have nothing to contradict them.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In August of 2000, the Violence Policy Center released License to Kill III, a report that details the number of concealed weapons licensees in Texas who have been arrested for crimes after getting a concealed weapons permit. Using data from the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Violence Policy Center found that Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for a total of 3,370 crimes between January 1, 1996 and April 30, 2000, including very serious violent offenses like murder, rape, sexual assault, and weapons-related crimes. An analysis of the Texas data also reveals that, between 1996 to 1999, Texas CCW permit holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate that was 66% higher than that of the general population of Texas
quote:Washington, DC - A new study released today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) shows that Texas concealed handgun license holders have been arrested 5,314 times since the concealed handgun license law went into effect--an average of two and one-half arrests every day from January 1, 1996, until August 31, 2001. Texas has a "shall issue" concealed carry system, in which an adult (21 or over), is issued a license that allows them to have a handgun on or about their person as long as it is not visible or discernible through ordinary observation after they meet specific, objective criteria.
posted
The numebrs in those links are meaningless without knowing the number of CCLs, the number of comparable adults w/o CCLs, and the numbers for arrests of those non-CCL-holders.
quote: In 2000, more than 3,300 licensed concealed-carry owners were arrested for crimes between the beginning of January and the end of April for that year in Texas. Four months!
and your second one says
quote: Using data from the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Violence Policy Center found that Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for a total of 3,370 crimes between January 1, 1996 and April 30, 2000
which shows that you were only off by a factor of 13 in your time frame.
3300 crimes in 4 1/3 years in a state as populous as Texas isn't that surprising. In 4 months would have been.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Check the search results linked. At least one of the studies is linked, where the numbers of licenses and population would be pointed out. The only reason you're claiming the numbers are meaningless is because they are summaries of the studies, which is why one search result was given in order to allow anyone who wishes to show where the numbers were incorrect. For more information, a contact number was given.
Contact: Naomi Seligman Violence Policy Center 1140 19th Street, NW Washington, DC Phone: 202-822-8200 www.vpc.orgPosts: 72 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The summary included nothing about the rate of criminality by CCL-holders versus none holders. Had the study reached a conclusion on this issue, I'd expect it to be in the summary.
I'm commenting on the numbers YOU chose to post, and stand by my original statement that they are not relevant to the debate. We know people commit crimes. Ergo, we know some people with carry permits will commit crimes. Is anyone surprised by this? How is it relevant to whether we should allow CCLs?
quote:An analysis of the Texas data also reveals that, between 1996 to 1999, Texas CCW permit holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate that was 66% higher than that of the general population of Texas
It does compare to nonlicensed population. Thus, it has relevance. You're jumping into semantics without reading the details.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That makes no sense whatsoever. I'd be willing to bet that <3000 isn't representative of 5/8 of the violent crime arrests for the City of Dallas during that time period, much less for the entire state.
posted
No, I'm trying to find some basis for analyzing the results other than the conclusions made by anti-gun advocates.
The 66% higher is a conclusion. Excuse me if I fail to take the Brady organization's word for it.
Dagonee Edit: Oh, and the reaosn I didn't comment before on this part is that it's "weapon-related" offenses. Is anyone surprised that the people who carry weapons commit more offenses with them, and the licensed ones are subjected to more scrutiny, making detection of such crimes more likely.
The text is incredibly biased in it's presentation, giving a number in the thousands and then saying including such and such horrihble crimes which number in the dozens each.
posted
One other possibility... it specifies "weapon-related offenses." If by this they mean "carrying without a license" that makes perfect sense. Under the state law, if you have your firearm on you without your license to carry you can, and likely will, be arrested. All this would then mean is that 2/3 of the people arrested in Texas for carrying illegal weapons actually had the license to do so.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's true - everytime a CCL is stopped in Virginia, the holder must show the gun (if he's got it) and the license (if he's carrying the gun).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The 66% higher is a conclusion. Excuse me if I fail to take the Brady organization's word for it.
Considering the Brady organization didn't perform the study, I once again submit that you aren't even bothering to read.
You're accusing of bias when displaying your own like a flag. I think that's enough for me to stop bothering to try to discuss it, since you aren't discussing it back.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alai, since you have yet to apologize or correct your own completely incorrect posting, I suggest you take a little more cordial attitude.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim, I didn't write the original number. I quoted from something someone else wrote. You wish forme to apologize for someone else's mistakes?
And my bias is that I think rampant gun control legislation is not worthwhile. I think you're reading into too much and tossing veiled insults, Dagonee. You should stop while you're ahead.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As Dagonee points out, you placed it on the board, which makes you responsible for the misrepresentation.
I called the statistics unlikely, and in attempting to bolster your position you revealed yourself to be quoting inaccurately. You have yet to acknowledge this, and someone in such an exposed position is foolhardy to get arrogant and condescending about other people's arguments.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, what I did was correct the original quote with others that were closer to the source. In other words, I rectified it. I think both you and Dagonee are attributing intentions from me that are not there.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll be honest in my opinion many people who support gun-control and those who so violently oppose it do so out of one major thing, Fear. Its something Americans really don't know how to handle well. Our society is one that does not handle the stresses of existence well. We fear the government, we fear this and that. We do so over some legitimate reasons, but people we should not fear our fellow citizens! I live in a nation where so many people of the same group fear each other. It is to this day one of my greater sorrows that this is true.
You gun control advocates fear for your lives, fear that someone is going to shoot you, that anyone might have a gun. Well I suppose if you're a smaller person, say 5'8 and below you should fear for your life around me. I'm more than capable of ending your life without many troubles. Do you honestly fear me though, no. Because you know me, or at least I hope you know me well enough that I would never do such an act. The thing is say even with 11,000 gun deaths in our nation a year, which means around one in 25,000 will die every year from gunshot. Its just.. you are dozens and dozens of times more likely to die from a cheeseburger than you are of someone shooting you. Why do you fear it so much? Yes its wrong, but why do you oppose a weapon so much. I think for the most part its because a weapon is simply used for one thing, death, while all the other ways you will die of are not only intended to bring death.
Many that oppose gun control are afraid for the loss of their liberties, even when they are not honestly in danger. They are afraid to lose what their fathers and fathers before them had. My famil for instance has a long line of swords men from Friesland ( what is now the Netherlands and Northern Germany). I do as a person honestly enjoy hunting, but to me it would be enough just to spend a few weeks in the woods alone or with friends. So why do I fear losing my liberties, many many reasons, but then I will be honest as a human being I am more afraid of the loss of my liberties, freedom, my honor/respect then I ever will be for the loss of my life.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
and after bolding the first one, I would have appreciated something like "oops, I was wrong... here's the actual numbers" rather than merely leaving a couple of quotes and links...
edit... maybe I ask too much <shrug> since I'm the only one who seems worked up about it.
quote:It still doesn't explain how the statistics are relevant.
This thread is about gun control laws. I pointed out how even with the gun control laws, criminals are still obtaining legal permits for the most difficult licenses, and how some who get those licenses are committing felonies. You, on the other hand, came after me with a knee-jerk response and insulting intentions that were not there. Considering what you stated here in this very thread, I find your attacks hypocritical, at best. "As many people here know, I hate it when people assign motives to their political opponents without proof." You did exactly the thing you claim to hate. Leave me alone, please.
Jim, I provided corrected links after you questioned them. I'm sorry I didn't say the thing you wanted me to say, but I linked the very data to substantiate your claim. Should I go back and edit my older post as well?
I agree with Black Fox about the fear thing being the major driving factor with those vehemently pushing for more legislation instead of trying to find solutions for the criminal behavior instead.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"An assault weapon is by it's technical definition a weapon that can switch from automatic to semi-automatic fire"
You'd surprise a lot of military, special ops folks like DeltaForce, and SWAT personnel. The only reasonable use for a short-barreled shotgun is in hostage rescue operations and close-range combat. The current USmilitary assault rifle allows only three-shot bursts on full automatic. And we shouldn't need to mention rocket propelled grenades and launchers.
More to the point, the weapons legally designated as assault rifles are designed and manufactured to have automatic fire capability. The only disablement from autofire mode is through removing a spring&lever/etc. The plans&specifications for which are readily accessable public information. So anyone who can teach themselves a minor knowlege of machining and has access to low-level machine tools can make an auto-fire kit. And anyone with a small amount of money can purchase an autofire kit to convert an assault rifle into a weapon which has an autofire mode.
posted
What motive did I assign except to turn your bias charge around on you. Not nice when that happens, is it? And even that's not questioning your motives, but the quality and applicability of the information you provide.
And how was my response knee-jerk? I questioned the relevance of certain statistics to the discussion. I provided reasons for my opinion on their relevance. The statistics aren't relevant to how much gun control effects illegal gun ownership or other crimes, mainly because there's no control group presented with the statistics. Further, there's no way of knowing what the situation would be without the law in question. Finally, the fact that CCL in Texas is must-issue means that some people who get the license WILL commit crimes afterwards. The CCL must issue law isn't gun control, it's gun rights. The revocation is gun control, and the study didn't look at that, at least not in the statistics you quoted.
posted
"the U.S. has more murders by blunt object than the rest of the industrialized world has murders"
Subtracting murder-by-handgun, the US murder rate isn't greatly higher than Canada's. If US social welfare programs and criminal law&rehabilitation were as advanced as Canada's, it'd probably be less. BTW - Canadian restrictions on handgun ownership is far beyond those of the US.
"The country with the lowest crime rate in the world, is Switzerland. Why you ask, because every single household has one sub machine pistol, and one pistol, per person over the age of 18."
Amongst all the other reasons given, Switzerland allows addicts to use heroin. And drug rehabilitation is the norm instead of the US default of temporarily warehousing addicts with other addicts. Add a higher minimum wage with the relative cheapness of their prefered high, and even addicts are busy working and nodding off rather than engaging in criminal activity to pay for an unneccesarily expensive habit. The US "War on Drugs" merely makes drug dealing a highly profitable enterprise at the cost of endangering the public.
Those militarily-required guns are issued only to people found to be eligible to serve in the military. Which automaticly screens out the majority of the unstable and the criminal. And the military-issued weapons are kept in a lock box. Basicly they aren't thought about much: just like all the junk Americans have buried in their attics, basements, garages, etc. Heck, I constantly find stuff in the kitchen cabinets and drawers that I forgot I possessed.
Switzerland has very tight gun control otherwise. A private handgun license is very hard to obtain. Privately owned handguns, rifles, and ammunition must be registered; and must be stored in a government-licensed facility, with a sign-in and sign-out system which includes writing out the intended use. So no impulse shootings. For that matter, no planned gun crimes in the expectation that the Swiss police couldn't sort out the guilty from all the other people who had guns in their possession during the time of the crime.
Unlike the US, where an impulse of the moment is the most common cause of shootings because guns always remain highly noticible&accessible. And guns are so common that the use of a gun doesn't even narrow down the list of suspects.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
