jfields

But, he said he wanted a computer!

Okay Mr. Alternative Power Generation Back Into The Grid Man. We can't all attain your eminent level of geekdom.

That would leave you with water.

Just keep telling yourself that, Sebazz. It will make the lack of decent company more tolerable.

I'd add Belgium to the list, Jim.

Why, yes. Yes it is. Did I mention I am going to go home and refreshing alcoholic beverage? With the power out, perhaps I will cook dinner on the grill. Who wants to come over for burgers if I pick them up on the way home from work?

The hurricane knocked out my power at home. I have a backup generator running, powering the fish tank and two fridge/freezers. Who wants to come over, sit in the dark and drink beer?

Mike, You forgot, at least he admitted he had a drug problem.

They throw crappy parties, because the cases of beer fall into the Under $10 rule also. Yuck!

No, no no! Duct tape is way beyond typical texans. They keep trying to rip off a fourth of a dollar bill.

That is true, right?

For a boss like Kevin's (or mine), that is moot. He said when he received the message. He doesn't give a crap about when it gets sent. Sorry it didn't work, Kevin.

Nope, but there also wouldn't be any problem with you having them, either. In this context, it is completely irrelevant. The assertion back in this thread that I was rebutting is that "guns reduce crime" and that "an armed society is a polite society". Both of those are untrue. Weapons help enable crimes and contribute to the related lethality. The statements made were simplistic and false. For example, changing it to "honest, responsible, legally owned guns reduce crime" may be true, but it is untrue without the qualifiers. To directly answer your question, probably most of the murders were committed with illegal weapons. That also goes to further back in the thread where I stated that the entire system (including both owners attitudes and gun laws) was in need of an overhaul because it was ineffective. With one of the higher homicide rates in the industrialized world, do you not think that is true? I wasn't calling for any ban, just noting that an objective appraisal of the big picture would show that what we currently have isn't working. That is a combination of culture, laws, history and beliefs. Compare our situation with countries (Switzerland has been examined) that have high gun ownership and low crime? What are the differences. Attitudes and culture. Those same factors used to be true in this country, at the time the second amendment was written. Things change and our laws and culture have developed a conflict that have seemingly locked us into a situation of ever-increasing violence. Doesn't it make sense to look at the issue and try to work out a solution, rather than just spouting rhetoric about rights, bravado about "killing perps" and that all people concerned about gun violence are liberal idiots? (Not pointing a finger at you personally, but that is a general theme to the pro-gun side of many gun control debates I see.) Wouldn't it be more mature and forward-thinking to address the problems as problems and look for remedies? Improving the system and the efficient control (out of the hands of criminals) of firearms is in the interest of both gun control advocates and gun ownership advocates. With less crime, fewer accidental deaths and less abuse of firearms, both sides would be happy. But nobody has the courage to step up and even try to take the road to a solution.

If you want to simplify to the point of absurdity, okay. If nobody had guns, nobody would die from them. That is irrefutable logic. It is also completely out of touch with the real world. Next. That that we have gotten the stupid generalizations out of the way, the only method to actually dealing with the problem is to delve into the side issues you are loath to discuss. As to the firearm murder to skydiving comparison, it is totally bogus. First, nobody is forced to skydive. Second, how many skydiving fatalities in the last ten years were directly caused by one jumper killing another. While non-zero, it is a tiny fraction of the total number of skydiving deaths. Most jumpers only injure or kill themselves. It is like comparing suicide stats to homicide stats. They aren't at all the same thing.

You and Gawain both make good points. There are plenty of places where good numbers don't exist. Sure, firearms could be used non-lethally to prevent a crime. We don't know how many times. But equally as true is the fact that some of the murder victims ended up that way because they forced a confrontation with their own firearm and lost. We don't know how many of them there were either. But numbers aside, can you honestly tell me that firearm regulations and firearm owners are both doing the best they can to keep weapons out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them? I think our attempts are pitiful. If only "legal, honest and responsible citizens" could get guns, and they stayed that way, I'd have no problem with firearm ownership. But that is far from the case, there there seems to be a complete unwillingness to work on the problem from the ownership-advocate side. Not talking about banning anything, but steps that would clean up the laws, make them more effective, and include compromises that would make effective differences.

You are not talking about training or any "side issues"? This entire issue is clouded with tangents that are critical to understanding the problem. Who are the "innocent, good and upright citizens"? Does a gun shop or gun show seller know the difference? Does an 8 year old with access to a parent's gun count? What about the fact that firearm murders greatly outnumber justifiable homicides in self defense. Like an astronomical homicide rate? If you want to focus on that one thing, you'll find that it isn't a good arguing point. Society is also filled with people who accidently shoot strangers because they don't understand gun safety, people that kill their friends when fooling around drunk with firearms and people that let their guns into the hands of children. We have a culture of carelessness. If you could even just make sure that legal firearm owners were responsible and competant, you would find less backlash against gun ownership. Or just make sure kids didn't get their hands on guns. Pick one aspect of gun safety and show me how it is really effective and under control. The facts support my assertion. About 9000 people per year get murdered with firearms. That is "responsible"? From 1997 to 2001, number of firearm murders: 45,846 From 1997 to 2001, number of firearm murders during robbery: 5,929 From 1997 to 2001, number of justified firearm homicides: 880 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/xl/01tbl2-10.xls http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/xl/01tbl2-17.xls The lethal "self defense" uses of firearms are trivial compared to their criminal uses. I often hear defense cited as a reason for ownership, along with exhortations about how the "perps" wouldn't stand a chance, and would end up dead on the floor. That isn't generally the case.

I didn't directly say that. Civilians with guns take innocent lives, in alarming numbers. I've used firearms, in the military. I'm not in the "any gun is a bad thing" camp. Guns in untrained and/or irresponsible hands are the problem. Untrue. Common sense and using your brain is probably more effective in most circumstances. Nope. Is the average firearm owner as trained in the use of firearms, safety of firearms and threat assessment as the members of a SWAT team? Nope. Have they been screened as carefully at a SWAT member before having a weapon placed in their hands? Nope. Have they been forced to demonstrate any level of responsibility or ethics? Nope. You are comparing apples and oranges, and you know it.

You are smart too, Dave, which is why you should have known better than to lump everything and everyone together into silly stereotypes.

I never said I was an expert. I just question the fact that bringing firearms into the mix and potentially escalating the situation was the only option. I'm sincerely glad you are okay.

Dave, Your story actually does nothing to show how your gun made you safer. It showed you placing the value of your ATM card on par with your life or the other guy's, in what was likely a non-life threatening situation. To me, that is both very sad and a little pathetic. You had plenty of other options, but you chose not to take them. 1) Not provoke the guy further, and buy yourself some time before leaving. 2) Lean on your horn to attract attention. Likely the guy would bolt. 3) If you had a cell phone, dial 911 and begin loudly explaining the situation to the dispatcher. 4) Punch "Cancel", snag your card and drive away. 5) Hit "Cancel" and just drive away. ATM card is useless and replaceable. 6) Just drive away. Screw the ATM card. The fact that this happened to you twice shows that you are probably relying on your firearm to solve problems you get into, instead of your intellect to keep you out of them in the first place.

Kevin, Okay, Switzerland has a similar (low) crime rates to Japan and Great Britain, with lax gun laws. Fine. No arguement there. Give examples of countries with crime rates equivalent to ours and lets look at their policies and cultures. Just like our heavily armed population and high crime rate debunk the notion that an armed society is a polite society. It isn't the presence or absence of guns that have the biggest effect in determining the crime rate. It is the culture. That said, in our culture, we are disposed to violence. Given that tendency, does arming a large chunk of the population and facilitating the ease of homicide and magnifying the potential lethality of attacks make sense? No argument. A lot. Chances of it happening? Damned slim. If you took our gun crime stats, backed out all the drug-related ones, I bet you would still have a higher per capita firearm murder rate than most of Europe. Sure, drugs are some, but without that, we still have a huge gun violence problem.

Dave, Way to dodge the point. But even if you want to stick to Texas, how do you think it stacks up in per capita homicide to other countries? Do you really want to see those comparisons? Do you want me to start listing examples of firearm murder victims and accidental firearm deaths from Texas' "just about perfect" system? Dave, just recite this in a loud voice and I'll stop contradicting you: "I just want my guns, god damnit, and I don't care about the cost to the innocent victims in the United States." At least then we'll have an honest starting point for discussion, without the false pretense of alleged rights, supposed self-defense or bogus stats showing how good guns are.

And I've posted stats on how the self-defense usage of guns is insignificant compared to the criminal usage. I've also posted examples of CCW holders committing murders, mentally ill people being given permits and kids killing other kids with their parents legal weapons. Instead of holding up [sarcasm] the great state of Texas [/sarcasm] as a model of gun safety and low crime to the world, why don't you try comparing our national firearm death rate to the firearm death rate of other countries. Then tell me that our system is working correctly and that the intent of the second amendment is for us to be a world leader... in homicide.

Correct.