Gun Grabbers

Hmmmmm.... how to make it clear and simple to you gun grabbers. CRIMINALS ARE NOT AFFECTED BY GUN LAWS! THE WHOLE POINT OF BEIN A CRIMINAL IS BECAUSE THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW! As said, criminals do not buy guns legally, but illegally, cause they are, get this, CRIMINALS!!!!!!!!!! A gun law affects me, a citizen who buys guns legally. But mr criminal, guess what? He doesn't follow gun laws, he a criminal. Just like drug laws, they affect law abidding citizens, not criminals! I swear, it is like murder being illegal. It is illegal, so they should just stop. Wait, they still happen!

Also, to the guy who said guns make it easier to kill, sorry, but a car makes it a hell of alot easier. Guns are loud, identifiable, and guess what? Easy to trace. A car? How to tell the difference from a F150 and a F250 and a Ranger? All trucks, about the same height, so you run ten people over in your Ranger, the police have to find every ranger, F150, F250, and any other vehicle that size. Also, I take a gun into a store, I fire 9 shots. I take a full size van, damn, I can run a couple dozen people over easily. Like the Political Cartoon has. Woman tells her husband to sell those dangerous things in the garage, so he sells the car and bike cause they kill more then guns.

How come you aren't for Bat Laws? Or Bowling Ball Laws? Or Fork Laws? Or Crutch Laws? All can kill, and hell, usually better then a gun, bats aren't traceble, no license required, silent, and easy to carry.

I don't know if you read my post JTL....B/c I clearly addressed every issue you've mentioned in the above....

You said:
Hmmmmm.... how to make it clear and simple to you gun grabbers. CRIMINALS ARE NOT AFFECTED BY GUN LAWS! THE WHOLE POINT OF BEIN A CRIMINAL IS BECAUSE THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW! As said, criminals do not buy guns legally, but illegally, cause they are, get this, CRIMINALS!!!!!!!!!!

I said:
I'm not a liberal...I have nothing against people who own and use guns responsibly....I see many useful purposes for them in our society...I understand that if you want a gun - you can get a gun w/o going through the proper channels....I also do not see why there should not be stricter gun control...

And I'll add to what I said:
Buying a gun illegally and buying a gun legally are two completely separate methods of obtaining a weapon - one has a thought out and logical process that is unfortunately lacking a method to curb the number of people buying for inappropriate purposes, and the other has no form of control, is a black market, and is open to anyone with money in their pocket...

You said (although not addressed to me):
Also, to the guy who said guns make it easier to kill, sorry, but a car makes it a hell of alot easier.

I said:
This is a weapon (not a tool or commodity used for inappropriate purposes to achieve a desired result) that is meant to kill...Most weapons are meant to kill...

This is always the defense mechanism for most people who believe our current system of control is fine, or far too strict....I can kill you with a hair brush! Isn't that a weapon? Why don't we have hair brush control?

This is a ludicrous approach to trying to help solve a problem that's right in front of everyone's face....It's making fun of a situation that has no room for humor....I don't even think there's a need to address this further, as I've made my side of the argument clear...

Clear? I read "Gun Laws don't work on people who go around the law, but we should have them anyways." What? This doesn't make sense, if they are going around the laws, then why are the laws needed? Know what happened in Australia? They banned guns. Guess what? Murder, crime, all went UP! Guess what? They banning swords and knives now. Why? Guns hard to get so people, get this, use something else! In other words, they want to kill this person, if no gun, then a knife, or bat, or car, or bomb.... Hell, bombs are a lot easier then a gun. Anyone can buy gas, and anyone can buy fuse.(either homemade or store bought) And best part? A gun you need to aim, be close enough to the subject to see them. A bomb? Set it outside their bedroom window at night, light the fuse, drive away. Ten minutes later you at home, bomb goes off, all evidnce of you gone up in the explosin. SO we should ban gas, rags, oil, so forth....

You seem to think the arguement of "Since cars, knives, bats, whatever kill more, why aren't we banning them?" is bs, but why is it? It is true that cars kill more, yet don't see any car turn ins. How many people died in car accidents in say, Zaire? None you say? Oh, no cars.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Clear? I read "Gun Laws don't work on people who go around the law, but we should have them anyways." What? This doesn't make sense, if they are going around the laws, then why are the laws needed?

Clearly we simply differ on this....I'm not going to blow up and rant and flame you b/c I think that's a naive opinion....I'll just leave it at that....

Ahh....nevermind....lol

...A bomb...

Stop right there! Bombs? You're going off track again! I see what you mean and the logic you are trying to impart upon me here - I thought I made it clear that I had made it clear to you that I already understand...look a few posts up..

You seem to think the arguement of "Since cars, knives, bats, whatever kill more, why aren't we banning them?" is bs, but why is it?

Bombs, cars, pencils, ham radios, and picture frames can kill people - but they are not GUNS - we are talking about guns - gun laws - gun control - not all the other things (with the exception of bombs, although I guess one could say technically not) that kill people that WERE NOT designed to kill people but can anyways....You're the one suggesting laws for them - you defend it....(you don't have to reply saying you defend it, I'm being facetious)

You agree that a gun is deadly, right? Even if its locked in three lockers and has a trigger lock on it...the fact is, it's a gun - it's deadly....It will kill or injure people - Most people would never dream of using their gun in that purpose - or if they did, it would be in self-defense....AND THAT'S GREAT! That's what they're for....that and going out and hunting, target shooting, etc, etc....I do all those great things and they are fun...

If someone took my father's guns away, which I also use, I would be upset - he would be upset....But if there were stricter gun control that kept guns out of the hands of people who don't deserve them, you and me and your neighbor down the street would be happy people....

Gun control is not something a safe and responsible gun user should be afraid of....I repeat....Gun control is not something a safe and responsible gun user should be afraid of (At least not the kind I'm suggesting - I can't speak for other ideas...)

If you actually think that stricter gun control, at the purchasing level, would put your family or your safety into further harm than protection, then I fail to see any logic in that thought process...

But ya know what.....Chances are I could spout off for hours and we could exchange bitter replies of how stupid we both think each other is.....And neither would win or change the way the other person thinks....It's Christmas - I don't feel like arguing anymore....I'll leave it at that....

Have a Merry Christmas!


[edit on 12/24/2004 by EnronOutrunHomerun]

Originally posted by EnronOutrunHomerun

Gun control is not something a safe and responsible gun user should be afraid of....I repeat....Gun control is not something a safe and responsible gun user should be afraid of (At least not the kind I'm suggesting - I can't speak for other ideas...)

Your dead wrong, Enron. The people who have sold you on sensible gun control have only one agenda. Get all the guns in America, just the way they have in England and Australia.

I'm growing tired of repeating myself in this thread, so I think I'll make this my last post...clearly this is a thread where opposition is not welcome...

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Your dead wrong, Enron. The people who have sold you on sensible gun control have only one agenda. Get all the guns in America, just the way they have in England and Australia.

There are no "people" who have "sold" me on this "idea"....As I said....

"(At least not the kind I'm suggesting - I can't speak for other ideas...) "

Ask me the name of a politician who supports strict gun control and I probably couldn't even tell you - This is how I feel from what I see and understand about this world we live in...If my perception is too hazy or out of focus for your standards, then you can label me a misfit and move your own agenda right along to the next person....These are my candid thoughts, not the propaganda of some overzealous politicians....

[edit on 12/25/2004 by EnronOutrunHomerun]

You know Enron, I have yet to see one post yet to sway me to buy into strict gun contol laws. Here in Va you can buy a shot gun off the shelf and in Fairfax county you can buy a hand gun but with a three day waiting period. Stupid considering you can go out to Culpeper and buy a hand gun right then and there. Gun control plain and simple does not deter one bit of criminal activity. Owning one sure can. Consider this.

Armed Citizen

[edit on 12/27/2004 by just_a_pilot]

Weapon use

In 2003, 24% of the incidents of violent crime, a weapon was present.

Offenders had or used a weapon in 45% of all robberies, compared with 11% of all rapes/sexual assaults in 2003.

Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2002, 51% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 13% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 16% with other weapons.

www.ojp.usdoj.gov...

In 1999, approximately 10,096 people were murdered by guns in the United States.[1]

In 1998, over 30,000 people died from gunshots in the U.S.[2]

A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than it is to be used against an intruder.[3]

10 children are killed by guns in the U.S. every day, on average.[4]

In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, 211 in Germany, and 9,390 in the United States.[5]

goodsforguns.org...

As a result, Canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the United States has more than 76 million. While there are other factors affecting murder, suicide and unintentional injury rates, a comparison of data in Canada and the United States suggests that access to handguns may play a role. While the murder rate without guns in the US is roughly equivalent (1.8 times) to that of Canada, the murder rate with handguns is 14.5 times the Canadian rate. The costs of firearms death and injury in the two countries have been compared and estimated to be $495 (US) per resident in the United States compared to $195 per resident in Canada.

www.guncontrol.ca...

You don't necessarily have to give away your guns, it's not that black and white. Why not just enforce stronger controls?

Why have stricter controls? Any statistic can be skewed in the favor of a presenter. I would bet they save more lives per year than are killed by law abiding gun owners, not to include thug owners on the street.

Can you actually provide any evidence to back that up?

Well looking around it is hard to say. It seems carrying a gun is more of a deterent espescially in states with a concealed weapon permit. What are we going to base this on. All shootings? Just legaly owned weapons shootings? Illegal weapons and legal weapons? Name the criteria and I will find out.

Here is just one of the many. It so used I have no idea with whom to give credit.

Ten Myths vs. Reality
Gun control is an issue surrounded by (some would say submerged in) myth and misunderstanding. We present here ten myths that are most frequently raised . . . and, from our perspective, most commonly misunderstood.

Myth No. 1: Guns cause crime. A review of the academic literature shows that there is no relationship between the number of guns and the amount of crime in the United States. Criminologists Gary Kleck and E. Britt Patterson reported in 1993 their finding that gun ownership had no significant effect on the rates of murder, assault, robbery, or rape in the U.S. Between 1973 and 1992, the rate of gun ownership in the U.S. increased by 45 percent (from 610 guns per 1,000 people to 887). The homicide rate during that period fell by nearly 10 percent (from 9.4 homicides per 100,000 people to 8.5).

Myth No. 2: Gun control laws reduce crime. Firearms have been regulated with increasing stringency in the United States for most of the past thirty years. Nevertheless, the number of firearms in private hands has increased continuously by many millions per year; handguns have become an increasing proportion of privately owned firearms; and rates of crime, violent crime, and homicide have shown no relationship to the passage or enforcement of gun laws. In their 1993 research, Kleck and Patterson analyze the impact of 19 gun control measures on six categories of violence. In ninety of the resulting 102 relationships, they found no significant correlation between gun laws and violence.

Myth No. 3: Gun control laws stop friends from killing friends. Most murderers and most victims of homicide have criminal records. They are likely to have other criminals as friends and acquaintances. So while it is true that in many cases of homicide the offender and victim are known to each other, it is not true that these "friends killing friends" are the plain ordinary folks often portrayed in anti-gun propaganda. "It is not a slander on the few truly innocent and highly sensationalized victims," writes Dr. Edgar A. Suter and his colleagues, "to note that the overwhelming predominance of homicide victims' are as predatory and socially aberrant as the perpetrators of homicide." Indeed, according to City of Chicago data, the largest and fastest-growing category of relationship between killer and victim is "non-relative, non-friend acquaintance."

Myth No. 4: Gun control laws keep criminals from obtaining guns. In surveys of prisoners, a majority report that they had owned a handgun prior to their imprisonment. But only 7 percent of criminals' handguns are obtained from legitimate retail sources. Three-fourths of felons surveyed report they would have no trouble obtaining a gun when they were released, despite legal prohibitions against firearms ownership by convicted felons.

Myth No. 5: Required waiting periods would prevent some of the most vicious crimes. The Brady waiting period law imposes waiting periods on handguns--the least-deadly type of firearm--while imposing no such restriction on much more deadly, substitutable weapons such as rifles or shotguns. While handguns are preferred by criminals because of their portability and concealability, not every criminal who planned to use a handgun will abandon his criminal plans when confronted by a waiting period. Indeed, for reasons discussed in more detail below (see "Why Waiting Periods Fail"), it is entirely possible that waiting period laws could increase the number of both killings and nondeadly woundings.

Myth No. 6: Guns don't work as self-protection against criminals. In fact, guns are about as valuable to civilians as they are to police officers, and for the same reason. According to criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, every year adults use guns for protective purposes 2.5 million times. As many as 65 lives are protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. Each year, potential victims kill between 2,000 and 3,000 criminals; they wound an additional 9,000 to 17,000. Moreover, mishaps are rare. Private citizens mistakenly kill innocent people only thirty times a year, compared with about 330 mistaken killings by police. Criminals succeed in taking a gun away from an armed victim less than 1 percent of the time. The real utility of defensive firearms, moreover, must surely be far greater, and would be measured not by how many people were shot or even how often a gun was fired, but rather by the deterrent effects of a civilian being armed.

Myth No. 7: Guns aren't needed as self-protection. About 83 percent of the population will be victims of violent crime at some point in their lives, and in any given year serious crime touches 25 percent of all households. The odds are not likely to improve; there is only one police officer on patrol for every 3,300 people. And the courts repeatedly have ruled that government has at most a limited duty to protect individual citizens from crime. An illustrative case is Warren v. District of Columbia, in which three rape victims sued the city under the following facts: Two of the victims were upstairs when they heard the other being attacked by men who had broken in downstairs. From an upstairs telephone, the two roommates made several calls to the police. Half an hour passed and their roommate's screams ceased; they assumed the police must have arrived. In fact, however, their calls had been lost in the shuffle while the roommate was being beaten into silent acquiescence. When her roommates went downstairs to see to her, as the court's opinion describes it, "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands" of their attackers.

Having set out these facts, the District of Columbia's highest court nevertheless exonerated the District and its police, noting that it is

a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.

Myth No. 8: Gun control laws are especially needed to prevent the purchase of Saturday Night Specials and "assault weapons." Inexpensive handguns are involved in only 1 to 3 percent of violent crimes; criminals generally prefer larger caliber and more expensive handguns. Moreover, in the past fifty years no civilian has ever used a legally owned machine gun in a violent crime. And despite their repeated use by drug dealers on television and movies, no Uzi has ever been used to kill a police officer in the United States. Even some gun control advocates concede that so-called assault weapons play a minor role in violent crime. In 1991, 1992, and 1993 combined, there were more than 2,500 criminal homicides in the City of Chicago--only three of which were perpetrated with a true, military-style, "assault weapon."

Myth No. 9: Gun control laws are especially needed to prevent gun accidents in the home. "Gun-control advocates have sought to create the impression that firearm accidents involving children are a large and growing problem," writes the Independence Institute's David Kopel. "Many people mistakenly conclude that children die frequently in gun accidents and that sharp restrictions on gun ownership are necessary to address the problem." In fact, however, the number of gun accidents involving both children and adults has fallen dramatically.

In 1970, 2,406 Americans died from firearms accidents. By 1991, that number had fallen to 1,441--even as the number of guns increased dramatically. Between 1970 and 1991, the annual rate of fatal gun accidents was cut in half, from 1.2 to 0.6 per 100,000 Americans. The death rate from firearms accidents is lower than that from accidental drowning (1.6 per 100,000 in 1991), inhalation and ingestion of foreign objects (1.3), and complications from medical procedures (1.0).

Myth No. 10: Gun ownership is not a constitutional right. The Second Amendment reflects the founders' belief that an armed citizenry (called the general militia ) was a necessary precaution against tyranny by our own government and its army. The idea that government has a constitutional right to disarm the general citizenry is totally foreign to the intent of the Constitutional framers. Samuel Adams, for example, expressed in the Massachusetts convention his intention that "the said Constitution be never construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." David Kopel summarizes the legal scholarship on this issue:

www.catb.org...

[edit on 12/27/2004 by just_a_pilot]


Mod Edit: to add a link to the list.


[edit on 27-12-2004 by kinglizard]

Well, i'm never going to convince any US citizen. All I can say is that since we have had gun control here (UK) i've felt safer. If you want your guns uncontrolled, that's up to you. I would suggest you try the Canadian system but you won't, so I won't.

Enjoy your guns.

Don't bring them here (you'll get arrested).

Try not to shoot anyone.

Chris McGee

I know what you mean Chris. But stats are stats and some say violent gun crime has increased in Great Brittan. You cant tell what to believe.

Hahahahahaha!!!!!! You feel safer?!?!?!?!? Hahahahaha!!!! CRIME RATE IS UP! In England and in Australia! BOTH HAVE GONE UP! Proving gun laws FAIL!

Chris McGee, your 10 children a day number is a bold faced lie. They get those types of numbers by including 18 year gangsters shooting each other over drug turf and 19 year old rapists being shot by their victims.

Don't have time now for a more in-depth response, but I'll get you the real numbers soon. In the mean time, could you tell everyone by what percentage the crime rate in your country has dropped with the passage of your victim disarmament laws?

Oh yeah, those poor 10 kids a day, the gangsta shot by another 18 year old gangsta, the 19 year old who breaks into a house to rob it finds out it is still occupied, it is easy to skew data. I can make data say jews are aliens from pluto, I can come up with all kinds of data and reports.

Here you go, I first posted this HERE

21 deaths per year, thats a better number. Like I said, bold faced lie. Still waiting for those numbers about how your crime rate droped, BTW.




In the year 2000 election Al Gore insisted the reason we need mandatory child safety trigger locks is to substantially stop the �12 children killed by firearms every day in America.�

Clayton E. Cramer, in the July 1, 2001Shotgun News went to the web site for the Centers for Disease Control and looked up the actual number of American children under the age of 15 who are killed in handgun accidents each year. He found that in 1997, that number was 21. Twenty One.

According to Libertarian author and Las Vegas Review Journal editor Vin Suprynowicz in his 2002 book The Ballad of Carl Drega[I/] �Government mandated airbags seriously injure or kill more children than die in handgun accidents. Lightning and amusement-park accidents and drowning in mop buckets each beat out handguns in causing accidental deaths of children under 15. So why the national hysteria � and more importantly, where do Mr. Gore and �gun control� gang come up with that �12-a-day� statistic?

They get to �12-a-day� by adding in all deaths of �children� up through the age of 19 that are firearm related, including suicides, 18- and 19-year-old drug gangsters shooting each other in disputes over drug distribution turf, and even 19-year-old �children� righteously shot dead by cops or law-abiding citizens while in the act of committing rapes, murders, and armed robberies.

The question I would like to have heard someone stand up and ask.....is ��I was the victim of a sexual assault, but I managed to get to my nightstand and get my dad�s old Smith and shoot my assailant after he�d blackened both my eyes and broken my jaw. You say mandatory trigger locks would stop 12 child gunshot deaths every day � I assume you�re leading up to a law that would require those locks to be in place all the time.

�But the CDC says that in order to get to that number, you�re including in the so-called �children� in your statistic 18 � and 19-year olds righteously shot while committing rapes and other serious crimes. Is the death of my 19-year-old-assailent one of the �child gunshot deaths� you want to prevent? Is it your plan to require my gun to be locked up in such a way that I won�t be able to use to defend myself the next time a 19-year-old thug decides to break into my house and try to rape me? Are you saying it�s �safer� for me to be beaten and raped than for me to have an unlocked gun to defend myself, since that might cause the death of my �child� assailant?�



P.S. See my avatar, explains my main stance well; she is cute, but if you want her, you need permission, or she may just blow your head off (or something else.) Sam Colt called his invention "the equalizer," and he was dead on accurate (pun intended.) It doesn�t matter if you are 10 years old, 90 years old, in a wheelchair or a 105lb woman; with a gun, you and any attacker are on EQUAL ground. Think about it.

[edit on 6-1-2005 by cavscout]

This isn't about guns, it's about people. People do stupid things with an array of items, and the only thing that really changes about humans is their technology.

The fact is, is that there are tens of millions of civilian firearms in America today, and many have the odd notion that they have a right to own them.

Americans tend to fight for their rights in a pinch or when they take them away, so needless to say they will fight for their guns as well.

I don't care what kind of data collect system they use, unless it doesn't work.

With all things, there is a great wealth of good and bad aspects to this debate, which, have no resolution.

The problem lies when people begin to not trust the broad population for small scale problems.

If your child dies of a gunshot from your own gun, well, you lose. If it's someone elses kid, then you'll get sued, which is the point of the civil courts (to address lose).

The eternal fact remains that we are a cracked species that will continue to kill itself.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

The fact is, is that there are tens of millions of civilian firearms in America today, and many have the odd notion that they have a right to own them.

Are you serious when you say notion we have a right to own firearms is odd? If you weren�t being sarcastic, would expand on that a little?

With all things, there is a great wealth of good and bad aspects to this debate, which, have no resolution.

I agree that a great many things are grey, and there is no right answer, just people�s feelings or opinions. This is not the case with firearms ownership however. There are no hard facts that I have been shown in all my years of whining about my 2nd amendment rights that show that gun control makes anyone safer, including the 21 children that accidentally die each year from guns. The only numbers the gun control crowd have are the actual number of firearms deaths in our country each year, and even then they have to put a spin on them or ignore other important numbers and facts to make them not sound irrelevant. Even the numbers of violent crimes thwarted by the presence of a gun WITHOUT A SHOT BEING FIRED are staggering compared to the raw number of people shot each year, even if include suicide and police shootings as firearms deaths. I think between 10,000 and 14,000 people die each year in the states from firearms. Take that with the 600,000 to 800,000 people that fend off an attacker just by displaying a firearm, and the numbers of deaths are greatly outweighed by the number of people that may die if those 600,000 to 800,000 victims had not been able to defend themselves.

No, there are no statistics that show that gun control does anything other then cause the crime rate to go up. Gun control laws hurt people, gun control laws kill, and that is a fact, not an opinion. Proponents of gun control have nothing to back up their views other than emotion and knee-jerk reaction.

There is no grey area, it is black and white. Just because people can't accept a fact does not make the fact any less valuable. They hold onto their emotions, and wont let go, and that makes it seem like there are good and bad things from both sides of the issue, but I challenge anyone to show the numbers.

The eternal fact remains that we are a cracked species that will continue to kill itself.

Exactly, and it has always been that way. If banning guns would stop killing, I would probably be all for it. If it slowed down killing, I would understand gun control. The problem is gun control makes people less safe, not more, and this has been proven time and again. We cant go back in time un-invent gun powder, so there is nothing we can do but live with the fact our society is an armed one and that cant be fixed. What we can do about is to make sure that good people can defend themselves.

Would we ban the military having guns so there would be no wars? It would work if we could get every gun in the world, but we can�t, and ban guns for civilians would be the same thing. We can�t stop other countries militaries from having guns, and we can�t keep criminals in our country from having guns, so we need to be prepared to defend against both. It is the same thing, and it is black and white.


[edit on 7-1-2005 by cavscout]

First, read my newest signature about guns... You'll love it, maybe not as good looking as your avatar, but it still makes a point.

Anyways, again, Australia banned guns, guess what? crime rate went, get this, don't put on the blinders gun grabbers, UP! Hahahaha, freaking hilarious isn't? "Guns are bad, so we banned them, oops, that criminal just shot me." Again, said this what? 3 times? THE WHOLE POINT OF BEING A CRIMINAL IS THAT YOU BREAK THE LAW! So, a gun LAW doesn't affect them.

Fine, ban guns due to accidents. Now, what type of accidents kill more? Drowning accidents, lets ban water. And cars, and fire, and corners(she accidently fell and hit her head on the corner) and bow&arrow, animals, humans, air, anything else that kills more then guns through accidents. Happy? Want your own rubber room with no corners, no water, no air, no nothing that might harm you? Also, I would love to be president so I could pass my bill, the "If used correctly and it kills you, it becomes illegal." Ok, cars can kill, but not what they are suppose to be used fo so they still legal. Guns can kill, but if used correctly, as stated, they don't. Unless you count killing the paper target.