The American weapon-policy

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

What I really want to know is why are people so damn critical about this? If it can't be a gun, then it'll be something else. Someone said that knives are the tool of choice in one particular country for commiting violent crimes... Ok, so if knives are outlawed, what are you going to protect yourself with if someone attacks you with an illegally owned knife? Oh, cars are deadly weapons, too... let's not forget.

I can tell you one thing, though. I live out in the country. Everyone out here has guns, and everyone else knows it. The crime rate out here is very low compared to the city that's just south of here. I read about people getting shot in their homes and cars all the time in the newspaper, but they're hardly ever out in the country. They're almost always in the city. Reason for this? It's because the people that live in the city have fewer legal gun ownerships per capita than out in the country.

Also, someone mentioned a few ways to be safe without having to own a gun... including moving somewhere else, getting a house alarm, keeping doors locked, etc. Well ya know what? I did move. I moved out into the country. I got a house alarm for the house I'm living in. I lock all the doors every evening. And there are still guns in this house. I haven't had a break-in yet, so I haven't had the need to use one of these guns to protect myself yet... but that doesn't mean that I'll never have a break-in. Sorry, but if someone breaks into my house and threatens my life, the fucker is getting shot. There's no two ways about it. You're right, I shouldn't have to live my life with the need to have guns, but this isn't a perfect world. If someone is dumb enough to break into my house, then I'll be doing the world a favor by cleaning up the gene pool a little bit.

And just because there are guns in this house doesn't mean I'm going to go do something illegal with them. That's just stereotypical. Believe it or not, the only thing my father has used all of his half-dozen handguns for so far is target shooting. That's it. But they're here if we ever need them in extreme situations...

Again, you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
What I really want to know is why are people so damn critical about this? If it can't be a gun, then it'll be something else. Someone said that knives are the tool of choice in one particular country for commiting violent crimes... Ok, so if knives are outlawed, what are you going to protect yourself with if someone attacks you with an illegally owned knife? Oh, cars are deadly weapons, too... let's not forget.

...because the problem lies in how a gun works.

With a club or a knife, the attacker has to be within three feet of the victim. If the victim has any warning and the ability to run, they can avoid the attack. If the victim is strong and can fight, they can disarm the attacker. And if the attack is successful, required proximity of the attacker to the victim increases the likelihood of witnesses that can identify the attacker and lead to his arrest, preventing future crimes.

With a gun, the attacker can be a great distance away, fire with accuracy and reload quickly. Unless the attacker is dumb enough to use a ranged weapon from a very short distance, the victim would never see it coming. And if the attacker is over a hundred feet away in the bushes, there may be no witnesses that can ever identify the attacker. Case in point: Maryland, Fall 2002. The "serial snipers" shot some 19 people, killing (I believe) 13 of them, all from a great, undefendable distance. And accordingly, there were never any witnesses who saw the attackers carry out their crimes. A man saw his wife's head explode right next to him as they walked out of a store, and there was never any possible way he could have saved her except by never letting her leave the house.

The attackers were only caught by their own mistakes, and one of the attackers has now been sentenced to death. Killing leads to killing leads to killing... It's a cycle that has to be stopped. I'm not saying "only outlaw guns and see what happens". We have to do many things at once to stop violent crime. I'm more for addressing the causes than the tools used (including guns), but why restrict ourselves to only a few efforts? Human life is worth doing everything to protect it. And human life is worth more than freedom. If you can have both, great. If not, then choose what protects life over what protects freedom. You don't have to end up with a totalitarian state. That's another "give up" point-of-view. There is an in-between: Protecting rights enough to have a free-state, while restricting those things that were designed mostly to main and kill.

"Live free or die"? If you define "freedom" as getting to do or own things that put peoples lives in direct danger...then no, you don't get that kind of freedom. There is indeed a wide range between absolute freedom and oppression. I refuse to live in fear, and I refuse to let those who live in fear with guns spread their fear to my family. I've dedicated significant resources to gun control. If it means prying guns out of people's cold, dead fingers, then I'll bring my pry bar.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

Your whole point about the snipers is moot. Gun control laws aren't going to stop people from using guns in illegal ways. The only thing that gun control laws do is restrict the law-abiding citizens right to protect themselves.

You're right that there was no way for that man to keep his wife from dying in that situation, but gun control laws aren't the answer. Enforcement of the laws that are already in place is the answer.

And just because there are guns in my house doesn't mean that I live in fear. Actually, I have no fear of death. But I also do have the right to protect my own life and my property. And if that includes killing someone with a gun to save my own life, then I'm going to do it.

Oh, and get the quote right. It's "give me freedom or give me death." And no, I don't define freedom as "getting to do or own things that put people's lives in direct danger." How does my ownership of a gun put someone's life in direct danger? The only way my ownership of a gun would put someone in direct danger is if they broke into my house and/or threatened my life. Freedom to me is being able to do what I want as long as I don't infringe on another person's rights.

[Namelessv1]

Originally posted by ScorLibran
With a gun, the attacker can be a great distance away, fire with accuracy and reload quickly. Unless the attacker is dumb enough to use a ranged weapon from a very short distance, the victim would never see it coming. And if the attacker is over a hundred feet away in the bushes, there may be no witnesses that can ever identify the attacker. Case in point: Maryland, Fall 2002. The "serial snipers" shot some 19 people, killing (I believe) 13 of them, all from a great, undefendable distance. And accordingly, there were never any witnesses who saw the attackers carry out their crimes. A man saw his wife's head explode right next to him as they walked out of a store, and there was never any possible way he could have saved her except by never letting her leave the house.

That was a rare case. Most assaults and homicides carried out with a firearm, at least in the US, usually involve the handgun, a short ranged weapon. It's a cheap, effective weapon. Very seldom is a rifle used compared to the pistol.

I think the point Sarge is trying to make is that the inherit problem does not lie within the method, rather it lies within the cause. Even if you do "reduce" the "efficiency" of a person to commit a homicide, have you really changed anything if you haven't addressed why there is even a violent crime occuring or why the situation could not be solved peacefully?

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

...because the problem lies in how a gun works.

And that point is moot, too. I can go out and buy some throwing knives or stars and kill someone with those from a distance. I could go out and learn kung fu and kill someone when they're not looking. I could run a pedestrian down with my truck. It has nothing to do with how a gun works... It's just another tool, just like throwing knives, well-trained hands, or an automobile.


[edit]

I think the point Sarge is trying to make is that the inherit problem does not lie within the method, rather it lies within the cause. Even if you do "reduce" the "efficiency" of a person to commit a homicide, have you really changed anything if you haven't addressed why there is even a violent crime occuring or why the situation could not be solved peacefully?

Well put.

[/edit]

[godoncrack]

Why do american's want guns to protect themselves if they live in the greatest nation in the world?
France was once one of the most feared nations of the earth.
Now we laugh at them.
Times change.
We might not always be the biggest and baddest on the block.
Debo got his ass whooped.
So did Napoleaon.
And lets not forget about Lee.
And lets not forget about this war.
Do you think there was a whole hearted consensus to do this?
Fuck no!!
People in power will do what they want with it.
Shit can change very quickly.
Would you say that the freedom of speech shall be infringed because of N'sync or Britney Spears?
The devistation wrought by these two entities has been massive.
But the freedom will remain.
The freedom from unlawful search and seizure.
If you are innocent, surely you won't mind the police coming in your house and taking a peak around.
Point made.
Freedom is control.
Either you have it or you don't.
Next time you want to go in and re-write the constitution, because you have ALL of the ideas, keep in mind that one can go just as easy as the others.
I don't own a gun.
There are many robberies commited on the coast with guns.
There are also alot of Hunting clubs and such.
Where many parents teach their kids about guns early.
About respect for them and responsibility when using one.
Yes, you can kill from a distance with a rifle.
I dare you to try.
Bruce Lee can clear a room full in under a minute.
With the same hands and feet, I dare you to do the same and live.
About killing without guns, American prisons spawns weapons even the CIA hasn't thought of yet.
A knife made out of paper.
or plastic wrap.
Not only is the FOOD in my Taco Bell container deadly, but so is the container itself!!!!!!
Counter-point?

[Bazman63]

This is a fairly pointless discussion. Yanks have guns. It's not going to change.
If there were less guns around there'd be less guns for criminals to steal.

Blah blah blah. My view is that it is absurd that it easier to own a firearm than it is to own a car.

Perhaps if the "right to bear arms ....(in an organised militia)", were accompanied by an amendment detailing the responsibility to bear/own arms, ie. an education course and an examimation resulting in a provisional licence, followed a year or two later by a follow-up exam to get a full firearm owners licence, more people would consider the consequences of proper firearm management, and maybe there would be a reduction in accidental deaths and, hopefully fewer stolen black market guns available to crims.

[godoncrack]

Requirements for voting other than the basics(age, citizenship, not a felon) were banned because they were used and abused to keep black people from voting.
Same for owning guns.
I thought of that too, baz.
If that was to work, it would only be viable at the local level or at most, state level.
This way all your eggs aren't in one basket.
But the NRA will fall down on its knees and give head to Justin Timberlake before they let that happen.

[ScorLibran]

A person dying unnaturally is never moot.

-- "Enforcement of the laws that are already in place is the answer."
It's an answer...nothing is the answer. The value of many efforts means that as ten fail, ten more will succeed. Currently existing laws do indeed need better enforcement. In the case of the serial snipers, the laws were enforced quite well. AFAIK, John Muhammed bought the rifle legally, traveled to the location of each killing legally, and after he killed (and allowed the kid with him to kill), he was arrested and justice (as we have it) was enforced legally. Now, let's use current laws to bring back the people who died. Current laws are mostly reactive regulation. I demand proactive regulation.

The nature of "how a gun works" is indeed central to the argument. It takes special skills to use a throwing star, kung fu, or even a car effectively. It takes no special skills for almost anyone to point a gun at someone accurately enough to kill them, and then to pull the trigger. It's too easy.

And pistols are ranged weapons, too. I should have said this instead of "long-ranged weapons", since anything over 100 feet is not necessarily relevant. If a pistol can be used from 100 feet away (the length of a large room), from the shadows, silently until the gunshot, then it has the same "method of operation" as any other gun. I'd feel differently perhaps if all guns (except those for military or law enforcement use) made squelching sounds to alert people of their presence from a great distance, or were so heavy that you needed a wheelbarrow to carry the smallest ones, or needed special codes and actions to activate for each shot.

But when even a child can shoot someone so easily, that's unacceptable. Point, shoot, head explodes. The odds of anyone being able to acquire and use a gun are much higher than the odds of anyone being able to acquire and use a throwing star, kung fu, a bow-and-arrow, a bazooka, a howitzer, or a guided missile nearly as efficiently. I agree that enforcement of current laws can partly address the danger, but they are not enough.

Guns are among the easiest way to intentially main and kill people, and as a tool they don't have enough other uses to justify ownership (as cars and knives do). Protection? The risk far exceeds the danger involved, and there are alternatives for protection. Target shooting? Special permits can allow for that, but not general carry-permits. Collecting? The same regulation as target shooting can be used. Peeling potatoes? Rebuilding carburators? What else can a gun be used for? For a law-abiding citizen to protect their home? For every one time that actually happens, there are many people that die from other people using guns that are stolen from law-abiding citizens. As I said...not worth the risk.

And it's said that "Guns don't kill people, people do." Because of the ease of acquisition and use, it's actually the combination of the two. So let's stop both! -1- Educate people and better detect an act of violence before it happens, and -2- Make guns much harder to get and use by anyone with a hand and a temper. If these are done, I'll be satisfied. Current laws, being reactive in nature, aren't effective. I'm just asking for alternatives.

[BTW...I have the highest respect for everyone discussing this topic. This kind of intellectual debate is exactly how problems get solved.]

[Bazman63]

It's a big subject alright. And respect to the above points. I like shooting, I always have. Marksman on several types of rifle and pistol. I love clay pidgeon shooting, just wish I could do it more often.

But I do think that basic education is a start to responsible ownership. Is it true that in the US kids get driving lessons at school? We all know how dangerous an idiot travelling at 50 mph in a half ton of metal can be, right? Well why not teach kids at school some basic firearm management. ie. never leave a loaded weapon unattended, even at home. Never store a firearm and amunition in the same place etc. I know these are un-enforcable by law, but they would make good genereal guidlines. Like looking both ways when you cross the road. Common sense type stuff. Another point might be to ask people what will you do to ensure your gun cannot be used if it's stolen from your home.
The NRA! Well the NRA, what can you say?

[Fickle]

I can hit a large target with my knife from twenty feet away. If I was an inner-city school kid, I could do the same with a pistol. You can't snipe with a pistol, no matter how many boobs put scopes on them.

[Namelessv1]

Originally posted by Fickle
I can hit a large target with my knife from twenty feet away. If I was an inner-city school kid, I could do the same with a pistol. You can't snipe with a pistol, no matter how many boobs put scopes on them.

Like the French GIGN...

[xzxzzx]

So what are we trying to stop with gun control? "Violent Gun Crimes", you say. Hmm. But what if they are replaced with "Violent Knife Crimes"? Is that better?

I don't think so. Guns have been around, and available, for a very, very long time in the US. And yet, only recently has there been a real problem.

One can conclude, then, that it is not the gun itself which causes the problem, but something else. Gangs, for instance.

What about the school killings?

Every single one I could find information about (some of them have no public medical information) was on an SSRI (Prozac, Luvox, ******, etc). Perhaps this is wrong. It would explain something.

Anyway, I was planning on making a big, grand 'ol post, but I'm tired, so maybe later...

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

-- "Enforcement of the laws that are already in place is the answer."
It's an answer...nothing is the answer. The value of many efforts means that as ten fail, ten more will succeed. Currently existing laws do indeed need better enforcement. In the case of the serial snipers, the laws were enforced quite well. AFAIK, John Muhammed bought the rifle legally, traveled to the location of each killing legally, and after he killed (and allowed the kid with him to kill), he was arrested and justice (as we have it) was enforced legally. Now, let's use current laws to bring back the people who died. Current laws are mostly reactive regulation. I demand proactive regulation.

Not to sound like an ass, but wish in one hand and shit in the other... see which one fills up faster. Btw, what were John Muhammed's motives for killing? He had to have a reason.

The nature of "how a gun works" is indeed central to the argument. It takes special skills to use a throwing star, kung fu, or even a car effectively. It takes no special skills for almost anyone to point a gun at someone accurately enough to kill them, and then to pull the trigger. It's too easy.

No, it's not central to the argument. There are too many things that can be done to keep firearms secure and safe. Trigger locks can be used to keep people from using a gun. They can be stored in lockable gun cabinets to keep people from getting them. And you have to know how to load and ready the gun before it can be fired... I don't know of a gun that doesn't have a safety latch. In other words, if people that own guns would just be more responsible with them (keeping them stored in a locked cabinet, using trigger locks, keeping them unloaded, etc), then it would be much less likely that they would be stolen, used irresponsibly/illegally, or shot accidentally.

Basically, if people weren't dumbasses, then a good majority of the effects of this problem wouldn't occur.

But when even a child can shoot someone so easily, that's unacceptable. Point, shoot, head explodes. The odds of anyone being able to acquire and use a gun are much higher than the odds of anyone being able to acquire and use a throwing star, kung fu, a bow-and-arrow, a bazooka, a howitzer, or a guided missile nearly as efficiently. I agree that enforcement of current laws can partly address the danger, but they are not enough.

Again, it's up to the gun owners to be responsible with their firearms. As long as people keep up with the irresponsibility, then things like this will happen.

Guns are among the easiest way to intentially main and kill people, and as a tool they don't have enough other uses to justify ownership (as cars and knives do). Protection? The risk far exceeds the danger involved, and there are alternatives for protection. Target shooting? Special permits can allow for that, but not general carry-permits. Collecting? The same regulation as target shooting can be used. Peeling potatoes? Rebuilding carburators? What else can a gun be used for? For a law-abiding citizen to protect their home? For every one time that actually happens, there are many people that die from other people using guns that are stolen from law-abiding citizens. As I said...not worth the risk.

Well, you kinda explained it all right there in those last couple sentences. People die from other people using guns that are stolen from law-abiding citizens. Firstly, what the hell are people stealing the guns for? They've got a motive. If you get to the source of that and stop it, then the guns wouldn't be stolen. Second, those particular law-abiding citizens that have their guns stolen need to keep their guns locked away in a safe place. That alone would reduce these happenings a lot.

[marvinbarcelona]

Personaly I feel the problem with guns in the US is not the guns themselves, but the society in which they exist.

I've asked this before; why is the US a country afraid of its self? That was the subject of Bowling for Columbine, not so much the weapons, but the reason for the weapons. The people of the UK don't feel the need for guns, why does the US?

I know the US crime rate is high, but maybe falling, but surely this is the problem. Solve the crime rate, solve the need to incarcarate so many of your fellow citizens and problem of violence and crime will be solved and therefore the gun problem.

It seems that people are intent on, as the old saying goes, treating the symptom and not the disease. Guns are not the cause of crime, not are they the answer to it, but their use is a sympton.

If guns were banned then violent crime would involve knives etc. This is, sadly, true. But the difference is, its actually fairly difficult to kill someone with a knife and you can't walk into a crowded area, pull a knife and kill 6 or seven people before being overpowered.

So, treat the disease, not the symptom.

[marvinbarcelona]

PS - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I believe that this section of the Constitution was relevant when the US was first formed, there being no effective US military, but not today.

[Timzone8]

Guns are too dangerous even if they're locked away:
At a young age of 4, my brother and I (twins), we decided to search the house one day, unlocking stuff with hammers and screwdrives etc etc Eventually we came across this locked trunk in a cubboard near the roof and found a '.22 semiautomatic' and as our parents are smart, we had found some bullets and a magazine locked away in another cupboard on the other side of the house and put 2 and 2 together, walked out side, aimed at a nearby power poll(thanks TXU) and as I went to fire it was jammed, my brother insisted on fixing it (wanting to be a machanic nowadays) so he messed with the hammer a bit then looked down the barrel as I continued trying to squeeze the triger
By that time my little sister had found us and had mum telling us off, a few more seconds...

So WHY? Why put people at risk of killing each other for self defense?(.22 was for fox shooting )

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
Basically, if people weren't dumbasses, then a good majority of the effects of this problem wouldn't occur.

Quite true...but guess what? There's no cure for "dumbasses", so we can implement the next best solution...take away their guns.

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
Again, it's up to the gun owners to be responsible with their firearms. As long as people keep up with the irresponsibility, then things like this will happen.

True again. But also like above, we can't bet our lives that gun owners will be responsible with their firearms. I respect this argument, but it's idealistic at best. So since many are not responsible with their firearms, one solution is for them not to be allowed firearms. I essentially don't like the idea of removing rights, but I haven't seen an alternative to this idea yet. I'd rather remove rights than risk lives unnecessarily, but I'd also rather have a better solution than removing rights.

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
Well, you kinda explained it all right there in those last couple sentences. People die from other people using guns that are stolen from law-abiding citizens. Firstly, what the hell are people stealing the guns for? They've got a motive. If you get to the source of that and stop it, then the guns wouldn't be stolen. Second, those particular law-abiding citizens that have their guns stolen need to keep their guns locked away in a safe place. That alone would reduce these happenings a lot.

People steal guns because they've got a motive, AND because they have opportunity (i.e., the guns exist and are somehow available). Just as with any crime, both motive and opportunity have to exist for it to happen at all. I say we address both, not just one of them.

I completely agree that "getting to the source" and stopping gun thefts would be an effective solution. But I still stand by my "many-threaded" approach at stopping gun-related violence. We should do as many things as possible, including deterring and preventing gun thefts, securing firearms, educating people, restricting the availability of firearms, making permission to carry firearms harder to get, detection of concealed weapons more effective, and many other things as well.

That law-abiding citizens need to keep their guns locked away has very little to do with whether they will lock them away. Humans make too many mistakes and bad decisions to rely on what "should" happen to insure peoples safety. If we lived in an ideal world, then we wouldn't need gun control, because everyone would be smart. But since this is not an ideal world, we need proactive solutions to compliment or replace the reactive ones. And we need as many solutions as can possibly be implemented, as well.

[Timzone8]

Hmm, If it's against the law to shoot someone then what 'morally' gives you the right to do so? 1st amendment or something fkn twit with guns'

[J_Bloggs]

Well, I'll admit: I can't be bothered reading all of this (and I've had this page open a long time, it's probably moved on a few pages by now,). But I have point to make, however moot, however stupid, and however 'bad' my choice of website evidence is. The point is, that statistics can be used to prove anything, and get this, that includes that water should be banned. the website?: http://www.junkscience.com/oct01/NZ-GreenBans.htm also, have a look at the site that the quoted e-mail links to, if you in fact care.

I'd try and make a more on topic post, however I really have no idea of the situation in America, I've never been there, and I'm not likely to, so even if I had an opinion it would be based on nothing more than 'fluff'.

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by J_Bloggs
But I have point to make, however moot, however stupid, and however 'bad' my choice of website evidence is. The point is, that statistics can be used to prove anything, and get this, that includes that water should be banned.

Good point! IMO, there are so many muffed-up statistics out there that hardly any can be trusted, and knowing which can and which can't is all but impossible. Some are intentionally skewed to support the author's interests, some are flawed out of simple error, some use ANOVA (or other interpretation adjustments) improperly or not-at-all, and on and on. I took several statistics courses at Auburn, and I feel like I barely scratched the surface. There's sooooo much to the science of statistics, and sooooo many ways to mess it up, that I simply don't put faith in people's use of them.

That's also why I have yet to post any "links" with statistics in this thread. For every point you can make with some link, it can just be countered with three other links, and those can be countered with nine other links. It's an endless cycle, and a waste of time IMHO. I argue with principle rather than numbers, because numbers can just be "tweaked". I can make my numbers ten times anyone elses, or vice-versa.

The fact that anyone can use statistics to justify the banning of water is simply evidence of my point. I'll bet I can justify the banning of air, too.

[J_Bloggs]

Well the trick with statistics is it's not in the numbers, it's in the reasons for them. No matter what you do, the only way to conduct fair reasearch from data is to take into account many sources. But in the end, it's still your opinion, no matter how well informed you are. (as is that whole paragraph right there...)

[Timzone8]

"Well the trick with statistics is it's not in the numbers, it's in the reasons for them. No matter what you do, the only way to conduct fair reasearch from data is to take into account many sources. But in the end, it's still your opinion, no matter how well informed you are. (as is that whole paragraph right there...)"
- Er, No not really, if statistics were say 2/100 against guns or something then it would make a difference?

[zootm]

an ideological point about guns is that a knife is made for cutting food, a hammer is made for building things, and a gun is made for killing things. this is probably part of what attaches such a stigma to them...

[Bazman63]

http://members.cox.net/impunity/endofworld.swf

[will]

I don't need a gun.

Do you?

Really?

[zootm]

not many people do, will. that's not the issue though. the issue is should you be allowed to own one if you don't need it?

[ertmann|CPH]

If i wanted to kill someone, i'd have no clue where to get a weapon. The only person i know who owns a gun is my grandfather, and he lives 500 km away. And i've never even heard of someone who sells guns, even though i used to have some small time criminals as friends.... From what i know about the US on this point, i would take me a day or two to find someone who'd sell me a gun.... and in most states i could just go and buy one.

Also i've allways wondered what the logic of the following list is?

you can buy a gun (legaly) at any age in some states, and from 14-16 im most states. (you buy something which sole purpose it to kill)

You can drive when you're 15 - 16, (where you can hurt alot of people really badly)

age of consent is between 16 and 18 (where you can hurt yourself and your partner)

legal consumption of alcohol is 21 in most states (where you can only hurt yourself)

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

legal consumption of alcohol is 21 in most states (where you can only hurt yourself)

That's a whole 'nother discussion. Don't get me started on that one.

Quite true...but guess what? There's no cure for "dumbasses", so we can implement the next best solution...take away their guns.

By that logic, then I demand that we take away every dumbass' drivers lisence.

True again. But also like above, we can't bet our lives that gun owners will be responsible with their firearms. I respect this argument, but it's idealistic at best. So since many are not responsible with their firearms, one solution is for them not to be allowed firearms. I essentially don't like the idea of removing rights, but I haven't seen an alternative to this idea yet. I'd rather remove rights than risk lives unnecessarily, but I'd also rather have a better solution than removing rights.

People risk other people's lives every time they get behind the wheel. And driving a vehicle isn't even a right, it's a privilege. I'd be much more inclined to support a campaign that took cars away from dumbasses rather than guns. I'm a lot more afraid of a stupid person behind the wheel than I am of a person with a gun. I'd appreciate it if someone could find some figures that compare gun-related and automobile-related deaths, just for the sake of knowledge.

People steal guns because they've got a motive, AND because they have opportunity (i.e., the guns exist and are somehow available). Just as with any crime, both motive and opportunity have to exist for it to happen at all. I say we address both, not just one of them.

I completely agree that "getting to the source" and stopping gun thefts would be an effective solution. But I still stand by my "many-threaded" approach at stopping gun-related violence. We should do as many things as possible, including deterring and preventing gun thefts, securing firearms, educating people, restricting the availability of firearms, making permission to carry firearms harder to get, detection of concealed weapons more effective, and many other things as well.

That law-abiding citizens need to keep their guns locked away has very little to do with whether they will lock them away. Humans make too many mistakes and bad decisions to rely on what "should" happen to insure peoples safety. If we lived in an ideal world, then we wouldn't need gun control, because everyone would be smart. But since this is not an ideal world, we need proactive solutions to compliment or replace the reactive ones. And we need as many solutions as can possibly be implemented, as well.

If you get rid of the motive behind a crime, then the opportunity wouldn't matter. And you're right, we don't live in an ideal world. But the thing is, it doesn't matter how much regulation you put on it, if someone wants a gun bad enough, they're going to get one. And the people that use guns illegally should be made examples of to everyone else that would consider doing the same. I bet that lots of people would reconsider holding up that convenience store if they saw some severe punishment delt out to someone that did the same.

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
By that logic, then I demand that we take away every dumbass' drivers lisence.

I agree completely.

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
People risk other people's lives every time they get behind the wheel. And driving a vehicle isn't even a right, it's a privilege. I'd be much more inclined to support a campaign that took cars away from dumbasses rather than guns. I'm a lot more afraid of a stupid person behind the wheel than I am of a person with a gun. I'd appreciate it if someone could find some figures that compare gun-related and automobile-related deaths, just for the sake of knowledge.

I agree completely. (And I bet that many more die from cars than guns, but both problems need addressing.)

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
If you get rid of the motive behind a crime, then the opportunity wouldn't matter. And you're right, we don't live in an ideal world. But the thing is, it doesn't matter how much regulation you put on it, if someone wants a gun bad enough, they're going to get one. And the people that use guns illegally should be made examples of to everyone else that would consider doing the same. I bet that lots of people would reconsider holding up that convenience store if they saw some severe punishment delt out to someone that did the same.

I agree again. With the stipulation that I still want a multi-pronged approach (lack of opportunity, lack of motive, deterrence, education, etc.) I'm not satisfied doing only one thing to solve a problem when I can do two, of four, or ten. Taking away both motive and opportunity means that when motive slips through every now and then, a lack of opportunity would kick in and save the day. Having had this debate now with sensible people in this thread like yourself, I'm more convinced that guns may not need to be taken away if society can be much better protected somehow without something so final as removal of an item from law-abiding citizens. We just need more ideas...

[xzxzzx]

Unfortunately, arguing by principal doesn't work. Validity of a principal is deturmined by statistics. Arguing by principal alone is like building a bridge on paper without ever having learned about bridges. At some point, you actually have to *try* a theory. You have to make sure ½ an inch of steel cabling (or whatever) will be strong enough. This is where hard data comes in, vs 'airy' ideas.

Statistics cannot be used to prove anything, unless you use the statistics incorrectly. Someone earlier had mentioned how you were more likely to harm someone else in your household than deter a criminal. This is not true. In fact, you are far, far more likely to detur a criminal with a gun than harm someone else in your household.

The commonly cited statistic is "you are 43 times more likely to kill a member in your household than detur a criminal". This is not the case. In fact, the statistic is more correctly stated as "It is 43 times more likely that someone in your household will be killed as it is an intruder will be killed".

However, this is from a study of a relatively small sample size (making it inaccurate), and disregaurds two vital things: suicide and not killing the criminal, either by wounding him or causing him to flee. Another study showed that it is a 1:1000 ratio between killing a criminal in use of a firearm defensively, and deturring the criminal. This study was not restricted to the home, but assuming it is approximately the same for the home, that reduces the chance from 43x to 0.043x.

The second majorly inaccurate part of this study is it included suicides. If there were 43 deaths, 37 of them would be suicide. Assuming that guns are not the cause of these ("oh look, a gun, let me kill myself"), and in fact, the person would have killed themselves anyway, that reduces the figure down to 0.006x.

Of course, we can get nit-picky and start including stuff like "reverse causation", but I think that's enough to debunk that stupidity.



This whole thing is so stupid anyway. It's like swatting flies when you're getting eaten by a lion.

The 1999 Center for disease control statistics:

Deaths from heart attack and other cardiovascular failure: ........ 892,558

Deaths from cancer: ................... 549,838

Deaths from flu & pneumonia: .... 67,730

Deaths from kidney failure: ......... 35,525

Deaths from diabetes: .................. 68,399

Deaths from alcohol ingestion .....19,171

Deaths from gun homicides: ....... 10,217 (includes self-defense and police killings of criminals)

Deaths from gun accidents .............. 824 (not a typo)

So gun homicides are about half as likely to kill you as alcohol, almost one-sixth as likely to kill you as the flu, and approximately one-ninetieth as likely to kill you as heart failure. Don't forget that that figure includes killings of criminals and valid self-defense.

Whoop-de-fucking-do. What a big problem.

Ugh. The only reason we are even talking about this is because it spurs a larger emotional reaction than other things, even though those things are far more important.

Don't take away guns, take away McDonalds! That'll save many more lives.

[iomegajaz]

Why is the "more" important? The fact that there are any at all, makes me inclined to want more strict controls, etc etc. Compare 10,000 to the sub-100 totals of other countries around the world. Seriously. Why do more Americans kill each other with guns than any other nationality in the world? Per capita, too, not just gross.

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
You're right, I shouldn't have to live my life with the need to have guns, but this isn't a perfect world.

I guess I live in a more perfect world, then. I'm Australian. I"m not oppressed by my government, I live in a free society, and we just plain don't have guns. If you have two groups of people, one group each having a gun, and the other group completely without guns, which group is more likely to have a gun-related death?


No-one here is going to have their opinion changed by anyone else's opinion on this. It's unfortunate, but hey, what are you going to do? Save everyone? Convince everyone that you're right? Maybe next lifetime.

[ertmann|CPH]

Originally posted by Hugh
Why do more Americans kill each other with guns than any other nationality in the world? Per capita, too, not just gross.

You forgot South Africa.... but then again, the have a liberal gun policy too....

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by Hugh
No-one here is going to have their opinion changed by anyone else's opinion on this. It's unfortunate, but hey, what are you going to do? Save everyone? Convince everyone that you're right? Maybe next lifetime.

Actually sarge and I were finding common ground. He doesn't want his guns taken away, and I'd consider taking guns away as a last resort. That leaves a lot of room for compromise which could lead to some solution that makes the majority on both sides happy.

I'm not here to convince anyone of anything..if I implied otherwise, it's incidental. I'm here first: to learn, and second: to share my own knowledge and ideas. What anyone thinks of me personally is secondary to us trying to find a solution that would actually work. Granted, this is a thread in the Winamp forums and not a debate in Congress, but hey, ideas have to start somewhere, and very few actually begin in Congress.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

Why is the "more" important? The fact that there are any at all, makes me inclined to want more strict controls, etc etc. Compare 10,000 to the sub-100 totals of other countries around the world.

[edit]I misread that quote, but my point is still there. Anyways...[/edit]

I'll tell you why those are more important that gun control... because 19 times as many people die from cardiac related illnesses and injuries than they do from guns. If all the money that was used on gun control legislation and regulation were to be used to research and treat cardiac illnesses, I bet a helluva lot more people's lives would be saved.

I guess I live in a more perfect world, then. I'm Australian. I"m not oppressed by my government, I live in a free society, and we just plain don't have guns. If you have two groups of people, one group each having a gun, and the other group completely without guns, which group is more likely to have a gun-related death?


No-one here is going to have their opinion changed by anyone else's opinion on this. It's unfortunate, but hey, what are you going to do? Save everyone? Convince everyone that you're right? Maybe next lifetime.

Well, I'm glad you live in a perfect world. I don't. And no, you can't save everyone, so there's no point in trying. The only thing you can do is watch out for yourself. And I'm not trying to convince everyone that I'm right. I'm trying to get my point of view across, just like everyone else. Sue me.

Actually sarge and I were finding common ground. He doesn't want his guns taken away, and I'd consider taking guns away as a last resort. That leaves a lot of room for compromise which could lead to some solution that makes the majority on both sides happy.

I'm not here to convince anyone of anything..if I implied otherwise, it's incidental. I'm here first: to learn, and second: to share my own knowledge and ideas. What anyone thinks of me personally is secondary to us trying to find a solution that would actually work. Granted, this is a thread in the Winamp forums and not a debate in Congress, but hey, ideas have to start somewhere, and very few actually begin in Congress.

Well said.

[ShyShy]

Smooches to everyone for keeping this thread as civilised as it could be And yes, I've been reading it daily


Btw..

Originally posted by Hugh
and we just plain don't have guns

That I find hard to believe. If your police force carry guns, then they must have a reason to defend themselves so.

[zootm]

i think he might be right, ShyShy. my general impression of australia from the australians who i know in real life is that everyone's chilled out and happy, except the police who are wired and crazy 24/7...

[iomegajaz]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
Well, I'm glad you live in a perfect world. I don't.

Neither do I - that's my point. The difference being that we manage to not kill each other.

Originally posted by ShyShy

That I find hard to believe. If your police force carry guns, then they must have a reason to defend themselves so.

Originally posted by zootm
i think he might be right, ShyShy. my general impression of australia from the australians who i know in real life is that everyone's chilled out and happy, except the police who are wired and crazy 24/7...

Well, we're still a ways off achieving utopia, but we do okay. =D

The cops have revolvers and semi-auto pistols, and the elite cops have automatic- and sniper-rifles, but you see them about once a year on the news in some siege with a crazy gunman or something.

I'll just end with saying that I really, really love and appreciate where I live. =)

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by Hugh
Why is the "more" important? The fact that there are any at all, makes me inclined to want more strict controls, etc etc. Compare 10,000 to the sub-100 totals of other countries around the world. Seriously. Why do more Americans kill each other with guns than any other nationality in the world? Per capita, too, not just gross.

Do you even have accurate totals of other coutries? That include suicide and police killings of criminals?

Yeah, there's a problem. But since it's unlikely that even IF 'gun control' is an answer at all, that it'll get anywhere in the US, and given the fact that it's so small compared to other things, it's more important to do something about the really important things.

If you're so concerned about guns, then by that logic we should spend even more effort on lightening strikes, because that kills even LESS people.

How about CANCER? HEART DISEASE? THE FUCKING FLU? ALCOHOL?!? It's even EASIER to get in a car drunk and kill someone than it is to get a gun and kill someone.

[xzxzzx]

This whole thread, while amazingly intelligent, seems like a "Won't some someone please think of the children?!?"

... an overly emotional responce to a relatively small problem (pun not intended ).