PhillyKev 0 #126 January 7, 2004 QuoteI think the numbers speak for themselves. Less guns means less people die from being shot. No...those numbers don't speak for themselves. Looking at statistics in a vacuum doesn't say much of anything. How many of those murders by firearm were criminals killing other criminals? How many were justifiable homicides (which is what is ruled when you defend yourself)? Also, what are the numbers of total homicides not just with firearms? And lastly, what is the violent crime rate comparison (hint, it's higher in Canada). If you take all of these factors together. Remove justified homicides, only count innocent people being murdered, and then factor in the deterrent aspect as shown by the higher violent crime rate in Canada, I think you'll find that there's not that drastic of a difference. The numbers do not speak for themselves. Then there's always the numbers from other countries, where firearms are illegal but the murder rate is higher anyway. That alone should be sufficient to indicate that the number of guns in existence does not correlate directly to the number of murders. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmcd308 0 #127 January 7, 2004 >>Less guns means less people die from being shot. << I guess that is why so many of the people who die from gunshots in the US do so in police stations and on military bases - since there are so many guns in those places, lots of folks get shot there. And I guess that is why no one ever gets shot in any of the "gun free zones" that have been set up around schools in the US. ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fasterfaller 0 #128 January 7, 2004 Quotemade or imported PRIOR TO 1985. What if I want one that was made last week? I'm a law abiding citizen with no interest other than as a collector. why can't I buy one? We may soon be able to make our own full autos again thanks to the 9th circuit court . If you want to make your own become a class II manufacturer , fill out a form 1 and mail it off to ATF and wait a month or so for them to mail it back to you . Then assemble your parts kit and it's time to rock and roll . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #129 January 7, 2004 QuoteEvery felon was once a lawabiding citizen Gosh, maybe we should practice infanticide, to make sure that no one can grow up to be a law abiding citizen, who *might* commit a crime. Seriously though, although this is true, that doesn't mean that we should treat *all* citizens like criminals. Those that show responsibility, deserve to enjoy all the freedoms this country allows. Those that go astray, suffer the consequences. Until I prove that I'm unfit, I want the benefit of the doubt, and freedom demands that this is the way things should be. Quotealmost every felon's gun was purchased originally by a lawabiding citizen. The same is true of the cars of drunk drivers, and matches used by arsonists, and the burglary tools of burglars, and... So what? You can't ban every object that might possibly be misused by criminals. Cain committed the first-ever murder, according to the Bible, killing his brother. And they didn't have guns back then, so he could have done it with a rock or a stick. Ya' reckon god should have banned rocks and sticks? QuoteLawabiding citizens have a dismal record of responsibility when it comes to properly safeguarding, transferring or disposing of firearms. - There are about 10,000 firearms murders per year. - There are 250,000,000 firearms in circulation. Therefore, only one in 25,000 guns is used to commit murder, or .00004 percent. Four-thousandths of one percent! You call that "dismal"? We should be so lucky as to have automobile ownership attain the same safety record. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,129 #130 January 7, 2004 Quote>>negligent in various ways << We have civil liability for that. >>cause accidents<< Civil and perhaps criminal. >>allow their weapons to fall into the hands of criminals? << Interesting perversion. It is a crime for a criminal to have a firearm. So we already have laws addressing that. This argument seems to me to be a bit analogous to the argument that I should not be able to learn about exothermic reactions because I might build a bomb, or that I should not have access to ammonium perchlorate because I might build an antiaircraft system, or that I should go on a list for buying two bottles of Sudafed because I might be cooking meth. Essentially, all these laws do is criminalize more stuff and make more people "criminals." A motivated person will always be able to get what they want / need to achieve a goal, particularly if they are flexible in their goals and have nothing to lose. That is just a sad fact of life. Keeping me from buying guns because they might "fall" from my control into that of a criminal makes about as much sense to me as keeping you from buying model rocket motors because you might rig an explosive payload and launch one into the open window of a building. I didn't suggest that any law abiding citizen should not be permitted to own or buy a gun. I suggest that owning a gun or guns imposes an obligation to prevent it/them from falling into criminal hands or childrens' hands, and that this obligation should be enforced.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #131 January 7, 2004 QuoteWhat about on the other side of the pond? England seems to be dealing with a rise in firearms crimes lately, right? They've got some pretty strict gun laws there, how are they helping to curb the problem? The banned all handguns and semi-auto long guns, and confiscated them. Despite this drastic measure, an odd thing happened - gun crime has continued to rise! Gun laws don't work! See the attached graph. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #132 January 7, 2004 Quote - There are about 10,000 firearms murders per year. - There are 250,000,000 firearms in circulation. Therefore, only one in 25,000 guns is used to commit murder, or .00004 percent. Four-thousandths of one percent! You call that "dismal"? We should be so lucky as to have automobile ownership attain the same safety record. Homicides are different than "safety" If you were to look at how many automobile homicides are commited each year, I would guess the rate per 100,000 units is far fewer than the number of homicides commited with firearms. And that would be intentional homicides, not drunk driving vehicular manslaughter.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #133 January 7, 2004 QuoteI am a liberal. I am pro-choice... I support the right to bear arms... I love the way you think! I've always found it odd that liberals who are so in favor of individual rights, want to prohibit gun ownership. And that conservatives who want the right to own guns, want to take away a woman's right to choose an abortion. Those positions always seemed contradictory to me. I'm with you, and I find it perfectly logical, to equate these positions together. The common denominator is the individual freedom to choose for ourselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #134 January 7, 2004 QuoteIf you were to look at how many automobile homicides are commited each year, I would guess the rate per 100,000 units is far fewer than the number of homicides commited with firearms. Think so? Haven't we recently started prosecuting drunk drivers involved in a fatality with vehicular homicide? Manslaughter, at least. Are you going to factor those into your equation? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,129 #135 January 7, 2004 Quote>> Keeping me from buying guns because they might "fall" from my control into that of a criminal makes about as much sense to me as keeping you from buying model rocket motors because you might rig an explosive payload and launch one into the open window of a building. Model rocket motors are already restricted by BATFE. To get a motor with more than 2 oz of propellant you have to have an approved, padlocked storage magazine separate from your residence, have an FBI background check, keep copious records of purchase and use, allow unlimited searches without a warrant of your home by federal agents, and pay a large annual fee.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #136 January 7, 2004 Quote Think so? Haven't we recently started prosecuting drunk drivers involved in a fatality with vehicular homicide? Manslaughter, at least. Are you going to factor those into your equation? No. I'm talking about violent crimes, armed robberies and such. The use of an automobile as a weapon in these cases would be fairly rare.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #138 January 7, 2004 Quotelook at Rosan Bar (sp?), she's a very outspoken anti-gun rights advocate, YET her body guard carries a concealed weapon. I guess she's special since she's famous, the regular citizen isn't good enough to have the same right. I think you mean Rosie O'Donnell, who said; ""the only people in this nation who should be allowed to own guns are police officers. I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' In Rosie's ideal world; you are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison." And yes, the National Review reported that her bodyguard had a concealed handgun license. Liberals want gun laws to apply to everyone else, not to themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumprunner 0 #139 January 7, 2004 When is the last time you seen a drive by bayonetting? Now that would be funny. If they ever ban guns, you can always do a drive by with a bow and arrow (worked for the indians) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #140 January 7, 2004 QuoteQuote There's yet another generic criticism, just like Kallend's. Not at all! A fact is something that is not disputable. Well then, maybe Kallend should try providing some evidence to dispute my theory, rather than just expecting everyone to take his statements as the gospel. When gun crime continues to rise despite the passage of gun control laws designed to reduce gun crime, I think it's pretty darned hard to declare the law a success. That's about as simple logically, and as hard to dispute, as your "1 + 1 = 2" example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,129 #141 January 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteI am a liberal. I am pro-choice... I support the right to bear arms... I love the way you think! I've always found it odd that liberals who are so in favor of individual rights, want to prohibit gun ownership. And that conservatives who want the right to own guns, want to take away a woman's right to choose an abortion. Those positions always seemed contradictory to me. I'm with you, and I find it perfectly logical, to equate these positions together. The common denominator is individual freedom to choose for themselves. I don't oppose gun ownership by sane law abiding adults. I think a great deal more could be done than is done in requiring training, both initial and recurrent, for gun owners, to include not only use but also security of the weapon when not in use. In addition to allowing citizens to keep and bear arms, the 2nd Amendment also mentions "well regulated". Next - how do criminals get their guns anyway? You are quite sure that they always will. So there must be some pipeline from the law abiding manufacturer to the felonious criminal. What is it?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,129 #142 January 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote There's yet another generic criticism, just like Kallend's. Not at all! A fact is something that is not disputable. Well then, maybe Kallend should try providing some evidence to dispute my theory, rather than just expecting everyone to take his statements as the gospel. When gun crime continues to rise despite the passage of gun control laws designed to reduce gun crime, I think it's pretty darned hard to declare the law a success. That's about as simple logically, and as hard to dispute, as your "1 + 1 = 2" example. Provide some real evidence to support your theory, rather than a report from a "think tank" pushing its own agenda. Legitimate research is published in peer reviewed journals.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #143 January 7, 2004 QuoteDude...I gotta tell you. I'm on your side on this issue, but what's with the 500 posts in a row on the same thread? It's the visual equivalent of incessant babbling. I can't make myself read through all your posts even though you may have some good points. I haven't posted 500 messages in a row on the same subject. I comment on other topics also. If you consider it "babbling", you don't have to read it. There are quite a few others who seem to enjoy reading and participating in this thread, so I'm not going to stop just because *you* don't like it. Don't you think that others should have the right to choose for themselves what they want to read? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #144 January 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteJust because I may talk about this subject a lot hear, doesn't mean that what I say is invalid. Nope, but it certainly does suggest that this subject is your pet cause which, you may recall, was my intitial observation. So what? What's your point? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #145 January 7, 2004 I'm not trying to shut you up. I'm just suggesting that maybe you reply to multiple items in a single post. It's like someone who types in all CAPS, it's annoying for the reader. I'm suggesting this so that you more effectively get your point across, since I happen to agree with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #146 January 7, 2004 Re: Machineguns Quotethey're completely illegal if made after 1986. Correct, but it's legal to own them if they were made before 1986, thus the generic "completely illegal" phrase proves false. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #147 January 7, 2004 QuoteWhen gun crime continues to rise despite the passage of gun control laws designed to reduce gun crime, I think it's pretty darned hard to declare the law a success. In Florida, if you use a gun in a crime, you have stiff mandatory sentencing. That has reduced crime. It's not gun control, it's criminal control that reduced crime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,129 #148 January 7, 2004 QuoteQuotealmost every felon's gun was purchased originally by a lawabiding citizen. Prove that statement, I want independant sources and studies. Explain how a gun gets from a legal manufacturer to a criminal in a perfectly legal manner.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #149 January 7, 2004 QuoteYou're familiar with the concept of ex post facto laws? Cut off dates are not specific to the nature of gun laws. Yes - for example, the new law passed a few years ago banning gun ownership for people convicted of domestic violence, is ex post facto. It punished people with a new penalty, for something that has already been adjudicated long ago in the past. Many police officers were terminated when this law was passed, even though they had already served the sentence given to them in their past offense. These kinds of things are supposed to be forbidden under the Constitution. But little things like the Constitution often get overlooked in the zeal to pass gun laws. If some future Congress makes it an ex post facto criminal offense to talk about guns on the internet, we're all in a lot of trouble... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildWilly 0 #150 January 7, 2004 I almost came up with some mean come back, but I'm Canadian. Willygrowing old is inevitable, growing up is optional. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
