But Guns Do Kill Children!

Look, there is an easy answer. Forget that the RIGHT to own any type of gun is guaranteed to Americans by the constitution. Forget that the Supreme Court has upheld that any weapon of military usefulness is protected by the 2nd. Forget the fact that guns don’t kill people and if you outlaw guns only outlaws have guns. It all boils down to the fact that guns save more lives every year than they take in the U.S.

400,000 law-abiding people per year report that they successfully defended themselves against an attacker (usually without a shot being fired) by displaying a firearm.

It is true that every life is precious, especially the little ones. So if having all those guns around saves just one innocent life, isn’t it worth it?

What I am really outraged at is the deadly bowling ball epidemic we have been combating for years. Every year more children are killed by bowling balls than are accidentally killed by handguns. I think we should institute a bowling ball buy back program, get the balls off the streets. Once we have that done, we should pass a mandatory child safety mop bucket lid lock law, seeing as more children die each year do to mop buckets as well.

It is never OK to disarm the victim.

Originally posted by cavscout
400,000 law-abiding people per year report that they successfully defended themselves against an attacker (usually without a shot being fired) by displaying a firearm.

It is true that every life is precious, especially the little ones. So if having all those guns around saves just one innocent life, isn’t it worth it?

Although I am pro gun, I don't think guns win out when you simplify it to that level. 400,000 lives possibly saved (who is to say if all 400,000 would have died) versus over 9 million gun murders annually destroys the "if it saves one innocent life" proposal, because it takes more innocent lives.

I think the ability to raise militia forces is the cardinal justification for the right to bear arms. There's really no denying that guns kill people as opposed to saving them. I'm relatively familiar with firearms. I know where the safety is, I don't have to look to know if the selecter lever is on safe, semi, or auto, I can even break down and reassemble the M-16A2 with my eyes closed... but I have no idea where the "give life" button is. I'm pretty sure that feature hasn't been added yet.

As for bowling balls, I'd like to interest you in signing a petition. I'm trying to get Charles Manson released from prison because he didn't kill as many people as Hitler... let's face it, Charles Manson is relatively safe compared to Hitler.

We who support the second amendment have a responsibility to promote laws that ensure that said right is exercised in a safe, responsible way by law abiding citizens, and not in any other capacity. This is our responsibility both to the society that the second amendment is inteneded to protect and to future generations who should have the same right to defensive weapons.

We cannot meet this responsibility if we fail to acknowledge the problems to which guns are contributing and participate in formulating sollutions that do not infringe on our rights. If those who support the right to bear arms don't acknowledge those problems and help solve them, those who do not support that right will do it on their own, and we'll have little place to complain since we left them with no alternative.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
We who support the second amendment have a responsibility to promote laws that ensure that said right is exercised in a safe, responsible way by law abiding citizens, and not in any other capacity.

I disagree. The current laws are sufficiently effective on law-abiding citizens. More, stricter laws to control law-abiding citizens would be onerous and unfair. Once again, I see the focus being put on the innocent and not on the guilty.

This is our responsibility both to the society that the second amendment is inteneded to protect and to future generations who should have the same right to defensive weapons.

Our responsibility to future generations is to pass on the rights they need without compromising them. Every time another well-intentioned law passes that nibbles away at our rights, it is bad. These rights never will be restored intact, once their basic integrity has been compromised.

We cannot meet this responsibility if we fail to acknowledge the problems to which guns are contributing and participate in formulating sollutions that do not infringe on our rights. If those who support the right to bear arms don't acknowledge those problems and help solve them, those who do not support that right will do it on their own, and we'll have little place to complain since we left them with no alternative.

Guns are a contributing factor to the problem, but they are not the problem. So placing more controls on guns does very little to solve the problems; all it does is shift the burden on to law-abiding citizens.

The problem is crime. Gun owners overwhelmingly support measures to limit crime, including truth-in-sentencing laws. Taking sentencing for violent crimes out of the hands of liberal judges is a good first step.

Blame it on the Liberals!

The thread has barely gone onto the fourth page, before the common trend on this website has popped up. It’s the age old Blame Game where everyone is a loser and the real issues are not talked about. In fact, I am shocked that it only took four pages before someone blames liberal Judges of course this is without any hard evidence to back up these claims.

So let’s look at it from the other spectrum. What if Liberal Judges are not the ones to blame? Can it be so? Do high re-offender rates exist for liberal based ideas, such as the community based programs used in Missouri for Youth Offenders, resulting in one of the lowest re-offender rates in the country. [1] Would it be drug rehabilitation which results in lower re-offender rates than prisons? [2] In fact, I can go on and on showing how prison and tough sentences do nothing to combat crime. Instead they force a label upon the individual - he is left with a criminal conviction and can never get another job to better his position due to this the only option that he has is what? To commit more crimes.

Prisons which re-educate the convicts, who give them chances to become plumbers, mechanics and so on and so fourth. The fact most people commit crime is due to one reason, they have no other choice. The vast majority of people would much rather earn money honestly - most criminals are not sociopathic. Thus they should not be treated like this.

The whole problem is society as a whole. We're based upon greed and it is destroying us, while we sit here and divide ourselves along the lines of "liberal" and "conservative" and so on and so fourth.

[1] St. Louis Post: April 2002
[2] Haralambos and Holborn: Sociology Themes and Perspectives

Originally posted by donwhite
To make the turn-in work, beginning one year after the law, any gun not licensed and tax paid, would be confiscated and destroyed. I see no need to criminalize untaxed gun possession. We already have too many criminal laws on the books.

Ummm ... in order to seize and destroy any guns who taxes were not paid there would have the be a law that stated one was required to pay these taxes. To not pay would be a violation of the law and therefore a criminal act, wether it was an infraction, misdemeanor or felony would depend on how the law was written.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
. 400,000 lives possibly saved (who is to say if all 400,000 would have died)

Well, in the study the 400,000 were quoted as saying that their use of a gun to defend themselves "almost certainly" saved their lives.

versus over 9 million gun murders annually destroys the "if it saves one innocent life" proposal, because it takes more innocent lives.

9 million!?!

You kidding me? Try 10,000 gun homicides per year on average. Now, I should mention that included in the 10,000 homicides are police shooting criminals, victims shooting their would-be rapists, gang members shooting each other, drug dealers shooting each other, 12 year old girls shooting pitch fork armed home invaders...well, you get the point.

So, even if you include all the justifiable homicides in the 10,000 per year, and even you say that 97% of the 400,000 claiming that their use of firearm "almost certainly" saved their lives are lying, the numbers still point to an armed populous being a SAFER populous than one in which the victims are disarmed.

I think the ability to raise militia forces is the cardinal justification for the right to bear arms.

Correct!

There's really no denying that guns kill people as opposed to saving them.

Incorrect! You cant show any current numbers that show guns killing more people in the US than they save. 400,000 victims disagree with you.

but I have no idea where the "give life" button is. I'm pretty sure that feature hasn't been added yet.

Well, that button is not necessary, seeing as a life is saved by a gun every few seconds, most of the time without a shot being fired.

Notice that there is also no "take life" button. The gun fulfills it's purpose by being displayed, pointed, or discharged. Seeing as guns are so much more likely to save life than take it, I would say that the invention of the repeating firearm is one of the greatest things to ever happen to mankind.

let's face it, Charles Manson is relatively safe compared to Hitler.

And loaded, unlocked firearms are relatively safe around children as compared to bowling balls and mop buckets.

We who support the second amendment have a responsibility to promote laws

Wrong. Seeing as the second says "shall no be infringed" we cannot support the second in conjunction with any gun law. You may support gun ownership, but clearly do not support the second amendment.

Oh, and lets not forget that in spite of over half of the states making it easier to obtain a CCW in the last 20 or so years, and in spite of the "assault weapon ban" sun setting, the Department of Justice recently reported that murder rates have been on a steady decline since the early 1990s and that they have reached, for the first time, levels the same as the 1960s!

Way to go, John Q. Public! Your devotion to owning and using guns has seen our murder rates cut in half!

On a side note, does anyone remember Florida a couple of decades ago? In 1987 Florida nixed the 400+ local CCW laws in its state and made one, easy to obtain, CCW law. What happened? Murder rates in Florida have been dropping since 1989. Why? Because the criminals now live in fear of the citizens. Only problem was that Florida thugs, knowing that people just getting off planes were unarmed, began the "great Florida tourist murder rampage" as the AP put it. Solution? Well they just removed the huge day-glow rental stickers from cars leaving the airports and the problem was solved. You see, it is no longer safe for a criminal in Florida now that he cant tell who is packing and who isn’t.



[edit on 8-10-2006 by cavscout]

Originally posted by cavscout
9 million!?!
You kidding me?

I wasn't kidding but it sure as hell wasn't right either. I'm not quite sure how that turned into a million. 10,000 is almost dead right. Obviously I'm embarrassed to have botched the number that badly... mea culpa.
Here are the stats I’ve been using so that if I say anything else stupid you can see the real numbers for yourself www.fbi.gov...

So, even if you include all the justifiable homicides in the 10,000 per year, and even you say that 97% of the 400,000 claiming that their use of firearm "almost certainly" saved their lives are lying, the numbers still point to an armed populous being a SAFER populous than one in which the victims are disarmed.

The saving grace of my horrendous... whatever it was is… that your numbers are every bit as bad. Justifiable homicides by private citizens using firearms were only 200 in 2003. So first of all you are suggesting that for every 1 person who shoots and kills an offender, there are 200 more who don’t. That seems to make a pretty significant claim about the nerves of the average citizen.
www.fbi.gov...

Furthermore, as there were only 14,000 murders by any means in 2003 (www.fbi.gov...), you essentially suggest that private use of firearms is stopping 96.5% of all attempted murders.

www.fbi.gov...
In fact, 400,000 people claiming to have been saved by their guns, assuming that those people called the police after the incidents, would mean that 1 in every 3 violent crimes was stopped by a gun in 2003. If the crimes went unreported it would be 1 in every 4 violent crimes.

It becomes more realistic if we include property crimes and allow for the possibility that many of those 400,000 just scared away non violent thieves. In that case guns could be said to stop 3% of all crime, but now we’re weighing lives against property, so if this is the case your statistic really isn’t all that meaningful anyway.

If on top of that we take your advice and assume that many of those 400,000 people are lying… oh god, let’s not even go there, lest the debate be undeniably over.

I think the ability to raise militia forces is the cardinal justification for the right to bear arms.

Correct!

Incorrect! You cant show any current numbers that show guns killing more people in the US than they save. 400,000 victims disagree with you.

And you cannot show any reliable numbers showing that guns save more people than they kill. The 400,000 figure is patently absurd… maybe you made the same mistake I did. If this is the case then perhaps you could employ the same solution I did: divide by 1000.

Notice that there is also no "take life" button.

It’s right behind the trigger guard. If you don’t believe me, point your gun at something… preferably nothing more precious than a rodent… and start pushing buttons.

let's face it, Charles Manson is relatively safe compared to Hitler.

And loaded, unlocked firearms are relatively safe around children as compared to bowling balls and mop buckets.

Maybe you missed the point. Let’s try again.
You don’t want to enhance the protections against guns simply because there is something worse out there. I suggest your logic implicitly advocates the removal of societies protection from Charles Manson on the same grounds, you reassert your logic. Are you agreeing? Let’s try it another way: being raped is less deadly than being stabbed… should we not have safeguards against rape until all the knives are off the street, or do you concede that the moral imperative to stop lives from being lost cannot be mitigated by the childish excuse that “everything else gets to kill kids, so why not guns?”?

We who support the second amendment have a responsibility to promote laws

Wrong. Seeing as the second says "shall no be infringed" we cannot support the second in conjunction with any gun law.

You implicitly assert that any and all measures to reduce homicide by firearm will necessarily infringe upon second amendment rights. If tracking weapons infringes on the right to bear arms, then being overheard in public would constitute and infringement on first amendment rights. Clearly this is not the case.

The second amendment says that you may keep and bear arms. It does not say that you may not be observed when carrying the weapon in public or purchasing weapons and ammunition. It does not say that the right to resale ammunition on the black market shall not be infringed. It does not say that the right to a firefight shall not be infringed. It does not say that this right is immune to the penalties that can be imposed by due process of law.

Therefore, so long as it remains possible for any law abiding citizen to procure, maintain, and practice with a firearm, the government may track them, register them, license or even tag ammunition, ban resales, force you to identify yourself as a law abiding citizen possessing that right, require you to take measures for the public good with that weapon (for instance to deny thieves access to it through use of a safe) etc.

We can keep violent felons away from guns without harming the second, and that is our responsibility. We can make the deterrent of the firearms carried by police nearly omnipresent through technologies which allow us to solve those gun crimes that are not prevented, and that is our responsibility.

So where does your concern really lay? I am given the impression, courtesy of your unreasonably broad interpretation of the second, that this is less about safety for you and more about the power trip of having a gun. Many people on the pro gun side would find their weapons suddenly mundane if they were handled in a strictly responsible manner that made them responsible for their actions. The whole allure of weapons for many is that they disturb the natural order and make you more powerful. You can’t have obedience to the law interfering with people’s macho-trips now can we?

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Guns don't kill children. People kill children.

That same gun might full well be why your child is returned safely to you someday.

I find it very interesting that in each of the 3 recent attacks on schoolchildren, there is one common denomitator: each of the gunman committed suicide before they could apprehend them.

Strange..

What if these people were brainwashed or being blackmailed into committing these atrocities? I think that is a real possibility. And I know it sounds crazy.

Look at the headlines, though, from the last week. Foleygate is dominating the news. Then there's that pesky book by Woodward, "State of Denial." This has been an horrific week for the Republican party.

I hate to say this, but it would not surprise me in the least if I learned that Republican operatives were behind this string of ghastly child-crimes. To take attention away from the perv scandal in DC.

Good to see you on the boards, dont often see another Charlottean on here. But I dont know about your response here. As you admittedly stated it sounds nuts, which I think it is. While I'm not one to rule out any possiblities, this one is the longest shot on the list of possiblities. It has been a rough week for the republican party, but I doubt they are behind these incidents.(most likely these incidents are perpetrated by those either a little nutty, or a kid looking for revenge or attention) People are just nuts man, Man-Kind is the most dangerous species on the planet, but not because of guns. People can be cruel, sadistic, evil creatures. Its the way it goes.

It a simple irrefutable fact that a gun is an inanimate object with no power on its own. Just because there are many who use guns illegally doesnt mean you take away from those law abiding gun owners like those in my family, those who use guns for sport and for their own personal and family defense. While gun ownership is a serious issue its up to individuals to have the responsiblity of owning one, this is not the place for government to step in at all(or anyone else for that matter) and tell you what is safe for you to own and what is not.

Well, I used to be anti-guns when I lived in cities. But now that I live in wild, rugged mountains in a place too poor to have enough police, I have definitely changed my mind. We have 11 acres here with livestock, a horse, dogs, etc. Frequently there are wild dog packs who attack anything, coyotes, raccoons and mountain lions. We have one rifle, so that we can protect our livestock. Also, yes, if there's a holocaust or something, we can hunt for food. And lastly, just in case someone shows up intending to do us harm, we have a gun for self-protection. It would take too long for the police to show up and as I said we don't have enough police for them to answer every single call. By the time they got here, we would be dead.

Everyone here owns at least one gun. Yet, violence is virtually unknown here. People have guns for protection of themselves and their livestock, which often is their source of income. It really is kind of like the wild west here, but that's the way it is in almost any rural place, just more so here. Both my husband and I know how to use a gun and more importantly, we know and follow strictly, gun safety.

Thank you , Forestlady, for explaining it so well. Glad to see you are into gun safety, too.

Interesting, though, that many also consider the cities - with their rampant crime rates - to also be full of wild "animals" that you need to protect yourself from.


[edit on 10/14/2006 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by cavscout
Department of Justice recently reported that murder rates have been on a steady decline since the early 1990s and that they have reached, for the first time, levels the same as the 1960s!

Did you know that crime and murder rates actually correlate more closely to abortion laws and rates 20 years ago than they do to gun laws at present? I strongly recommend the book Freakonomics: great insight into why its important to question "common knowledge" in an emperical way.

Now of course I don't advocate abortion as a crime stopper... just as I don't advocate completely unmonitored proliferation and use of firearms as a crime stopper. You've gotta weigh the costs.

Even if you ban guns, they just use some other weapon. Maybe looking for ways to kill the same number of people or more people through more sophisticated means than guns.

I agree that we'll never entirely stop murder so long as there are blunt objects or sharp tools of any kind, but we can take the efficiency out of it and make it a little scarrier to contemplate.

If by some miracle we fully disarmed the drug dealers, (as opposed to the more likely success of making guns a hell of a lot more expensive and harder to come by) then they'd probably stab eachother.

But I've never heard of innocent bystanders being hit in a drive-by knifing.
And if you get into a fight in a night club, it's one thing to go out to your car and come back with a 9mm, but a whole other thing to come back with a knife and try to go to town on 3 or 4 bouncers with that.

I think it's important to do what we can.

posted by deltaboy

“Even if . . “ [Edited by Don W]

The “even if” argument is begging, “please, don’t deal with the issue, but let us find an excuse to avoid that.”

“. . you ban guns, they just use some other weapon. Maybe looking for ways to kill the same number of people or more people through more sophisticated means than guns.

1) Lethality. Whether it is mentioned or not, the underlying antipathy towards firearms is the guns inherent lethality. Statistics show that about 30% of all gunshot victims die. The percent of victims of “all other accidents” that die is less than 1/10th of 1%. These numbers are from the CDC.

2) Other considerations. A) Facilitation. You do not have to be up close to kill with a firearm. It is accepted that many people will kill by gunshot but will not kill by other up close means such as strangulation or clubbing.
B) Instantaneous. Guns kill quickly. This denies the shooter the option of withdrawing half way through killing by other means. A quick decision to pull a trigger and it is done and cannot be undone.

3) One problem at a time. If people turn to phaser guns from Star Trek then we’ll deal with that issue when arises.

posted by Vagabond

In 1987 Florida nixed the 400+ local CCW laws in its state and made one, easy to obtain, CCW law. What happened? Murder rates in Florida have been dropping since 1989. [Edited by Don W]

NRA says “cause” of crime drop and I say, pure unrelated “coincidence.” In less complex times, we said 80% of homicides were committed by friends or relatives. Which left 20% committed by strangers usually during the commission of another crime such as robbery, or lately, arising out of illicit drug transactions gone sour.

Why? Because the criminals now live in fear of the citizens. Only problem was that Florida thugs, knowing that people just getting off planes were unarmed, began the "great Florida tourist murder rampage" as the AP put it. Solution? Well they just removed the huge day-glow rental stickers from cars leaving the airports and the problem was solved. You see, it is no longer safe for a criminal in Florida now that he cant tell who is packing and who isn’t.

Ah, if life was only that simple. Remove a bumper sticker and your crime problem is solved. As if those airport bandits reformed. No longer able to spot easy prey, they took the pledge to do crime no more! Perhaps even throwing their guns into the Bay of Biscayne? Firepower rendered useless by the lack of bumper stickers. I just cannot make the leap of faith that CCW has lowered crime rates.

Back to reality. At the end of September, Jacksonville had posted its #110 murder for 2006. The US rate per 100,000 in 2000 was 5.64. Jax has a population of 800,000. That means you’d expect about 50 murders per year. OTOH, if Jax was in the Emerald Isle, Ireland, with a rate of 1.48, you’d expect about 12 murders per year. If Jax was in Switzerland, at 0.96, Jax would have on 7 murders per year. This is the price we pay every year for having 280 million guns in America. Some of us think the price is too high, others seem to be more or less indifferent. The NRA says it's the cost of doing business.

Oh, on those impressive numbers of “prevents” can you tell me where I should call to report a “prevent?” I have noticed the original numbers were around 2,000,000 a year. Prevents. But now that number has slipped to a more modest 400,000 prevents at year. Still a "guesstimate." And, does this mean my teacher was wrong when he said you cannot prove a negative?
www.angelfire.com...


[edit on 11/13/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
“guns don’t kill, people do” kind of illogic?

Really? If that's so, let see the scientific Proof! Lay a Loaded gun in the Center of a table, turn off the safety. Make sure NO One (including you) touches it for a week. then come back and tell us how many people the gun has killed on it's own. (The Answer will be none!)

Will America Ever Change? Can It Change? Are We To Be Forever Doomed By Our Love of Guns? Will America grow up, and give up its love of guns, its fascination of power associated with guns? There was a struggle in the 1990s when the idea of banning assault guns was enacted. No more AK47s.
[edit on 10/3/2006 by donwhite]

Actually we have the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights that gurintees the right to Keep and Bare arms. As for banning Automatic Weapons, that was done in the 1932 with the Machine Gun Act. In case you are wondering, Here you go:

1932 Machine Gun Act

For the purpose of having an informed debate, I've provides a link to the 1932 Machine Gun Act. As many people aren't aware of this law, I sugess you take a look so you have All the facts.

Tim

[edit on 13-11-2006 by Ghost01]

posted by Ghost01

Will America Ever Change? Can It Change? Are We To Be Forever Doomed By Our Love of Guns? Will America grow up, and give up its love of guns, its fascination of power associated with guns?

Actually we have the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights that gurintees the right to Keep and Bare arms. Tim [Edited by Don W]

Somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 people are killed by guns every year in America. That is a large number of people to "give up" as a cost of doing business, or for the fun of holding a Blackhawk .44 in your hand. Most people regard the unnecessary deaths of up to 10,000 people a year to be a significant social problem. I do.

[edit on 11/13/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
posted by Vagabond

Actually that was posted by someone a bit to the right of me (at whom I was throwing large books of statistical information just as fast as I could get them off the shelf), namely cavscout (You can find it higher up on this page... it's one of the more conspicuous avatars. It's the one that advocates rape at gunpoint... or am I misinterpreting that one?)

[edit on 13-11-2006 by The Vagabond]

Originally posted by donwhite
Somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 people are killed by guns every year in America. That is a large number of people to "give up" as a cost of doing business, or for the fun of holding a Blackhawk .44 in your hand. Most people regard the unnecessary deaths of up to 10,000 people a year to be a significant social problem. I do.

[edit on 11/13/2006 by donwhite]

I agree, 10'000 deaths a year is a problem. My point was that people are very unlikly to give up a basic right granted by the Constitution.

Tim