Gun Control

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I have seen an interesting development on this thread, which occurs in the real world on the subject.

M made an absurd statement about firearms not helping the Jews.  I pointed out the case of Sobidor and he stopped posting on this thread.

Al made an absurd statement about "pump action" shotguns being "high velocity" and I repeatedly asked him where he got this silly idea.  He first tried to change the subject, then, like M, stopped posting when I made the point so clear that even a mildly retarded ten year old could understand my point.

NickG also made an absurd statement that handguns 'weren't around' when the Second Amendment was ratified.  I posted a challenge to that statement which he also ignored.

It seems that with M. Al, and NickG,  fthey have a viscerial dislike of firearms, are greatly ignorant about firearms, and believe a number of things about fireamrs which simply are untrue.  

Seems a lot like the real world.  

I will concede your point...you clearly have a better grasp of firearm history than I do.  I'm not trying to avoid that...it's just that there are a hundred active threads on this board at any one time and it is impossible to keep daily track of all of them.

I have a general dislike of firearms, especially handguns, but I'd like to think it is well-reasoned rather then visceral.  Gun kill people, intentionally and accidentally; they aid in the commission of other crimes; they generally create a culture of fear, which in many cases keeps communities from digging themselves out of poverty; and they encourage kids to think that violence is "cool".    

I think crime and fear would, over time, dramatically decreease if we outlawed private handgun ownership, and I think there is fairly convincing evidence of this in England and Canada.  Other factors influence these statistics (drugs, race, economic policies), but the difference is a few orders of magnitude too great to ignore.

I am also not afraid in the slightest that our government would become "tyrannical" if guns are outlawed.  Anyone who believes this is living in a different reality than I am.  For the moment, I will not pass judgement on whose "reality" is more accurate.

[John Dibble]

I have seen an interesting development on this thread, which occurs in the real world on the subject.

M made an absurd statement about firearms not helping the Jews.  I pointed out the case of Sobidor and he stopped posting on this thread.

Al made an absurd statement about "pump action" shotguns being "high velocity" and I repeatedly asked him where he got this silly idea.  He first tried to change the subject, then, like M, stopped posting when I made the point so clear that even a mildly retarded ten year old could understand my point.

NickG also made an absurd statement that handguns 'weren't around' when the Second Amendment was ratified.  I posted a challenge to that statement which he also ignored.

It seems that with M. Al, and NickG,  fthey have a viscerial dislike of firearms, are greatly ignorant about firearms, and believe a number of things about fireamrs which simply are untrue.  

Seems a lot like the real world.  

I will concede your point...you clearly have a better grasp of firearm history than I do.  I'm not trying to avoid that...it's just that there are a hundred active threads on this board at any one time and it is impossible to keep daily track of all of them.

I have a general dislike of firearms, especially handguns, but I'd like to think it is well-reasoned rather then visceral.  Gun kill people, intentionally and accidentally; they aid in the commission of other crimes; they generally create a culture of fear, which in many cases keeps communities from digging themselves out of poverty; and they encourage kids to think that violence is "cool".    

I think crime and fear would, over time, dramatically decreease if we outlawed private handgun ownership, and I think there is fairly convincing evidence of this in England and Canada.  Other factors influence these statistics (drugs, race, economic policies), but the difference is a few orders of magnitude too great to ignore.

I am also not afraid in the slightest that our government would become "tyrannical" if guns are outlawed.  Anyone who believes this is living in a different reality than I am.  For the moment, I will not pass judgement on whose "reality" is more accurate.

1. My sources may be incorrect on this, but doesn't Canada have a higher rate of gun ownership than the U.S.(and tougher gun control laws to boot). And yet, even with higher gun ownership, violent crime is on the decline(at least according to my sources, who also have a tendency to brag about their 'free' healthcare system, lol).

2. If guns were outlawed, it wouldn't matter if our government was a tyranny or not - they could still become one, or a foreign one could invade. The U.S. is like every other nation - it is not static, it is ever changing, for better of for worse. This country as it is may not always be around - any number of things could happen. Personally, I'd prefer to be prepared for bad happenings.

3. I agree on the Libertarian Party platform about guns:

"Guns are not the problem. They are inanimate objects. Gun control advocates talk as if guns could act on their own, as if human beings cannot control them, so the uncontrollable guns must be banished.

Let us put the responsibility where it belongs, on the owner and user of the gun. If he or she acts responsibly, without attacking others or causing injury negligently, no crime or harm has been done. Leave them in peace. But, if a person commits a crime with a gun, then impose the severest penalties for the injuries done to the victim. Similarly, hold the negligent gun user fully liable for all harm his negligence does to others.

Rather than banning guns, the politicians and the police should encourage gun ownership, as well as education and training programs. A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion. America's founders knew that. It is still true today."

[robre]

http://www.a-human-right.com/

The best site about gun control. Ever.

[KEmperor]

http://www.a-human-right.com/

The best site about gun control. Ever.

Excellent website, I particularly enjoyed the poster slogans.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I have seen an interesting development on this thread, which occurs in the real world on the subject.

M made an absurd statement about firearms not helping the Jews.  I pointed out the case of Sobidor and he stopped posting on this thread.

Al made an absurd statement about "pump action" shotguns being "high velocity" and I repeatedly asked him where he got this silly idea.  He first tried to change the subject, then, like M, stopped posting when I made the point so clear that even a mildly retarded ten year old could understand my point.

NickG also made an absurd statement that handguns 'weren't around' when the Second Amendment was ratified.  I posted a challenge to that statement which he also ignored.

It seems that with M. Al, and NickG,  fthey have a viscerial dislike of firearms, are greatly ignorant about firearms, and believe a number of things about fireamrs which simply are untrue.  

Seems a lot like the real world.  

I will concede your point...you clearly have a better grasp of firearm history than I do.  I'm not trying to avoid that...it's just that there are a hundred active threads on this board at any one time and it is impossible to keep daily track of all of them.

I have a general dislike of firearms, especially handguns, but I'd like to think it is well-reasoned rather then visceral.  Gun kill people, intentionally and accidentally; they aid in the commission of other crimes; they generally create a culture of fear, which in many cases keeps communities from digging themselves out of poverty; and they encourage kids to think that violence is "cool".    

I think crime and fear would, over time, dramatically decreease if we outlawed private handgun ownership, and I think there is fairly convincing evidence of this in England and Canada.  Other factors influence these statistics (drugs, race, economic policies), but the difference is a few orders of magnitude too great to ignore.

I am also not afraid in the slightest that our government would become "tyrannical" if guns are outlawed.  Anyone who believes this is living in a different reality than I am.  For the moment, I will not pass judgement on whose "reality" is more accurate.

Yes, your position is emotional, but it is not well reasoned.

Your position is not unlike animists who decline to place blame on those who misuse objects, but blame the objects instead.

Firearms do NOT create fear (except under emotionally immature people).  In fact, an armed society is a polite society.

No, you do not fear tyranny, you welcome it.  You fear freedom, and wish to impose your half-baked (to be generous) emotional bigotries on others.  

I live in reality, and do fear tyranny, you live in ignorance and irrationality.

[ATFFL]

A personal favorite.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

http://www.a-human-right.com/

The best site about gun control. Ever.

OK, taken from this (obviously biased) site: (emphasis mine)

"Firearms have three main purposes. The first and the least important of them is sporting: clay games, such as skeet, and target shooting. These ritualized sports are of no more danger to the society at large than judo or fencing. The second is hunting. For many people, it is both an important source of protein and an integral aspect of their cultural identity.

The most important purpose of personal arms is self-defense. The definition and reality of self-defense is reluctant participation. The same people who learn to handle firearms, usually hold certifcates in First Aid and CPR. That does not mean that they are just waiting for others to choke or suffer a heart attack. However, if someone around them does have a problem, they can help."


Umm...these are the only three uses for firearms???  One it is obviously missing is war.  I don't know much about gun history but I believe that waging warfare is why they were invented, not personal self defense.

Another use for firearms it commit crimes.   This use seems to me to be far more important than self-defense.  First, if no one committed a crime using a gun, no one would feel the need to have one for self-defense.  And I would guess that guns are used to committee crimes AT LEAST 10 times as often as they are used in self defense.  

Why does this site so blatantly ignore the ways in which guns are most useful.  It is MUCH easier to kill someone using a gun than it is to defend your self with one.  About ten thousand people are killed by guns every year BY MISTAKE ALONE.  How many lives are saved by self defense?....I'm guessing it is much less.

The obliviousness to the negative consequences of firearms, especially handguns, by guns rights advocates is nauseatingly irresponsible.

[robre]

http://www.a-human-right.com/

The best site about gun control. Ever.

OK, taken from this (obviously biased) site: (emphasis mine)

"Firearms have three main purposes. The first and the least important of them is sporting: clay games, such as skeet, and target shooting. These ritualized sports are of no more danger to the society at large than judo or fencing. The second is hunting. For many people, it is both an important source of protein and an integral aspect of their cultural identity.

The most important purpose of personal arms is self-defense. The definition and reality of self-defense is reluctant participation. The same people who learn to handle firearms, usually hold certifcates in First Aid and CPR. That does not mean that they are just waiting for others to choke or suffer a heart attack. However, if someone around them does have a problem, they can help."


Umm...these are the only three uses for firearms???  One it is obviously missing is war.  I don't know much about gun history but I believe that waging warfare is why they were invented, not personal self defense.

Another use for firearms it commit crimes.   This use seems to me to be far more important than self-defense.  First, if no one committed a crime using a gun, no one would feel the need to have one for self-defense.  And I would guess that guns are used to committee crimes AT LEAST 10 times as often as they are used in self defense.  

Why does this site so blatantly ignore the ways in which guns are most useful.  It is MUCH easier to kill someone using a gun than it is to defend your self with one.  About ten thousand people are killed by guns every year BY MISTAKE ALONE.  How many lives are saved by self defense?....I'm guessing it is much less.

The obviousness to the negative consequences of firearms, especially handguns, by guns rights advocates is nauseatingly irresponsible.

Cool, I never read things before negatively replying to them as well.

edit: At first I thought it would be funny to reply with just the one line, but I thought I would also make the point that the site is intended to make the case for individuals owning guns and not governments. Only a government can wage war.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

http://www.a-human-right.com/

The best site about gun control. Ever.

OK, taken from this (obviously biased) site: (emphasis mine)

"Firearms have three main purposes. The first and the least important of them is sporting: clay games, such as skeet, and target shooting. These ritualized sports are of no more danger to the society at large than judo or fencing. The second is hunting. For many people, it is both an important source of protein and an integral aspect of their cultural identity.

The most important purpose of personal arms is self-defense. The definition and reality of self-defense is reluctant participation. The same people who learn to handle firearms, usually hold certifcates in First Aid and CPR. That does not mean that they are just waiting for others to choke or suffer a heart attack. However, if someone around them does have a problem, they can help."


Umm...these are the only three uses for firearms???  One it is obviously missing is war.  I don't know much about gun history but I believe that waging warfare is why they were invented, not personal self defense.

Another use for firearms it commit crimes.   This use seems to me to be far more important than self-defense.  First, if no one committed a crime using a gun, no one would feel the need to have one for self-defense.  And I would guess that guns are used to committee crimes AT LEAST 10 times as often as they are used in self defense.  

Why does this site so blatantly ignore the ways in which guns are most useful.  It is MUCH easier to kill someone using a gun than it is to defend your self with one.  About ten thousand people are killed by guns every year BY MISTAKE ALONE.  How many lives are saved by self defense?....I'm guessing it is much less.

The obviousness to the negative consequences of firearms, especially handguns, by guns rights advocates is nauseatingly irresponsible.

Cool, I never read things before negatively replying to them as well.

edit: At first I thought it would be funny to reply with just the one line, but I thought I would also make the point that the site is intended to make the case for individuals owning guns and not governments. Only a government can wage war.

I don't understand....I read the site and I am replying  to a direct quote from it...the site makes it sound like there are no socially irresponsible ways to use guns.  In fact, handguns are far more often used for crimes than for self defense.

[robre]

I can't find those quotes anywhere, and I doubt you read the entire site this quickly. It would take at least 45 minutes to read the entire thing. It appears to me that you went to the site to search for a quote that you could disagree with. In this instance you looked for a quote so that you could say "But look, he did not include situation C!" which set you up to make the point that "In fact, handguns are far more often used for crimes than for self-defense." A statement which could never be proven.

[ATFFL]

NickG, I htink he is listing legitimate civillian uses.  He could do with a few more qualifiers in there.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I can't find those quotes anywhere, and I doubt you read the entire site this quickly. It would take at least 45 minutes to read the entire thing. It appears to me that you went to the site to search for a quote that you could disagree with. In this instance you looked for a quote so that you could say "But look, he did not include situation C!" which set you up to make the point that "In fact, handguns are far more often used for crimes than for self-defense." A statement which could never be proven.

It was basically the second thing that came up when I went to the site...right at the top of the page, after it gave me some "poll" that was really just a propaganda tool and wasn't even or calculated or evaluated in any way.  No matter what response you gave to the "poll", it just took you to the same page, featuring the exact quote that I quoted.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

NickG, I htink he is listing legitimate civillian uses.  He could do with a few more qualifiers in there.

Right, but I'm saying it is irresponsible to only list legitimate civilian uses when the entire problem with guns it their criminal uses, and when these criminal uses far outnumber legitimate cases of self-defense.

[robre]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought by you having registered for an internet forum all on your very own you would be able to navigate your way to through a website on the internet: http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought by you having registered for an internet forum all on your very own you would be able to navigate your way to through a website on the internet: http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html

You are assuming I clicked on "Useful tool" rather than "Liability" on the first screen.  Clicking on "Liability" takes you to the "poll", followed by some other propaganda which is not only biased but really patronizing.   Anyone who tends to believe guns do more harm than good going in is much more likely to be disgusted by its tone than convinced enough to read on to the point where it even gets to the second link you posted.

But judging from your own tone right now, I can see how you would agree with the site's methods.

[robre]

NickG, I htink he is listing legitimate civillian uses.  He could do with a few more qualifiers in there.

Right, but I'm saying it is irresponsible to only list legitimate civilian uses when the entire problem with guns it their criminal uses, and when these criminal uses far outnumber legitimate cases of self-defense.

If you got to that part of the site, even after you realized it was just a propaganda technique, then you obviously already "know" that the criminal uses far outnumber legitimate cases of self-defense. But you could never prove that statement with statistics. You can prove that all gun usages reported to the police and recorded by the police involved more criminal uses than uses in self defense, but that is all you can prove.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

NickG, I htink he is listing legitimate civillian uses.  He could do with a few more qualifiers in there.

Right, but I'm saying it is irresponsible to only list legitimate civilian uses when the entire problem with guns it their criminal uses, and when these criminal uses far outnumber legitimate cases of self-defense.

If you got to that part of the site, even after you realized it was just a propaganda technique, then you obviously already "know" that the criminal uses far outnumber legitimate cases of self-defense. But you could never prove that statement with statistics. You can prove that all gun usages reported to the police and recorded by the police involved more criminal uses than uses in self defense, but that is all you can prove.

What are you claiming?  That there are millions of annual unreported cases of self-defense with a handgun?  I think there is probably more unreported gun crime than unreported self-defense.

[robre]

What are you claiming?  That there are millions of annual unreported cases of self-defense with a handgun?  I think there is probably more unreported gun crime than unreported self-defense.

You're kidding, right?

What sort of "unreported gun crime" do you have in your area?

[John Dibble]

1. Accidental gun deaths:

Shocking Statistics:

The number of physicians in the US is approximately 700,000.
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000.
Accidental deaths per physician are 0.171.
(Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services)

The number of gun owners in the US is approximately 80,000,000.
The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.
The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188.

Statistically,
doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. (Data from 2003)

2. Crime: Criminals have been around before guns. Criminals have always sought to have the advantage over their victims. If they can't get a gun, they'll get a knife, if they can't get a knife, they'll make a shank. Yes, guns can be used by criminals, because guns are tools like anything else. Fire, cars, knives, power tools, and pretty much any tool you can imagine throughout history can be used for both good and evil, but that does not mean we should ban them, now does it?

A criminal is also less likely to attack if you have a gun: in fact, you put yourself at higher risk by not resisting at all(especially if you are a woman).

3. Self-Defense Use vs. Criminal Use:

If you include unsuccessful attempts at crime using guns(the attacker was warded off somehow), then you might be correct in stating that criminal use exceeds self-defense use, self-defense is not something you can initiate without being attacked, duh. I can't find data regarding the amount of crime perpetrated with guns though, so until someone does we can not be sure. Self-defense cases with a gun in the U.S. range somewhere from 1.5 to 2.5 million. Read this: http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm

[CARLHAYDEN]

http://www.a-human-right.com/

You said

  I don't know much about gun history

Well, that's the truth.  Please stop and learn before you post unfounded 'beliefs.'

Next you said:

 if no one committed a crime using a gun, no one would feel the need to have one for self-defense.  

Firearms allow persons of lesser physical abilities to defend themselves from larger and more powerful attackers.  There are many instances of such defenses.

[CARLHAYDEN]

http://www.a-human-right.com/

Your said:

Another use for firearms it commit crimes.  

I reply:

Many tools are used to commit crimes.  Why not deal with the criminal rather than the inanimate object?

You said:

This use seems to me to be far more important than self-defense.

I reply:

Please knock of the "seems," as while an innocent person being murdered because they lacked the means to defend themselves might "seem" unimportant to YOU, I totally disagree with your belief.

You said:

I would guess that guns are used to committee crimes AT LEAST 10 times as often as they are used in self defense.

I reply:

Well, you guessed WRONG again.  Professor Klick has done an extensive study of self-defense with firearms, and it occurs far more often than you seem to believe.    

You said:

It is MUCH easier to kill someone using a gun than it is to defend your self with one.  

Where did you get this turd?  Is it another of your unfouded beliefs?

You said:

About ten thousand people are killed by guns every year BY MISTAKE ALONE.  

I replied:

Please cite your source as I can find absolutely NO basis for such an assertion.


Finally, while I agree that you are oblivious to the reality of private ownership of firarms, do a lot of unfounded and factually incorrect "guessing" and are 'nasueated' by the idea of freedom, you really should try to learn something before exhibting your ignorance and irrationality.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

http://www.a-human-right.com/

You said

  I don't know much about gun history

Well, that's the truth.  Please stop and learn before you post unfounded 'beliefs.'

Next you said:

 if no one committed a crime using a gun, no one would feel the need to have one for self-defense.  

Firearms allow persons of lesser physical abilities to defend themselves from larger and more powerful attackers.  There are many instances of such defenses.

I don't think it is appropriate for a person to use lethal force to defend against a threat of non-lethal force.  (And this is basically what the law says about legitimate self-defense, with a couple exceptions.)  So anyone using a gun to defend against against non-lethal force is committing a crime, not using it for self defense.  So if no criminals had guns, there would be very few legitimate uses for guns in self defense.


BTW, it looks like I was wrong about the 10,000 accidental gun death a year.  I had though accidental deaths were about as common as homicides and suicides, so was just dividing the 30,000 annual gun deaths by 3.  But if the figures others have posted are right, this was obviously way off base.

But claims that there are 2.5 million cases of self defense with guns every years seem absurd to me.  This almost means that every American will, on average, use a gun to defend against a crime once in his or her life.  I have never met a person who has done this, other than people in law enforcement.  

Has anyone on this forum ever used a gun to defend against a crime?  I know that is only anecdotal evidence, but the 2.5 million number is so high that it should usually penetrate anecdotally.

[KEmperor]

http://www.a-human-right.com/

You said

  I don't know much about gun history

Well, that's the truth.  Please stop and learn before you post unfounded 'beliefs.'

Next you said:

 if no one committed a crime using a gun, no one would feel the need to have one for self-defense.  

Firearms allow persons of lesser physical abilities to defend themselves from larger and more powerful attackers.  There are many instances of such defenses.

I don't think it is appropriate for a person to use lethal force to defend against a threat of non-lethal force.  (And this is basically what the law says about legitimate self-defense, with a couple exceptions.)  So anyone using a gun to defend against against non-lethal force is committing a crime, not using it for self defense.  

So you prefer that women be raped, rather than use a gun to defend themselves?  And you would prosecute that woman for murder if she shot her attacker?

[John Dibble]

http://www.a-human-right.com/

You said

  I don't know much about gun history

Well, that's the truth.  Please stop and learn before you post unfounded 'beliefs.'

Next you said:

 if no one committed a crime using a gun, no one would feel the need to have one for self-defense.  

Firearms allow persons of lesser physical abilities to defend themselves from larger and more powerful attackers.  There are many instances of such defenses.

I don't think it is appropriate for a person to use lethal force to defend against a threat of non-lethal force.  (And this is basically what the law says about legitimate self-defense, with a couple exceptions.)  So anyone using a gun to defend against against non-lethal force is committing a crime, not using it for self defense.  

So you prefer that women be raped, rather than use a gun to defend themselves?  And you would prosecute that woman for murder if she shot her attacker?

And also, please tell me how I'm supposed to know the criminal's intent? He's going to tell me "Don't resist and you'll be ok." and I'm just supposed to believe him? He's a frikkin criminal for God's sake, I don't know if he will use lethal force or not, so I'm gonna make the smart choice and assume he will. As I said, you are more likely to be injured by any criminal by not resisting at all than you will by armed resistance. I'd also like to remind you that in most cases where a gun is used to defend against a criminal, it is usually just brandished or a warning shot is fired - very rarely does the criminal have to be shot - because the criminal runs away. Criminals are like bullies who want your lunch money, they prey on the weaker kids who they think can't or won't defend themselves, but if you fight back they are cowards.

[CARLHAYDEN]

http://www.a-human-right.com/

You said:

I don't think it is appropriate for a person to use lethal force to defend against a threat of non-lethal force.  (And this is basically what the law says about legitimate self-defense, with a couple exceptions.)  So anyone using a gun to defend against against non-lethal force is committing a crime, not using it for self defense.  

I reply:

Since you want to talk about the law, you should realize that the law states that the utilizing a firearm (or any other tool) for self-defense has to act reasonably (the legal term is the 'reasonable man' test).  Many 'assaults' (actually batteries) end up in death, as is the case in rapes.  Lets take this case by case, rather than engage in blaming the tool.

You said:

So if no criminals had guns, there would be very few legitimate uses for guns in self defense.

I reply:

This is another unfounded supposition on your part.

You said:

BTW, it looks like I was wrong about the 10,000 accidental gun death a year.  I had though accidental deaths were about as common as homicides and suicides, so was just dividing the 30,000 annual gun deaths by 3.  But if the figures others have posted are right, this was obviously way off base.

I reply:

Yes, you were wrong.  Good of you to admit it.  Perhaps after a few more postings you will seem how many of your assumptions are incorrect.

You said:

But claims that there are 2.5 million cases of self defense with guns every years seem absurd to me.  This almost means that every American will, on average, use a gun to defend against a crime once in his or her life.  I have never met a person who has done this, other than people in law enforcement.  

I reply:

The data cited is correct.  You belief that the data is "absurd" merely reflects another case of your being unable to deal with facts.

Also, you make a statistical error in assuming that the need to employ a firearm in self-defense is equally spread throughout the population.

I know people who have had to defend themselves on a number of occasions with a firearm.  Had to do it once myself against a biker/drug dealer who threatened me with a knife (he was out on parole at the time).  I'm still alive (something that cann't be said for a couple of his victims).  The 'biker/drug dealer' was subsequently convicted a murder and is serving life.

You said:

Has anyone on this forum ever used a gun to defend against a crime?  I know that is only anecdotal evidence, but the 2.5 million number is so high that it should usually penetrate anecdotally.

I reply:

The problem is that liberal media suppresses reports of citizens defending themselves with firearsm.  Every month the American Rifleman carries a page called "armed citizen" which cites just a few examples of citizens defending themselves with firearms.

Oh, and by the way, if I were to express the distance from Sol to Alpha Centuri in miles, it would also probably be to great for "penetrate" in your case.  That however (your inability to comprehend) does NOT alter the distance one whit.  Just as your inability to deal with the facts about firearms doesn't alter those facts.