England: TV Star Warned Over Waving Knife At Intruders

[rhaig 0]

I expected explaination. And I appreciate it.

I don't agree. I doubt you expected me to. But here, we are not criminals and as such are allowed to keep and bear arms. I don't live in europe for a lot of reasons. I've visited, not extensively, and liked my visits. I'll likely go back. But I also like being able to have options when choosing personal defense.

--
Rob

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Tell you what - since European gun law is so great, why don't you just move there, instead?

Well, since you gun owners are minority (25% adults owning a gun according to 1997 data; I'd appreciate more recent data), using exactly the same logic I can claim that the majority would be safer if we repeal 2nd amendment (you know that amendments are not written in stone, and have been repealed in past), and just ignore whatever you have to say.

I'm also expecting that once more conservatives got out of SCOTUS, and being replaced by liberal Justices, the Heller has a good chance to be overturned (you remember it was already decided at 5/4 - a very weak victory), so it may actually happen in a different way.

Quote

You'll be happier (until something happens and nobody's around to protect you), and you won't be infringing on MY rights.

If you respected the whole Constitution, and not just 2nd amendment, you should have known that YOUR rights are not different from MY rights.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

That's what you did with virtually EVERY post that you were given info in - 'yeah, whatever, I don't think so'.

"I don't think so" is a valid answer when you explain your opinion. It states something (disagreement) comparing to "yeah, whatever" (which according to my dictionary states nothing).

Quote

So prove it's because of the guns. Hint: saying 'they didn't have as many' isn't proof.

No, sir. You claimed that "It's already been proven that the criminals don't respect your beloved 'gun free zones'". But you didn't explain why the homicide rate in NYC (which, comparing to St.Louis is just a large "gun-free zone" having very restrictive gun laws) is much less than in St.Louis. Following your logic there should be more violent crime per 100K in NYC than in St.Louis, because criminals supposed to be "safer" there - but it is not the case, and your failure to explain this fact means that your opinion may be invalid.

Quote

So prove the crimes never would have happened without the guns. Hint: saying 'they didn't have as many' isn't proof.

This is indeed obvious. The crimes mentioned in my post were "raw school shootings. If a to-be school shooter did not have a gun, he would not be able to shoot. So without guns there would be ZERO school shootings. Point proven.

Quote

Yeah, that worked really well foe DC, NY, Chicago....no violent crime in ANY of those places right?

Only a very biased person would expect a law to prevent ALL crimes of that kind, and then claim that the law which penalizes for rape is useless because there are still rapes committed. Unfortunately gun owners seems to be exactly this kind of people when thinking about their guns (but not about other things - hypocrisy in its best)

But for reasonable people, who expect crime REDUCTION, and not total elimination, it is obvious that it works much better than in St.Louis or New Orleans.

Quote

And, we're back to the 'ludicrous punishments' theme, again.

Ludicrous? I'm fine with total ban for private gun ownership as well. If it happens, you might think what I proposed was not a bad idea to start with.

Quote

Why are you assuming that gun owners AREN'T reporting thefts?
You're arguing from a WHOLE LOT of preconceived notions that just aren't true.

Do you have evidence (not your thoughts) about how many gun owners report gun theft out of total thefts? I didn't find anything like that in ATF reports.

I assume that if all reasonable gun owners report thefts, the law requiring them to do so would not penalize any of them, and only those who do not do so - which is "win-win" for everyone.

Quote

No, we have - you ignore it or dismiss it.

This is because your "evidence" is just your opinion, which is not based on credible sources. You did not present a single reason why I should trust your (NRA-based) opinion more than opposite (Brady-based) opinion.

Quote

You've already decided that nothing can sway you from your viewpoint

Yes, this is true, and you can thank Ron, kelpdiver, JohnRich and yourself for that. You guys have a talent to "win" supporters. Just two months ago I wouldn't even imagine donating money to Brady campaign - and now, after discussing with all of you, I already did that (and I will donate more later - that time in honor of you ).

Quote

so why should I bother?

You don't have to, forum rules do not require you to reply to anyone. You can ignore them the same way I ignore most of Ron and JohnRich replies. But if you do reply, it would make sense to address the opponent points in some way so we would have kind of meaningful discussion (despite the fact that we're not discussing knives anymore, and probably nobody else reads this)

Quote

Never claimed that - I claimed that it is a CRIMINAL problem and not a TOOL problem.

Interesting. Could you please enlighten me how exactly a CRIMINAL (like Cho) would start a shooting spree in Virginia Tech without an appropriate TOOL? How would a terrorist blast a building without appropriate TOOL? How would such CRIMINAL do that if he cannot get such a TOOL?

Quote

You mean the general crime stats that show that the gun laws have had NO effect on crime in either direction?

Then if gun laws have had NO effect on crime in either direction, but banning guns would prevent further shooting sprees (how many have been committed in UK comparing to US after the UK handgun ban?), then dramatically restricting gun ownership sounds like a good idea to me, which will lead to more safety for my family. Of course you may believe that it will lead to less safety to your family, and therefore disagree, but since you don't care about what I think, I don't see any reason to care about what you think either - and you gun owners are (or were) in minority.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I expected explaination. And I appreciate it.

Thank you. This is a good example that we can be civil and polite, even though we completely disagree on basics.

Now I really wonder whether most gun owners are like you?

Quote

I don't agree. I doubt you expected me to. But here, we are not criminals and as such are allowed to keep and bear arms.

I know the status quo. I'm also becoming familiar about various movements regarding this right, and pretty much finalized my opinion about what I would like to support.

Quote

But I also like being able to have options when choosing personal defense.

Everyone does. Ask people in Europe when you visit there, they do too - and most of them do not need guns for that.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

you should have known that YOUR rights are not different from MY rights.

that bears repeating - though it's not in favor at all of what you keep arguing

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Well, since you gun owners are minority (25% adults owning a gun according to 1997 data; I'd appreciate more recent data), using exactly the same logic I can claim that the majority would be safer if we repeal 2nd amendment

http://reason.com/archives/2001/05/01/gun-ownership-the-numbers
reports 39% of Americans report a gun in their home.(may 2001)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/14509/americans-guns-danger-defense.aspx
reports 38% in Oct 2004 (note that the 2001 numbers agree with the reason.com numbers)


wouldn't your argument be better served by asking what percentage of citizens favored private gun ownership?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/index.html
according to that story (april 09) only 39% of Americans favor stricter gun control laws.


So repealing the second, would displease 61% of those polled in that article. Considering what it takes to repeal an amendment, I don't think that's in danger of happening. (regardless of your opinion of whether or not it would make us safer)

--
Rob

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Everyone does. Ask people in Europe when you visit there, they do too - and most of them do not need guns for that.

I've spoken at some length with a former co-worker from spain. She is an avid shooter here, and really likes handguns. Having taken a few courses in tactical handgun use, she has expressed to me that she wishes she could carry a handgun in spain. I don't know anything about the gun laws there, but she's said it's a pain in the ass to get a gun. And don't even think about being able to legally carry one.

A club or a knife might be an option for me (6'tall 200lb man) but she doesn't feel it would be a viable option for her (5'4" 145lb woman).

it's a single data point, and I recognize that, but it's still illustrative of my point.

--
Rob

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Only a very biased person would expect a law to prevent ALL crimes of that kind, and then claim that the law which penalizes for rape is useless because there are still rapes committed. Unfortunately gun owners seems to be exactly this kind of people when thinking about their guns (but not about other things - hypocrisy in its best)

Bad comparison.

A more accurate one would be banning all sex to prevent rapes.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

http://www.gallup.com/poll/14509/americans-guns-danger-defense.aspx reports 38% in Oct 2004

"Have in their home" is ambiguous criteria. For example, a 4br home rented by four couples may as well be reported as "having guns in our home", even though there maybe only one guy having guns, and seven others may be actually anti-gun. Someone owning multiple homes may say that he has guns in five his homes (so the statistics would have to add five), even though it is a single person.

Quote

(note that the 2001 numbers agree with the reason.com numbers)

No surprise, as it says: "(Sources: Gallup Polls of 1,012 adults from August 29-September 5, 2000; and 1,054 adults from February 8-9, 1999)" on page 2.

Quote

wouldn't your argument be better served by asking what percentage of citizens favored private gun ownership?
...
according to that story (april 09) only 39% of Americans favor stricter gun control laws.

But only 15% favor less strict gun laws, giving it a majority (and 46% basically doesn't really care). And you know what? In Apr 09 I belonged to those 46% too.

Quote

So repealing the second, would displease 61% of those polled in that article. Considering what it takes to repeal an amendment, I don't think that's in danger of happening. (regardless of your opinion of whether or not it would make us safer)

I agree that it's not realistic to expect. The probability of Heller being overturned with more Dem Justices replacing SCOTUS conservatives is significantly higher (comparing to amendment repeal), and may result to the same thing but in a different way.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Bad comparison.
A more accurate one would be banning all sex to prevent rapes.

Would "work" the same way as closing all schools to prevent more school shootings.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

it's a single data point, and I recognize that, but it's still illustrative of my point.

I don't think I understood your point here.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

So prove it's because of the guns. Hint: saying 'they didn't have as many' isn't proof.

No, sir. You claimed that "It's already been proven that the criminals don't respect your beloved 'gun free zones'".

That's correct.

Quote

But you didn't explain why the homicide rate in NYC (which, comparing to St.Louis is just a large "gun-free zone" having very restrictive gun laws) is much less than in St.Louis.

Then show it's because of the guns.

Quote

Following your logic there should be more violent crime per 100K in NYC than in St.Louis, because criminals supposed to be "safer" there - but it is not the case, and your failure to explain this fact means that your opinion may be invalid.

How many more times do I have to say "It's the CRIMINAL, not the tool" before it sinks in, George? There's many more issues than just the presence/absence of guns, something you STILL can't grasp.

Quote

Quote

So prove the crimes never would have happened without the guns. Hint: saying 'they didn't have as many' isn't proof.

This is indeed obvious. The crimes mentioned in my post were "raw school shootings. If a to-be school shooter did not have a gun, he would not be able to shoot. So without guns there would be ZERO school shootings. Point proven.

Wrong. Correlation/causation and all that. Oh, wait, I'm sorry - it's more important to you that people were killed with a GUN than that they were killed at all.

Nevermind, carry on.

Quote

Quote

Yeah, that worked really well foe DC, NY, Chicago....no violent crime in ANY of those places right?

Only a very biased person would expect a law to prevent ALL crimes of that kind, and then claim that the law which penalizes for rape is useless because there are still rapes committed. Unfortunately gun owners seems to be exactly this kind of people when thinking about their guns (but not about other things - hypocrisy in its best)

Odd - that's EXACTLY the argument you used for the 'spree killings', remember? "Gun owners didn't prevent the spree killings, so it's useless to own guns" (paraphrased).

Seems you're very quick to point out what you THINK is hypocrisy on another's part without seeing the blatant hypocrisy in your own argument.

Quote

But for reasonable people, who expect crime REDUCTION, and not total elimination, it is obvious that it works much better than in St.Louis or New Orleans.

If it were the presence of guns that was causing the crime, you MIGHT have a point. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

Quote

Quote

And, we're back to the 'ludicrous punishments' theme, again.

Ludicrous? I'm fine with total ban for private gun ownership as well. If it happens, you might think what I proposed was not a bad idea to start with.

Yeah, that's sorta the whole point of my response - NO gun restriction is too much for you to consider, regardless of the legality of it.

Quote

Quote

Why are you assuming that gun owners AREN'T reporting thefts?
You're arguing from a WHOLE LOT of preconceived notions that just aren't true.

Do you have evidence (not your thoughts) about how many gun owners report gun theft out of total thefts? I didn't find anything like that in ATF reports.

Do you have evidence of the number of gun owners that 'left it on the seat of the car' to be stolen?

Quote

Quote

No, we have - you ignore it or dismiss it.

This is because your "evidence" is just your opinion, which is not based on credible sources. You did not present a single reason why I should trust your (NRA-based) opinion more than opposite (Brady-based) opinion.

No, George - it's not "opinion" if we provide a excerpt from a report, or a link to a website.

If the FACT that various gun bans have done nothing to reduce crime doesn't sway you to at least consider a non-brady argument (which has been the case from the start of your gun thread postings), then nothing will.

Quote

Quote

You've already decided that nothing can sway you from your viewpoint

Yes, this is true, and you can thank Ron, kelpdiver, JohnRich and yourself for that.

Again, BULLSHIT - you had two arguments when you started posting in these threads:

1. Private gunowners didn't stop 'spree killers', so private ownership is useless

2. Private gunowners don't play vigilante and stop violent crime in general, so private ownership is useless.

Those have been your VERY CONSISTENT positions from the start, so don't even TRY that bullshit of "well, I was on the fence, but".

Quote

You guys have a talent to "win" supporters. Just two months ago I wouldn't even imagine donating money to Brady campaign - and now, after discussing with all of you, I already did that (and I will donate more later - that time in honor of you ).

No problem - I'll make a donation to whatever fund is set up for the next mass murder victims in your name with a message saying "sorry about that, but my fear is more important than your life was".

Quote

Quote

Never claimed that - I claimed that it is a CRIMINAL problem and not a TOOL problem.

Interesting. Could you please enlighten me how exactly a CRIMINAL (like Cho) would start a shooting spree in Virginia Tech without an appropriate TOOL? How would a terrorist blast a building without appropriate TOOL? How would such CRIMINAL do that if he cannot get such a TOOL?

Why is the TOOL he used so much more important to you than the crime he committed?

Maybe you should see someone professional about this extreme phobia you seem to have.

Quote

Quote

You mean the general crime stats that show that the gun laws have had NO effect on crime in either direction?

Then if gun laws have had NO effect on crime in either direction, but banning guns would prevent further shooting sprees (how many have been committed in UK comparing to US after the UK handgun ban?), then dramatically restricting gun ownership sounds like a good idea to me, which will lead to more safety for my family.

Every school shooting in recent years has been in a gun-ban area. Has it stopped any of them yet, George? What part of "criminals don't obey the gun ban laws" do you STILL not understand?

What part of "putting yourself at the mercy of an armed criminal that, by his actions, SHOWS he has no regard for you OR your 'safety'?" do you STILL not understand?

Quote

and you gun owners are (or were) in minority.

Which STILL doesn't give YOU the right to restrict MY rights.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Bad comparison.
A more accurate one would be banning all sex to prevent rapes.

Would "work" the same way as closing all schools to prevent more school shootings.

Agree. It's a singularly focused solution that doesn't take any other factors or effects into consideration like most ban/limitation laws in regard to anything.

It's easy to say since "x" is bad, we need laws limiting or banning anything that can lead to "x" but without understanding why "x" is or happens and dealing with that at a root level any measures taken to ban or control except in a totalitarian state with continuous equal enforcement will be flawed at best, ineffective normally, or pointlessly hinder normal law abiding people at worst.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.gallup.com/poll/14509/americans-guns-danger-defense.aspx reports 38% in Oct 2004

"Have in their home" is ambiguous criteria. For example, a 4br home rented by four couples may as well be reported as "having guns in our home", even though there maybe only one guy having guns, and seven others may be actually anti-gun. Someone owning multiple homes may say that he has guns in five his homes (so the statistics would have to add five), even though it is a single person.

well, we can make up any qualifications we want to on statistics that don't agree with our stance. This is why I dont typically quote stats. I don't like them.

I could say that it's possible that everyone queried in the poll was one of 8 people living in a house and there were actually guns owned by all 8 even though it was only one person, so really 38% is low. But I'm not proposing that because making up qualifications of statistics is asinine and really just means you want to discard it for whatever reason (usually when I see it that's because "I don't agree with it" or "I didn't find it and don't trust it"). I don't know what your reasons are.

--
Rob

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

it's a single data point, and I recognize that, but it's still illustrative of my point.

I don't think I understood your point here.

my point was that there exist Europeans that wish they had better access to firearms in Europe.

--
Rob

[CanuckInUSA 0]

I wonder how much firearm exposure the anti-gun folks have and could this be influencing their opinions.

I know as a child I was allowed to have toy guns but I was never exposed to the real thing until I spent a short time in the Canadian Reserve Armed Forces. While in the reserves I did learn (to some degree) the power of the firearm while sitting under ground in the bunker operating the targets on the gun range. I will never forget hearing the crack of the target as the round passed through it, then hearing the wiz of the round as it passed through the air only to be followed by the crack of the rifle down range. I can only imagine what it is like to be standing above ground having someone shooting at you. Firearms can be deadly, but it is not the gun that kills you. Throughout human history, people have killed people and they use all sorts of tools to get the job done. A gun is only one of many tools. But rest assured, some folks are in dream land if they think humans will stop killing other living creatures. As sad as this may sound, this is the reality of life and death on this planet. The strong prey on the weak.

Without a doubt criminal gun activity in the USA (as well as many other countries) is a problem and part of the problem in the USA is that firearms are fairly easy to obtain compared to other countries. But banning guns will never solve anything. Banning will only effect the law abiding citizen. Look how well banning drugs has worked. The USA should do a better job educating and certifying people on the proper safe use and storage of their firearms. But calling for a ban will never work. Criminals disobey laws for a reason. They disobey these laws because they are criminals. Banning guns will not take the firearm out of the criminal's hands.

In the past, I was like georgerussia thinking why does a PFC "private ####ing citizen" need certain types of firearms, but then someone (I forget who it was) here on dizzy.com mentioned to me "some of us like these firearms because we used them in the military" and then it dawned on me. Hey while my exposure to the Canadian military in the 1980s was more like a boyscout camp-out compared to some of the folks out there who have actually been to war, nevertheless I was exposed to firearms and if you look back to how the military introduced me to their weapons, it was in a totally responsible manner (not at all to be confused with how the gang banger criminals use their weapons).

georgerussia you are fighting a battle you can never win. At least in my life time I doubt you will ever see a "gun ban" in the USA. But we know that the United Nations has a program out there and their desire is a world wide ban on all firearms except those who belong to the police and military. If that is not enough of a wake up call I do not know what is. Banning guns will only turn law abiding citizens into criminals (criminals on paper) who do not want to surrender their firearms to the state.

Do some of you people want history to repeat itself?

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Then show it's because of the guns.

Then show it is not? Again, it is my opinion versus yours.

Quote

How many more times do I have to say "It's the CRIMINAL, not the tool" before it sinks in, George? There's many more issues than just the presence/absence of guns, something you STILL can't grasp.

I indeed grasp it, but I completely disagree that TOOL should be excluded from the equation completely, which seems to be the agenda you're trying to push. My opinion is that the role of the TOOL in such crimes, while not ultimate, is significant enough to warrant further restrictions.

Quote

Oh, wait, I'm sorry - it's more important to you that people were killed with a GUN than that they were killed at all.

Well, the FACTS (i.e. what happened) are like that - Cho killed those people with a GUN. You may speculate that he would kill all of them with scissors or bare hands if he didn't have a gun, but the facts are that he used a gun, and any reasonable person would acknowledge that the gun played critical role in the amount of damage he has done.

Quote

Odd - that's EXACTLY the argument you used for the 'spree killings', remember? "Gun owners didn't prevent the spree killings, so it's useless to own guns" (paraphrased).
Seems you're very quick to point out what you THINK is hypocrisy on another's part without seeing the blatant hypocrisy in your own argument.

I would prefer to comment something I said, not something you think I said. So if you consider this important, let's see my real post instead of paraphrase.

Quote

If it were the presence of guns that was causing the crime, you MIGHT have a point. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

Presence of the guns does not CAUSE crimes, but increases the DAMAGE from the crime, making it more dangerous to society. That is why guns are more restricted than hammers, even though you can kill a person with a hammer too.

Quote

Yeah, that's sorta the whole point of my response - NO gun restriction is too much for you to consider, regardless of the legality of it.

Why would I consider that? I do not need guns myself, and I do not see how it would make me safer.

Quote

Quote

Do you have evidence (not your thoughts) about how many gun owners report gun theft out of total thefts? I didn't find anything like that in ATF reports.

Do you have evidence of the number of gun owners that 'left it on the seat of the car' to be stolen?

No, I do not have such evidence (neither I claim I have, so your question is kinda out of touch).
Now could you please answer my question? You indeed claimed that regarding gun theft I'm "arguing from a WHOLE LOT of preconceived notions that just aren't true.". If you just thought I'm wrong, this wouldn't make my arguments not true - you could have only said that you do not agree with me. But since you claimed that my arguments are not true, I assumed you have facts to back it up - which seems like you do not.

Quote

No, George - it's not "opinion" if we provide a excerpt from a report, or a link to a website. If the FACT that various gun bans have done nothing to reduce crime doesn't sway you to at least consider a non-brady argument (which has been the case from the start of your gun thread postings), then nothing will.

I have never seen this established as a FACT. So far I only seen speculations, and conclusions made on obviously insufficient data and bogus assumptions (like that the ban should have a total immediate effect to be considered working, and since it did not - then "gun bans do not work").

Quote

Those have been your VERY CONSISTENT positions from the start, so don't even TRY that bullshit of "well, I was on the fence, but".

I was not on the fence, I just didn't really care (i.e. I did nor donate to NRA nor to Brady). And while it was quite obvious that I wouldn't join NRA as I had no plans to ever own a gun, but I definitely was not as anti-gun as I am now.

Quote

No problem - I'll make a donation to whatever fund is set up for the next mass murder victims in your name with a message saying "sorry about that, but my fear is more important than your life was".

Nice. It would serve a good reminder of yet another crime which hasn't been prevented by an armed gun owner!

Quote

Why is the TOOL he used so much more important to you than the crime he committed?
Maybe you should see someone professional about this extreme phobia you seem to have.

Because he would not be able to commit such a crime if he didn't have such a tool. It takes extreme dodging skills to avoid admitting the fact that it is not possible to start a shooting spree without a gun, and therefore admitting that gun plays critical role in shooting sprees.

Quote

Every school shooting in recent years has been in a gun-ban area. Has it stopped any of them yet, George? What part of "criminals don't obey the gun ban laws" do you STILL not understand?

That is why we need to concentrate on making guns less available to criminals - by imposing further restrictions on gun owner community, which apparently generously provides criminals with like 300K stolen guns each year.

Quote

Which STILL doesn't give YOU the right to restrict MY rights.

Nope, it does. Your rights end up where they start threatening safety of others. That is exactly the reason why you cannot buy a gun in a hardware store without any paperwork, like it might have been in "good old times".

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I wonder how much firearm exposure the anti-gun folks have and could this be influencing their opinions.

I know as a child I was allowed to have toy guns but I was never exposed to the real thing until I spent a short time in the Canadian Reserve Armed Forces. While in the reserves I did learn (to some degree) the power of the firearm while sitting under ground in the bunker operating the targets on the gun range. I will never forget hearing the crack of the target as the round passed through it, then hearing the wiz of the round as it passed through the air only to be followed by the crack of the rifle down range. I can only imagine what it is like to be standing above ground having someone shooting at you. Firearms can be deadly, but it is not the gun that kills you. Throughout human history, people have killed people and they use all sorts of tools to get the job done. A gun is only one of many tools. But rest assured, some folks are in dream land if they think humans will stop killing other living creatures. As sad as this may sound, this is the reality of life and death on this planet. The strong prey on the weak.

Without a doubt criminal gun activity in the USA (as well as many other countries) is a problem and part of the problem in the USA is that firearms are fairly easy to obtain compared to other countries. But banning guns will never solve anything. Banning will only effect the law abiding citizen. Look how well banning drugs has worked. The USA should do a better job educating and certifying people on the proper safe use and storage of their firearms. But calling for a ban will never work. Criminals disobey laws for a reason. They disobey these laws because they are criminals. Banning guns will not take the firearm out of the criminal's hands.

In the past, I was like georgerussia thinking why does a PFC "private ####ing citizen" need certain types of firearms, but then someone (I forget who it was) here on dizzy.com mentioned to me "some of us like these firearms because we used them in the military" and then it dawned on me. Hey while my exposure to the Canadian military in the 1980s was more like a boyscout camp-out compared to some of the folks out there who have actually been to war, nevertheless I was exposed to firearms and if you look back to how the military introduced me to their weapons, it was in a totally responsible manner (not at all to be confused with how the gang banger criminals use their weapons).

georgerussia you are fighting a battle you can never win. At least in my life time I doubt you will ever see a "gun ban" in the USA. But we know that the United Nations has a program out there and their desire is a world wide ban on all firearms except those who belong to the police and military. If that is not enough of a wake up call I do not know what is. Banning guns will only turn law abiding citizens into criminals (criminals on paper) who do not want to surrender their firearms to the state.

Do some of you people want history to repeat itself?

Thanks, Canuck - YOU get it, unlike some.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

well, we can make up any qualifications we want to on statistics that don't agree with our stance. This is why I dont typically quote stats. I don't like them.

No, the reason I asked for the number of gun _owners_ is because gun owners vote. Houses do not vote, nor do guns, so it is hard to estimate effect on voting.

So far the only numbers I have seen were 25% of adults (1997 data), and 80M, quoted anywhere without a single reference to the source.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

my point was that there exist Europeans that wish they had better access to firearms in Europe.

No surprise. I know a person in Russia who wanted to put a machine gun on his old Hummer, and even made some noise when he applied for official permit for that (seriously!). Obviously the permit was not issued, but still.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

It's easy to say since "x" is bad, we need laws limiting or banning anything that can lead to "x" but without understanding why "x" is or happens and dealing with that at a root level any measures taken to ban or control except in a totalitarian state with continuous equal enforcement will be flawed at best, ineffective normally, or pointlessly hinder normal law abiding people at worst.

Every law can be considered as hindering law abiding people at some way. Unfortunately until Good Lord Jesus Christ comes back, and makes everyone perfect, making the law and enforcing it is the only way which seems to work, although not perfectly. You'd probably agree that we would have more drunk drivers on the road if all the penalty for DUI was a $100 fine, and we would have less if the penalty was being burned alive right there in the car. Sure it would be better if anyone was reasonable and didn't drive while drunk, but what else can you do?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Then show it's because of the guns.

Then show it is not? Again, it is my opinion versus yours.

Nope - ball is in YOUR court.

Quote

Quote

How many more times do I have to say "It's the CRIMINAL, not the tool" before it sinks in, George? There's many more issues than just the presence/absence of guns, something you STILL can't grasp.

I indeed grasp it, but I completely disagree that TOOL should be excluded from the equation completely, which seems to be the agenda you're trying to push. My opinion is that the role of the TOOL in such crimes, while not ultimate, is significant enough to warrant further restrictions.

Why are you more worried about the tool than the criminal using it?

Quote

Quote

Oh, wait, I'm sorry - it's more important to you that people were killed with a GUN than that they were killed at all.

Well, the FACTS (i.e. what happened) are like that - Cho killed those people with a GUN. You may speculate that he would kill all of them with scissors or bare hands if he didn't have a gun, but the facts are that he used a gun, and any reasonable person would acknowledge that the gun played critical role in the amount of damage he has done.

Why are you more worried about the tool the killer used than the killer himself?

Quote

Quote

Odd - that's EXACTLY the argument you used for the 'spree killings', remember? "Gun owners didn't prevent the spree killings, so it's useless to own guns" (paraphrased).
Seems you're very quick to point out what you THINK is hypocrisy on another's part without seeing the blatant hypocrisy in your own argument.

I would prefer to comment something I said, not something you think I said. So if you consider this important, let's see my real post instead of paraphrase.

I believe I've done that already - if not in this thread, then another. I don't see you denying it.

Quote

Quote

If it were the presence of guns that was causing the crime, you MIGHT have a point. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

Presence of the guns does not CAUSE crimes, but increases the DAMAGE from the crime, making it more dangerous to society. That is why guns are more restricted than hammers, even though you can kill a person with a hammer too.

Why are you more worried about the tool than the criminal?

Quote

Quote

Yeah, that's sorta the whole point of my response - NO gun restriction is too much for you to consider, regardless of the legality of it.

Why would I consider that? I do not need guns myself, and I do not see how it would make me safer.

We know you don't see it, that's painfully obvious.

And hey - so long as YOU *FEEL* safe, who cares about who else is affected, and how, right?

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you have evidence (not your thoughts) about how many gun owners report gun theft out of total thefts? I didn't find anything like that in ATF reports.

Do you have evidence of the number of gun owners that 'left it on the seat of the car' to be stolen?

No, I do not have such evidence (neither I claim I have, so your question is kinda out of touch).

No, it's not - you were talking about people 'leaving the gun on the seat of their car' to be stolen - I asked you to show the numbers for what you claimed to be so common.

Quote

Now could you please answer my question? You indeed claimed that regarding gun theft I'm "arguing from a WHOLE LOT of preconceived notions that just aren't true.". If you just thought I'm wrong, this wouldn't make my arguments not true - you could have only said that you do not agree with me. But since you claimed that my arguments are not true, I assumed you have facts to back it up - which seems like you do not.

Just off the top of my head? The "black market gun dealer" that you keep bringing up springs immediately to mind. The fact that you think criminals are going to obey a gun ban and respect gun-free zones is another. The fact that you think MY gun somehow is a threat to you is yet another, and there's plenty more.

Quote

I have never seen this established as a FACT. So far I only seen speculations, and conclusions made on obviously insufficient data and bogus assumptions (like that the ban should have a total immediate effect to be considered working, and since it did not - then "gun bans do not work").

Oh, you mean the reverse of YOUR argument for privately owned guns? Funny how you don't think that YOUR argument has to withstand the same rigor.

Quote

Quote

Those have been your VERY CONSISTENT positions from the start, so don't even TRY that bullshit of "well, I was on the fence, but".

I was not on the fence, I just didn't really care (i.e. I did nor donate to NRA nor to Brady). And while it was quite obvious that I wouldn't join NRA as I had no plans to ever own a gun, but I definitely was not as anti-gun as I am now.

Yeah, sure - go sell it to someone that HASN'T read your postings.

Quote

Quote

No problem - I'll make a donation to whatever fund is set up for the next mass murder victims in your name with a message saying "sorry about that, but my fear is more important than your life was".

Nice. It would serve a good reminder of yet another crime which hasn't been prevented by an armed gun owner!

Why am *I* supposed to protect YOU, George? Why do you demand that OTHERS take the responsibility for your safety that you refuse to? Why do you demand that OTHERS put themselves into harm's way when you refuse to?

Quote

Quote

Why is the TOOL he used so much more important to you than the crime he committed?
Maybe you should see someone professional about this extreme phobia you seem to have.

Because he would not be able to commit such a crime if he didn't have such a tool.

Really? So, robberies aren't committed with knives, clubs, bricks or just physical disparity? They're ALL committed with guns?

Quote

It takes extreme dodging skills to avoid admitting the fact that it is not possible to start a shooting spree without a gun

Oh, so it's just SHOOTING SPREES that you're afraid of.

Quote

and therefore admitting that gun plays critical role in shooting sprees.

Can't have a shooting spree without a shooter. Can't have a robbery without a robber. Can't have a rape without a rapist.

CRIMINALS, NOT TOOLS.

Quote

Quote

Every school shooting in recent years has been in a gun-ban area. Has it stopped any of them yet, George? What part of "criminals don't obey the gun ban laws" do you STILL not understand?

That is why we need to concentrate on making guns less available to criminals - by imposing further restrictions on gun owner community, which apparently generously provides criminals with like 300K stolen guns each year.

And the gangs ship in TONS of drugs per year, which are banned - so why do you think a gun ban is going to mean jack shit?

Quote

Quote

Which STILL doesn't give YOU the right to restrict MY rights.

Nope, it does.

Wrong - you don't have a right to "feel safe", except in your own mind.

Quote

Your rights end up where they start threatening safety of others.

So show where MY gun is a threat to YOUR safety.

Quote

That is exactly the reason why you cannot buy a gun in a hardware store without any paperwork, like it might have been in "good old times".

So, where were the 'spree shootings' back then, George? Why weren't they happening, what with all those icky scary guns everywhere?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

It's easy to say since "x" is bad, we need laws limiting or banning anything that can lead to "x" but without understanding why "x" is or happens and dealing with that at a root level any measures taken to ban or control except in a totalitarian state with continuous equal enforcement will be flawed at best, ineffective normally, or pointlessly hinder normal law abiding people at worst.

Every law can be considered as hindering law abiding people at some way. Unfortunately until Good Lord Jesus Christ comes back, and makes everyone perfect, making the law and enforcing it is the only way which seems to work, although not perfectly. You'd probably agree that we would have more drunk drivers on the road if all the penalty for DUI was a $100 fine, and we would have less if the penalty was being burned alive right there in the car. Sure it would be better if anyone was reasonable and didn't drive while drunk, but what else can you do?

You're still comparing crimes to crimes and crime law that only effect criminals, not law abiding citizens.

A law that restricted or banned driving for all that chose to drive to limit/stop DUI is a better comparison.

Resticting or banning access to an item just because it can be used illegally, or to harm oneself or others sets standards for scary laws: anything that can be used for "bad" can be banned or restricted. At that point all one of power has to do is to show how something is "bad" to get it banned/restricted.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Nope - ball is in YOUR court.

No, it is not. As I said, at this moment it is my opinion versus your opinion, and I'm happy with it. You're not proving yours, so I see no reason to prove mine.

Quote

Why are you more worried about the tool than the criminal using it?

Why are you more worried about the tool the killer used than the killer himself?

Why are you more worried about the tool than the criminal?

I accept it as acknowledge that you're out of reasonable arguments, so you started making things up in form of question. Please point out the exact post where I said that I worry MORE about the tool than about the criminal.

Quote

I believe I've done that already - if not in this thread, then another. I don't see you denying it.

You made a comment about your own phrase which you attributed to me, but admitted that it does not belong to me. What should I deny here?

Quote

We know you don't see it, that's painfully obvious.

Then why are you asking if the answer is painfully obvious?

Quote

And hey - so long as YOU *FEEL* safe, who cares about who else is affected, and how, right?

As long as YOU can keep your beloved guns, who cares about who else is affected, and how, right?

Quote

No, it's not - you were talking about people 'leaving the gun on the seat of their car' to be stolen - I asked you to show the numbers for what you claimed to be so common.

Please show my post where I claimed "leaving the gun on the seat of their car' to be stolen" to be so common. Are you making things up again?

Quote

Just off the top of my head? The "black market gun dealer" that you keep bringing up springs immediately to mind. The fact that you think criminals are going to obey a gun ban and respect gun-free zones is another. The fact that you think MY gun somehow is a threat to you is yet another, and there's plenty more.

I do not know who were you replying to, so I will repeat the question: "Do you have evidence (not your thoughts) about how many gun owners report gun theft out of total thefts?"

Quote

Oh, you mean the reverse of YOUR argument for privately owned guns?

No, I meant exactly what I said: I have never seen this established as a FACT. So far I only seen speculations, and conclusions made on obviously insufficient data and bogus assumptions (like that the ban should have a total immediate effect to be considered working, and since it did not - then "gun bans do not work").

Quote

Yeah, sure - go sell it to someone that HASN'T read your postings.

So now you're saying that you know what I was thinking better than me? Isn't it kinda presumptuously from you?

Quote

Why am *I* supposed to protect YOU, George? Why do you demand that OTHERS take the responsibility for your safety that you refuse to? Why do you demand that OTHERS put themselves into harm's way when you refuse to?

Well, this is very simple - there are obvious problems created in the society by the gun owners, from providing criminals with guns to turning crazy/religions and starting shooting sprees. If there are no advantages for the society which would counter those problems, then it's quite obvious that revoking the gun ownership privilege would be good for society.

Quote

Really? So, robberies aren't committed with knives, clubs, bricks or just physical disparity? They're ALL committed with guns?

You quoted the piece which was related to a very specific crime. If you track it two posts back it will be obvious. Why did you feel the urgent need to change the subject, except if you had nothing to say?

Quote

Oh, so it's just SHOOTING SPREES that you're afraid of.

You already agreed that there is not possible to prove the direct correlation between gun ownership and crime rate, so restricting gun ownership would seriously decrease shooting sprees (by removing available guns), while keeping the overall crime rate the same. Sounds like a good deal to me.

Quote

Can't have a shooting spree without a shooter. Can't have a robbery without a robber. Can't have a rape without a rapist.

In an imaginable world we would of course ban shooters - like, as soon as someone starts shooting people, he dies from heart attack. Unfortunately we live in real world, and it is not possible to have a cop following each village idiot to check whether he is learning Islam or Christianity, and track his progress to the point when he actually believes that he is making the world better by shooting abortion doctors or non-Muslims (and have another cop following the first cop to make sure the first cop is not learning Islam and so on). And even at that point this is not Russia, and you have to prove intention, which may be extremely hard until he actually shoots someone. So it is easier, and painless to majority, just to restrict gun ownership.

Quote

CRIMINALS, NOT TOOLS.

By the way, are you also comfortable with making available grenades, grenade launchers, flamethrowers or land mines? You already said it's criminal, and not tool which is a problem, and criminals may obtain illegal weapons anyway, so making those tools also available should be very innocent, right?

Quote

And the gangs ship in TONS of drugs per year, which are banned - so why do you think a gun ban is going to mean jack shit?

Because the drug "ban" is not really enforced here.
Do you know how much drugs gangs ship to China and Singapore, where the ban is actually enforced?

Quote

So show where MY gun is a threat to YOUR safety.

It is not - but I doubt Congress would make an exception just for your gun. So I'm afraid you'd have to follow the rest. Again, why would I care?

Quote

So, where were the 'spree shootings' back then, George? Why weren't they happening, what with all those icky scary guns everywhere?

Unless you're trying to prove there were none, I do not see how is it relevant.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Resticting or banning access to an item just because it can be used illegally, or to harm oneself or others sets standards for scary laws: anything that can be used for "bad" can be banned or restricted.

Restricting access to items which have a high chance to be used illegally has been common practice since ancient ages. Unfortunately that's the only choice available in our imperfect world, which more or less works.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *