Gun Control

[CARLHAYDEN]

At last I've found something you have posted with which I can agree.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Disagree. Anyway if private gun ownership had been legal and widespread beforehand, the Germans would have confiscated them immediately following the Reichstag fire, possibly as late as the Night of the Long Knives (1934). They'dve been long gone by the war ('39) and the start of the Final Solution ('41).

M,

I'm more than a little surprised at your postings on this thread.

In you postings on other matter, you have been pretty reasonable.

I can only wonder if you are suffering from a severe case of hoplophobia.

By the way, as a historical matter, the jews DID escape from one concentration camp because they acquired and used small arms.  There is a pretty good movie about it.  Trying to remember the name of the camp (it was in Poland).  I believe it was something like, 'Sobidor.'

You postings on this thread would be agreed with by every totalitarian thug of the twentieth century of whom I am aware.

Do you really think there are enough jackbotted scumbags to try to seize privately owned arms?

I generally disagree with Bandit, but we can peaceably disagree.  If ANY government comes to seize private arms, I suspect I will be with Bandit, forced by evil intollerance to defend myself against tyranny.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Shotguns, hunting rifles etc are *not* banned (except for certain high velocity weapons, eg: pump action shotguns).

Just to take one of you assertions, where do you get the silly idea that the action of a firearm controls its velocity?  Pump actions have no higher "velocity" than break actions, or semi-autos.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Shotguns, hunting rifles etc are *not* banned (except for certain high velocity weapons, eg: pump action shotguns).

Just to take one of you assertions, where do you get the silly idea that the action of a firearm controls its velocity?  Pump actions have no higher "velocity" than break actions, or semi-autos.

Semi-Automatic weapons are banned as well.

I'm sorry, but your post was non-responsive.  I repeat, where did you get the silly idea that the action of a firearm controls its velocity as you previously asserted?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Shotguns, hunting rifles etc are *not* banned (except for certain high velocity weapons, eg: pump action shotguns).

Just to take one of you assertions, where do you get the silly idea that the action of a firearm controls its velocity?  Pump actions have no higher "velocity" than break actions, or semi-autos.

Semi-Automatic weapons are banned as well.

I'm sorry, but your post was non-responsive.  I repeat, where did you get the silly idea that the action of a firearm controls its velocity as you previously asserted?

I have not asserted that... it's the law over here.

Could you please tell me just what your understanding of "e.g." is?

The way I read it was that you were asserting that 'pump shotguns" were high velocity fireams.

Are you now saying that is not what you meant?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Taking Nick's argument then since radio, television, movies, the internet, etc. were not in existence at the of the adoption of the first amendment, then they should not be covered by the First Amendment.

BTW, pistols did exist for a couple of centuries prior to the adoption of the second amendment.

[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.  

[CARLHAYDEN]

Do they have a law over there saying the earth is flat?

Shotguns, irrespective of action (which had absolutely NO bearing on the velocity) are of lower velocity than rifles and most handguns.

That you are ignorant of this elementary fact does not suprise me.

That you persist in making statements about a subject where you "know" things that are simply untrue says a lot about your belief system.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Actually, Burglary, Arson, Robbery, Rape and Mayhem (not styled 'aggravated assault' in most criminal/penal codes) can be a basis for use of lethal force in most states.

The stupid 'retreat' law is rejected in just about every state.  Even in those states with a retreat law, it is limited by the requirment that retreat is only required if the party being attacked reasonably believes he/she can retreat in safety.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I presume your post was addressed to someone else.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Do you notice how Nick keeps giving "seems" and "believes" and eschews facts.

I suggest that two words sharply divide people.  Many people "feel" irrational things, while others "think" before they say or post something.

BTW, if Bush does appear to be running away with the election in my state, I will probably vote for Badnarik.  If it appears to be close, I will hold my nose and vote Bush.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, what's your state? Gotta know I can make a call. Myself, I live in Georgia, conservative South(Atlanta is liberal though), so it'll be Bush no matter what I think.

I'd vote Libertarian anyways, because honestly I don't care for either Kerry or Bush.

Arizona.

Apologize for McCain.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I presume your post was addressed to someone else.

Yeah, Gov. Nick G in partricular, but any gun control advocate would do.

I'm not specifically worried about the lives of criminals...more like people who might wander up to your house because they are confused, lost, or intoxicated, and might be shot for behaving erratically even though they mean no harm.  You shouldn't have the right to shoot someone just because they come on to your property or act belligerant.

I'm also worried that if people carry guns with them, arguments, fights, episodes of road rage, etc., might much more easily turn deadly.  A person who is drunk and gets in a fight, or who rear-ends your car is acting inappropriately and illegally, but they are not "criminals" in the sense that they are worthless to society and deserve to be shot.

People get angry all the time...that's only human...but we shouldn't give them an easy way to channel that anger into deadly force.

Your fears are groundless.

A trenchant and brilliant writer once noted that:

"An armed society is a polite society."

Visit a gun show or range some time and you will see somd of the best mannered people in the world.

From your posts you seem more than a little isolated.

[CARLHAYDEN]

It seems the M, Nick and Al have given up, as logic and facts consistenly beats emotions and unfounded beliefs.