The American weapon-policy

[grumpyBB]

I'm not going to argue my point on here because my mind is already made up about guns. I own a few and I have a concealed weapons permit for my pistol.

Any idiot that uses bowlingforcolumbine.com or any other biased pro-gungrabbing site as a source of info needs to be slapped. Why don't you check out www.bowlingfortruth.com

[ShyShy]

Originally posted by Fickle
The problem is not the guns themselves, but the lack of responsibility in the nation reguarding guns and other things like knives, firecrackers, etc. I was taught by my step-father to respect our rifles and guns, and not to be irresponsible with them.
It's lack of responsiblity and self-respect and reasoning behind the United States Crime rate.

Responsibility is the keyword here. Most hunters and recreational gun users that I've known have always taken that responsibilty seriously. I wasn't even allowed to touch an ex's rifle because I hadn't had proper training. Don't want to, but that's besides the point. LEGAL gun owners are law-abiding and responsible. It's the illegal owners that are dangerous. And yes, there are tragedies involved with kids and guns in the homes. But, when you dig a little bit further, you'll find that in most cases, said guns were in amazingly easy access.

And no, I don't have a gun, nor plan to get one.

[zootm]

Originally posted by Fickle
I love it when people post random cliche's and never read the arguments against thier own beliefs.

agreed. i was trying to argue a point at first, but all i got was irrelevant facts and clichés. this topic does have that sort of effect, though.

[InvisableMan]

glock 18c


beretta 96 inox


smith & wesson 500


taurus raging bull


all works of art.

[Timzone8]

Gee' now they're becoming fashionable eh?

[Fickle]

they're quite well made machines made for the sole purpose of shooting things that aren't people unless the holder is under extreme duress.

And if I had an intruder, I'd still use a bat before I shot the fuck. A bat would let him die slow. Or at least feel.

On the downside, he could probably sue me.

[InvisableMan]

firearms were always an artistic outlet. they have become the perfect mixture of form and function.

people can shoot people, it's not my problem.

[Timzone8]

I'm all for guns in a certain aspect, but think how many deaths would occur if they were banned and manufactures stopped making them? police shouldn't need them if nobody else has them

[Namelessv1]

Originally posted by Timzone8
I'm all for guns in a certain aspect, but think how many deaths would occur if they were banned and manufactures stopped making them? police shouldn't need them if nobody else has them

Even if production was stopped, there would still be the old supply of guns out there. The sale of guns through the black market would increase. Besides, the police would still have a necessity for guns. Even as effective as non-lethal force is, there are still those few crazy nutjobs hopped up on ethamphetamines thinking they're invincible.

[ertmann|CPH]

All this just made me wonder....

Howcome americans are so patriotic for the most part, saying it's the greatest country of the world.... and then at the same time think they need guns to keep it from being opressive?



Also, an argument i often use about gun control.

If a robber goes into a store in say Denmark or Germany, with a rifle or something, and threatens the owner to give him the money from the register. That's most likely all that's going to happen. The robber feels safe cause he know he has the upper hand, cause the owner will in all probability not have any weapon of any sort. So he takes the money, walks (and hopefully gets caught), and the insurance pays the owner for the stolen goods....

In the US or South Africa, the robber is risking his life doing this, the robber is not sure he has the upper hand and will pretty much be on the edge. Any movement can cause the robber to shoot, as it might be the owner reaching for his gun.....

violence breeds violence.

And just before you use this argument, crime rate is not higher in Denmark or Germany, in fact it's lower for allmost any kind of crime....

and then someone mentioned a long list of countries, connecting gun control to opressive regimes...

in that context, i'd just like to mention some of my heroes...

Martin Luther King
Nelson Mandela
Mahatma Ghandi
Aung San Suu Kyi
Dalai Lhama

amazing what they can/could do to opressive regimes without having to own a gun....

[Namelessv1]

Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
in that context, i'd just like to mention some of my heroes...

Martin Luther King
Nelson Mandela
Mahatma Ghandi
Aung San Suu Kyi
Dalai Lhama

amazing what they can/could do to opressive regimes without having to own a gun....

Yes, but they also had the power of the press. People in Southeast Asia, for example, under oppressive "communist" regimes did not have that same outlet.

[ertmann|CPH]

Originally posted by Dawg4Life2K1
Yes, but they also had the power of the press. People in Southeast Asia, for example, under oppressive "communist" regimes did not have that same outlet.

The press in China isn't free, and the press of India was censored by the British, SA press wasn't free (censored by the apartheid regime), and it certainly isn't free in Burma.

[Namelessv1]

Within their own nations, yes. Internationally, no. For example, Tianammen Square was played off as the military handling a situation in the right manner in China, but around the world, it was received much differently.

[marvinbarcelona]

Originally posted by godoncrack
Something to think about...
Number of gun owners in the U.S.: 80,000,000
Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups): 1,500
Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.0000188
Number of physicians in the U.S.: 700,000
Number of accidental deaths caused by physicians per year (all age groups): 120,000
Accidental deaths per physician: 0.171 (U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)
Statistically, Doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
FACT: Not everyone has a gun, but everyone has at least one doctor. Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand. (As a public health measure, statistics on lawyers were withheld for fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical aid.)
more from us pro-gun nuts

gononcrack, this is pretty poor, mate. I'm sure there's also an interesting statistical point about people wearing red t-shirts and killing people. The stats above are fairly useless. The point about the US and guns is not really about the guns themselves, but the reasons Americans feel the need to be heavily armed. Why is the US such a violent country? Is it a violent country, or has the media and politicians potrayed it as such to scare the crap out of you all?

Regarding the countries who had gun control;

The French citizenry didn't have that many guns, they were too poor to afford them.
The US Revolution: yes they had guns,. but they also had the French Army.
The US Civil War: I fail to see the point of this example.
Chechyn Rebels; aren't the Russians calling them terrorists?
The UK: we don't need guns to control our goverment, we have something called democracy. We vote our leaders out of office, we blow each to bits.

I've asked this question before and not really received and answer; Why are Americans so frightened of their goverment?

[marvinbarcelona]

Originally posted by grumpyBB
I'm not going to argue my point on here because my mind is already made up about guns. I own a few and I have a concealed weapons permit for my pistol.

Any idiot that uses bowlingforcolumbine.com or any other biased pro-gungrabbing site as a source of info needs to be slapped. Why don't you check out www.bowlingfortruth.com

You critise, or rather insult, anyone who uses a certain site because they are pro-gun control and then ask us to go to a anti-control site!

So, the one thats against your opinion is for idiots and the one for your opinion is for intelligent people? ....hhhhhh.....I'm thinking of a descriptive word begining with 'h'.

[Timzone8]

85% of statistics are wrong, including this one.
"Guns don't kill people, I do!" - EXACTLY, so WHY would anyone sell a gun to someone willing to kill another person including yourself? *money*
True, if guns were stopped being made and banned then the blackmarket would be making more, but only for a certain amount of time...
Perhaps such corrupt countries deserve the right to kill each other

[ScorLibran]

The "need to own a gun to protect yourself" is a need born from fear. Don't be so afraid. You have a higher chance of being hit by a blimp than you do of having the opportunity to use a gun to defend your home.

Take the money you'd use to buy a gun and donate it to cancer research. Save a life instead of taking one. If everyone did that, imagine the lives that could be saved by two efforts happening at once...fewer guns on the street (because guns on the street often begin as guns in someone else's home) and hopefully fewer people dying of cancer.

[Timzone8]

"Don't be so eager to take what you can not give"

[grumpyBB]

Originally posted by ScorLibran
The "need to own a gun to protect yourself" is a need born from fear. Don't be so afraid. You have a higher chance of being hit by a blimp than you do of having the opportunity to use a gun to defend your home.

So I guess that means I should have had a blimp hit me a long time ago, right?

[Wildrose-Wally]

Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
All this just made me wonder....

Howcome americans are so patriotic for the most part, saying it's the greatest country of the world.... and then at the same time think they need guns to keep it from being opressive?

The right to bear arms was put in the constitution in case a future government decided to ban their citizens from owning them and being able to protect themselves.

Imagine what Nazi Germany would have been like if they had not banned firearms for anybody except themselves, they would have been quite vulnerable as not every German had the Nazi ideals and I imagine a few would have taken up target practice with a Nazi in their sights.

Now about gun control. A couple of years ago the Canadian government put in a law that all guns in Canada have to be registered. This law was to cost the taxpayer about $2 million dollars.

So far it has cost over $1 billion dollars, expected to rise over the next couple of years to at least 3 billion, with no effect whatsoever on the crime rate, except that now a good number of otherwise law abiding citizens like farmers/ranchers/hunters are now criminals because they own unregistered fire arms. The weapon of choice in Canada for most murders happens to be a knife.

What if this money had been put in law enforcement instead? How many officers could have been hired to apprehend the criminals? Would this have had an effect on the crime rate?

Canada has a very good law that if a fire arm is used in a criminal offence, the sentence is automatically increased by 10 years, but the first thing the "justice" system does is bargain this away for a guilty plea for a lesser offence.

Enforce the laws we have and don't make more criminals from law-abiding citizens because they happen to own a rifle to shoot the coyotes on their farm.

PS: So far not a single criminal has bothered to register their illigal weapons, the bastards.

[zootm]

Originally posted by wildrose-wally
Imagine what Nazi Germany would have been like if they had not banned firearms for anybody except themselves, they would have been quite vulnerable as not every German had the Nazi ideals and I imagine a few would have taken up target practice with a Nazi in their sights.

it would have been the same, in my opinion. hitler brainwashed people - there wasn't a huge internal backlash in germany.

Originally posted by wildrose-wally
Now about gun control. A couple of years ago the Canadian government put in a law that all guns in Canada have to be registered. This law was to cost the taxpayer about $2 million dollars.

So far it has cost over $1 billion dollars, expected to rise over the next couple of years to at least 3 billion, with no effect whatsoever on the crime rate, except that now a good number of otherwise law abiding citizens like farmers/ranchers/hunters are now criminals because they own unregistered fire arms.

why didn't they register them? i mean, if it's really that difficult to register a weapon that "innocents" can't do it, then the law is so fundamentally flawed that the example is dead anyway.

What if this money had been put in law enforcement instead? How many officers could have been hired to apprehend the criminals? Would this have had an effect on the crime rate?

also, a registration of firearms act can only really work if guns are not so widespread, and if there is widespread acceptance of the program. which hasn't happened in this case

Originally posted by wildrose-wally
Enforce the laws we have and don't make more criminals from law-abiding citizens because they happen to own a rifle to shoot the coyotes on their farm.

bullshit. that's legal in this country. is it actually that hard to register weapons? or are these people just fucking stupid?

[Wildrose-Wally]

Actually, it is hard to get your firearm registered. The program is run by civil servants who don't know one end of a gun from the other end, and so people end up with certificates of other peoples guns and all matter of other mistakes.
Amnesties have been declared and probably will continue to be declared because great ineptness by the beaurocrats.
But the biggest stumbling block is the enormous price tag.

The Minister also lied about crime statistics when this law was first voted on and passed, and the RCMP has since set her straight, but instead of scrapping the program, the government just keeps throwing (my) money at it. What the hell, eh? It is not like they pay for it out of their generous pensions, that's what the low and middle income tax payer are there for.

[zootm]

gah! so it's an administrative thing?

these things annoy me. see the scottish parliament for our own example. nothing to do with gun control, but to be honest, i think the flaws in your scheme are little to do with it, either.

[Wildrose-Wally]

Established in 1974, The Fraser Institute is an independent public policy
organization based in Vancouver, with offices in Calgary and Toronto.

The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada.

The Canadian experiment with firearm registration is becoming a farce says Mauser. The effort to register all firearms, which was originally claimed to cost only $2 million, has now been estimated by the Auditor General to top $1 billion. The final costs are unknown but, if the costs of enforcement are included, the total could easily reach $3 billion.

“It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public. No law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and target shooters?” says Mauser.

[zootm]

a good point, but the first paragraph is irrelevant and misleading.

edit: time to elaborate, i think. now, say what you like about bowling for columbine, something that moore pointed out in an excellent way wasn't that gun laws were bad, more that there was a culture of fear, that was leading to so many murders. i find this explanation a far more valid one for the effect seen in the first paragraph - the canadian media and politicians are becoming more sensationalist, their people are becoming more afraid. why else would a gun registration act have been passed in the first place?

[marvinbarcelona]

wildrose-wally, the article actually is about how gun control hasn't stopped the rise in violent crime, but mentions nothing about how it has had an effect on gun related crime. Gun control wasn't meant to have an effect on mugging, just on gun related crime. Best read the article again.

The report is seriously mis-leading.

[Wildrose-Wally]

Yes, I guess anything that does not support your point of view is seriously misleading. I'm sorry to have posted such atrocities.
I'm done with this topic now.

[zootm]

no, wildrose, the article is misleading. the first paragraph is about violent crime levels. the second is about gun control. they don't, at any point, attempt to link the two. as i said, the last quote makes a good point, but the article itself is misleading. that's not just my opinion. i'm fairly sure anyone with some critical reading experience could see the same.

[marvinbarcelona]

And he ran away.

[Wildrose-Wally]

No,the fact is that you do not see a link in increase in violent crime that can be directly attributed to gun control. As people (the criminal) want to do wrong to others, they will use what is available and have no fear of reprisals by armed home- or business owners (the law abiding citizen).

As a result the crimerate goes up because the country has disarmed its citizens, and having spend all the available funds on that, fails to protect those unarmed citizens with an adequate police force.

This is the case in Canada right now, where what was once our national pride, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is severly underfunded and understaffed. Three billioin dollars would have gone a hell of a long way to fix that and then some.

Gun control has not done anything for the citizens of Canada except cost them money, and lots of that. Money we need to feed, clothe, educate and protect our children.

I can't think of any good reason why John Gardner, rancher near Longview, Alberta, has to register his rifle. He has never taken it of his ranch and uses it to protect himself and his posessions from bear, cougar, and other wildlife.

That does not mean he discrimenatly shoots at everything that moves, we have European tourist that come over to do that.(They also don't know the difference between the butt and the bore of a gun.)

[marvinbarcelona]

Maybe the rise in crime in Canada has nothing to do with gun control? What proof, beyond statistical, do they put forward? None.

To link the rise in violent crime to tough gun control is very weak. What other things were happening in Canada? How's the Canadian economy doing? Whats going on there? The site you posted have not even looked at these issues, thats what makes it a poor survey/report. They have extrapolated what they want from the statistics and nothing more.

Now, I've said the above because site you posted is anti-gun control, I've said the above because the sites 'evidence' is very, very poor and has almost no basis in what is really happening.

The UK has always had gun control and we're not a dictatorship, nor are we under any threat from that happening. Violent crime in the UK is falling and we still have gun control. Maybe, its because detection rates are higher, maybe...I don't know, but I hasn't anything to do with guns.

PS - why do want to carry a concealed weapon? Haven't we been told that guns are a deterant to crime? How is a concealed weapon a deteranr?

[Wildrose-Wally]

Originally posted by marvinbarcelona
And he ran away.

You have great debating talent, and on that alone, you can win any argument. However, you don't know anything about the rural Canadian lifestyle. The rural Canadians are the most peacefull people on earth, always willing to help others. These same rural people also own the majority of long rifles in Canada and never ever use them to commit any crime. It is these people the government took aim at when they required long rifle registration. Side arms have been registered in this country since 1934 and most murders committed with guns are committed with, guess what.... Registration sure works, doesn't it?

The weapon of choice in most murders in Canada is the knife. Should we register all knifes? Also, the prime-minister of Canada, the premier of Alberta, and a few others have been attacked by having pies smacked in their faces, I think it is time granny has to register her lethal apple pies.

[Wildrose-Wally]

Originally posted by marvinbarcelona
The UK has always had gun control and we're not a dictatorship, nor are we under any threat from that happening. Violent crime in the UK is falling and we still have gun control. Maybe, its because detection rates are higher, maybe...I don't know, but I hasn't anything to do with guns.

You asked for it:
(yes, I know, this study is flawed, of course)
http://www.spruce.ca/auxgunlaws200311l.htm

England and Wales

Both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearms laws over the past 20 years; all handguns were banned in 1997.

Yet in the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50 percent, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000. While not yet as high as the US, in 2002 gun crime in England and Wales increased by 35 percent. This is the fourth consecutive year that gun crime has increased.

Police statistics show that violent crime in general has increased since the late 1980s and since 1996 has been more serious than in the United States.

Australia

The Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearms legislation in 1997. However, the total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again. While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise – for example, armed robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide.

The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms has cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The cost of the police services bureaucracy, including the costly infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997.

“And for what?” asks Mauser. “There has been no visible impact on violent crime. It is impossible to justify such a massive amount of the taxpayers’ money for no decrease in crime. For that kind of tax money, the police could have had more patrol cars, shorter shifts, or better equipment.”

[marvinbarcelona]

If just had look at the bowlingfortruth site. I've got to say, to recommend this as balanced against Moore's bias just dosen't stand up.

Heston was taken by surpise by the interview.....why should he be forewarned of the questions?

More people from ethnic minorites are in jail for crime....true, but, once again, the statistic isn't explored, the reason isn't examined.

The bank scene.....The site bangs on about how they were there for an hour and half....this may well be true. I have a friend who works in tv and an hour and a half is pretty to short to be honest.

Marylin Manson....Manson says he would ahve listen to the youths who did the killing at the school. The site derides this as though it were nonsence, surely this is a sensible answer to the question. By the way....why did they call him Mary? Ah, they couldn't resist bringing their own prejudices into it.

Sorry, but that site offers now evidence, it merely tells us he was wrong, but offers no evidence.

Please, bring us some sites that have evidence.

[zootm]

the crime which led to the ban on handguns would have been prevented by the ban on handguns (search for articles on "dunblane"). it was largely a publicity thing, although since handguns have no valid use in society, it has been a useful one - particularly considering the rise in organised crime recently, which is the most direct contributor to the rise in gun crime.

feel free to ask anyone who knows what they're talking about in the UK about that one - it's widely accepted.

as for being "more serious than the US", i'd be interested to see how that is quantified, even if it wouldn't really surprise me.

[marvinbarcelona]

The murder rate in the UK has indeed increased, but again, this has nothing to do with guns and gun control. There has, recently, been a slight increase in the gun related murders, but this is gang related and is being addressed. When a gang members gun is confiscated, it is much more difficult to replace it than if guns were readily available. You can't really steal one as they are aren't allowed to be owned. They have to be imported.

Violent crime may well have increased in the UK, but what has this to do with guns? We haven't had guns generally available in the UK for, what, 30, 40, 50 years? The guns banned in 20 years ago were pistols. Farmers still have the right to a shotgun for pest control, but there use and ownership is severly regulated. Every year a police office must inspect the weapon to makesure it is the same one as registered, where the gun is kept is also inspected to make sure it is secure and finally, machine guns, high powered assault rifles etc are utterly banned.....they have no use outside the military.

So, once again, what does gun control have to do with violent crime? The US has very liberal, in European eyes, gun laws, yet you still have very high levels og violent crime. Having the right to a gun has not cured violent crime in the US one bit.

PS - the latest link uses that poor report from The Frasier Institute you linked to earlier as its basis.

[Wildrose-Wally]

Yes, I realized it does not support your point of view, and so it is indeed a poor report. Once again I appologise for using it. And since you refuse to see a link between violent crime and gun ownership, there's no point arguing about it any longer, you have your views, and they are the right ones I'm sure, and I have my own, although flawed views on this.

I believe the only thing we can probably agree on is to disagree.

Have a nice day.

BTW, I do not own any firearms, although I did own two long rifles and a shotgun 20 years ago, and I have no desire to carry a concealed weapon. In other words, I am the average Canadian citizen.

[zootm]

i've been trying to skirt the issue of the link between violent crime and gun violence, because i believe there's more to the issue than that. which is why i only mention it when directly confronted.

that's my apology, by the way.

[marvinbarcelona]

wildrose-wally, I'm not having a go at you, I just think there must be better sites than the ones you've posted that could supply you with better stats.

I do agree that we will not make each other change our minds, but debating the issue does allow each of us to test our arguements.

[dlinkwit27]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
Yeah, well there's a lot of absurd crap going on around the world all the time. Point is, if someone wants a gun, they're going to get one... legally or not. If you make all guns illegal, then you're taking away the right of the law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from the people that will simply acquire said guns through less-than-legal means. Personally, I like the fact that I can protect my home with a firearm if need be. If someone breaks into my house at night and threatens my life with a gun, then what the hell am I supposed to do if the government has made it illegal for me to own one? Like it or not, guns are here to stay.

reminds me of the louis black stand-up show. "now you see, we can't legalize marijuana, because if we legalize it, people will smoke it!"


hehe