Let the Gun Rights Argument Begin

[Crow of Ill Omen]

People with guns get shot as well. Owning a gun doesn't make you bullet proof. Some people get shot with their own guns.

True. But most people don't get shot with their own guns. Not owning a gun can mean getting stabbed with someone else's knife. Nothing is perfect. Should we ban doctors because some patients die?
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/informat ... p?CatID=43
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/informat ... sp?ID=2331
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/informat ... sp?ID=2257

I said that owning a gun doesn't reduce the likelihood or possibility of getting shot. It doesn't. It increases the chance by however small an amount.

Your citations, in order are:

• An index of stories about people getting shot with guns.
• An article supporting my statement (since I never said 43 times)
• An article showing that you're more than twice as likely to be shot dead in the USA than you are of being electricuted and that over 70% of murders are shootings.

Gun crime in the UK is much less than gun crime in the US. Shootings are much less common in the UK.

Bullcrap, once you take the population differences into account. Note that most of these are from UK news sources or authors.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/new ... 440764.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2 ... 75,00.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/watson/watson12.html
http://www.ssaa.org.au/euro.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/ ... -20-02.htm
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,3 ... 94,00.html

Not bullcrap. True. Your citations, in order:

• A BBC article about the rise in handgun crime since the handgun ban. It does not give figures comparing UK shootings against US per capita.
• A Guardian article about the general rise in gun crime in the UK. It includes the quote "As handguns can no longer be bought or sold legally, the police believe the vast majority of those coming on to the market have been smuggled from abroad," suggesting that if other countries followed our lead and banned them, we'd all be better off.
• Some gun supporters weird propaganda rant dressed up to look pseudo-official
• A propaganda listing. Its level of desperation to find support is pretty clear from its inclusion of a quote by Prince Philip. Have a read about him if you want to know what his opinion is worth.
• Another page written by gun owners in the hopes that its magazine look will fool casual browsers into thinking its opinion has some kind of journalistic integrity, rather than just being more propoganda.
• An article linking gun crime to drugs smuggling.

None of the references compare shootings per capita figures for the UK to those for the USA. Why did you cite them?

Gun crime in the US is also on the increase.

Also BS.
http://www.stats.org/crime.htm
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/crvsgraf.html
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/highs.html
The above articles reference this article. If you are calling the US Dept. of Justice a liar, that is your business.

Your citations, in order:

• An website called "Stats" with no stats and a lot of verbal undermining of statistics on all kinds of issues.
• An article on a gun supporters site titled "Should we ban guns like England" that shows six graphs with no gun statistics.
• An article from the same site, that can be summarised as: even though almost all crime in the UK is higher than in the US, murders are not. Murders are much, much higher in the US, particularly shootings.

These articles do not support your claim of "bullshit" in any way.

Target shooting doesn't have to involve a lethal weapon

.
Don't even start on the "lethal weapon" fallacy. By your "logic", carpenters should not use hammers to drive nails, since hammers can be lethal weapons. Baseball or cricket players should not use bats to hit the ball, since bats can be lethal weapons. Drivers should not use automobiles... well, I hope that you get the idea. Misusing an object does not make the object evil.

No. Hammers are tools. Bats are sporting implements. Cars are vehicles. Guns are weapons.

You can kill people with anything. You can kill people with your bare hands. Guns are made specifically to kill people.

Since you have wasted my time with your citations so far, I will assume the rest are just as worthless. The sources I can see from the URL's confirm that enough for my satisfaction. If you post some real statistics from credible sources, I will read them.

[Lynxer]

It's so darn easy to just point a gun at someone you despise and kiss his ass goodby by something as plain and simple as the pulling of a metal pull.
Stabbing someone or mashing someone with a maul take lots of nerves most people that arent completely desperate and psychotic havent got.

this is why i think there should be no law that legalizes the bearing of firearms for personal use.

Compare the US where there are such active rights with Holland in ways of homicides and ull c there definitely is a reason not to legalize it.

[OnTheBounce]

It's so darn easy to just point a gun at someone you despise and kiss his ass goodby by something as plain and simple as the pulling of a metal pull.

I will disagree with you here, and from personal experience. The vast majority of people have had it hammered into their heads from Day One that killing other human beings is wrong. While firearms are definitely less personal than melee weapons or bare hands, it's not as easy as you think. Even soldiers in combat are hesitant to kill. A good book on this subject is On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman who is a part of the Killology Research Group.

Compare the US where there are such active rights with Holland in ways of homicides and ull c there definitely is a reason not to legalize it.

This is an example of a logical fallacy known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"). You're assuming that the gun laws in either country have an impact on the homicide rates. Taking your example to a rather ridiculous level, you could walk into a 100 prisons, interview every inmate and ask them, "Did you ever drink milk as a child?" I assure you that the overwhelming majority (probably 99+%) will respond, "Yes." This would not mean that there was a correlation between the drinking of milk during childhood and ending up in prison as an adult.

One of the main problems with this debate is that we're in an international forum here. Laws are an expression of culture (as well as political control) and I think most people are forgetting that what is good for one people isn't necessarily good for another. Take the example of Switzerland. There are so many guns in circulation on a per capita basis that according to conventional wisdom their streets should literally be running red. They're not. Yet a country like the UK has a much lower instance of private firearms ownership than Switzerland and yet has a much higher rate of gun-crime. There is obviously no correlation between guns and crime.

Maybe people should start looking at other factors. Of course, that would entail leaping down from the soap box and discarding political agendas. (I'm lumping the NRA in with Handgun Control, Inc. here. Let's face it, these fat cats all make money from the gun debate and they will continue to do so as long the debate continues.) Maybe people should start looking at a combination of factors. Of course, this would require real scholarship, something that's in short supply these days. (Just as it's always been.)

OTB

[HappySuitcase Man]

What business is it of the GOVERNMENT to know what firearms I buy? after registration what's next, having our firearms stored at a local police station?

Here’s a shocker – some people buy firearms to KILL other human beings. Wouldn’t a registered handgun used to kill someone help the police find the murderer?

Because there is NO NEED TO WAIT 5 DAYS, the new program which is used in the majority of the states is called the "instant check" program, its new, simple, fast, and effective. Why should we wait 5 days to find something out when we can find it out in 5 minutes?

None of these laws mentioned reduce violence, especially the "assault weapon" ban.

I don’t know about you, but most people experience changes in moods. Are you denying the possibility that someone very angry at the time is buying a firearm to fulfill its primary purpose – to hurt or kill something? Let’s try a scenario –

Scenario – Joe Blue-Collar comes home to find his wife cheating with Mr. Big-City Lawyer. Pissed as fuck, Joe drives around and buys a firearm immediately (this is in your fantasy world, bub, where you only have to wait for five minutes). Guess what he’s going to use it for? Hint – It’s not likely that he’s going to use it to let off steam by hunting or shooting beer cans.

What about an angry employee, who’s mad at being laid off because the factory closed down? Are you telling me that these types don’t exist? Are you implying that everyone is a cool headed individual who never loses their temper? The way I see it, an exceptionally angry person would cool down in five days. They’d have the time to rationalize the situation, and say to themselves, “Hey! It would be less trouble to just talk it out.”

If the "assault weapon" ban is repealed nothing will change, why? because criminals rarely use these "assault weapons" because most are very expensive, and, if they wanted one, they can simply shave off the bayonet lug and they have a full functioning "assault weapon". Does this make sense to you?

I agree with you on the fact that a criminal wouldn’t use an assault weapon to kill another human – why use an assault weapon when you can use a rifle for cheaper? I’m not saying that the current “assault weapon” law (as you describe it) is right, but that we need a law which would stop the sale of military – like weapons which have “automatic” settings. What are you going to use it for? Unless you plan on staring at it all day, there are really only two other possibilities – either spraying animals with bullets or spraying humans with bullets.
.
.
.
Okay. I never thought I’d say this, but the military has to maintain at least some form of advantage over the general population. Wouldn’t you agree that if the public can be as well – equipped as the military, there would be someone who would start their own “liberation” force? Namely, an anti – government force who wants to disrupt any government activities, whether it be collecting taxes up close and personal, any censuses, or police officers trying to track down certain murderers associated with a certain “liberation” force?

The government isn’t going to “purge” some of the general population here in the U.S. anytime soon. It breaks the illusion of democracy and freedom, and bad for the thought control. Not to mention bad for the propaganda wars. If the public got any wind of excessive force used on them, they’d start thinking dangerous ideas, such as, “Maybe the government’s been lying to us. Maybe we really aren’t the humane torch bearers of liberty and democracy.” Before you know it, the people start getting mad the next time the Republicrats wanna start up a death – squad in some shit Central American country who wants to overthrow their Christian heroin warlord dictator.

The government wouldn't use the military to take away our Constitutional Rights, either. It's fifty times as easier to just use propoganda. All you have to do is to find some giant, fear - inducing enemy, and say, "We're protecting you!" Look at McCarthy-ism.

If you have no idea about how the laws work, or can't speak legal-iese, than why post? your ethics and morals do not make sense, in a happy world they were be perfect, but the fact of the matter they will never work.

Oh? Explain how my morals don’t make sense. Please.

Banning a certain sort of firearm because one criminal fucks up is the school equivalent of an entire kindergartener class not being able to go to recess because one kid was throwing things in class.

Analogies suck. But if we’re gonna play the analogy war, here goes –

Let’s reconstruct this analogy so it somewhat resembles real life. The main purpose of a firearm is to hurt or kill. Therefore, let’s say a kid brings a jagged rock in the classroom he or she found in recess. Then, the kid throws the rock at the teacher or a fellow classmate. Would it be unreasonable to say that the kids couldn’t bring in somewhat – big rocks in from recess?

[aeternus_adamo]

Well the main reason we have the right to own guns in the first place is in case our government gains too much power so we will have the ability to revolt and with all of these new high-tech weapons coming out I think we should be atleast alowed to own a gun , I am against violence it's animalistic and unnatural but we are still a very uncivilized animalistic civilization so untill we get to the point where we don't need guns anymore then we should have the right to own one .

[desertf]

HappySuitcase Man I totally agree with everything you are saying...

[Crow of Ill Omen]

The main reason non-killers (i.e. everyone contributing to this discussion, I damn well hope) want to own guns is cowardice. The knowledge that there are people out there bigger, stronger, meaner and a bit on the crazy side scares them a lot. They can't handle the fear. They want something to let them believe that they are safe. They buy a gun, which they feel can protect them by giving them the power to instantly kill aggressors. It is an illusion. The likelihood of a gun being to hand when you need it is slim to none, unless you go around with it in your hand.

The only other non-criminals who want to own guns are psychos and misfits. They wear a lot of khaki and think about the army all the time. The only thing keeping them from being killers is not having taken Betsy to the porn theatre yet.

[OnTheBounce]

The main reason non-killers...want to own guns is cowardice. The knowledge that there are people out there bigger, stronger, meaner and a bit on the crazy side scares them a lot. They can't handle the fear.

Aside from the fact that this is basically a personal attack, it's also the most foolish thing I've seen in this thread to date.

Does fear motivate people to do things? You bet your ass it does. People were afraid of getting their faces smashed into automobile dashboards ergo the seatbelt was invented. Is one a coward for using one? Is it a case of "can't handle the fear"? Maybe so, maybe not. But guess what, Corvus, progress depends on it. If we depended on your line of thinking we'd still be swinging from tree-to-tree and picking berries. ("What's the matter with you?! Can't you handle the fact that the weather is harsh?! Hey! Stay away from that cave! Don't even think of planting food either, you coward!")

The only other non-criminals who want to own guns are psychos and misfits. They wear a lot of khaki and think about the army all the time. The only thing keeping them from being killers is not having taken Betsy to the porn theatre yet.

Do you see this, boys and girls? This is an abusive ad hominem argument. Corvus is arguing that because of a certain (alleged) quality of the propenents of a position, the position itself is false. If Corvus were to teach a course, it would be called "Sophistry 101".

Now, if this thread continues down the road that Corvus is taking it, i.e. personal attacks and/or name calling I will lock it. End of story.

OTB

[Hammer]

Beautifully nonsensical answer! And the black market makes the guns? Do they have a magic gun appearer? Perhaps they buy the guns wholesale from the gun manufacturer and import them from Afghanistan even though they are American-made guns. Seriously I shouldn't have to explain to you where black market guns come from.

You never said the criminals got their firearms from the firearm manufacturers, you did however say "If criminals are mostly getting their weapons illegally, then what is the source of those guns? I am thinking it is from breaking into people's homes while they are not there and stealing their guns.".

You can take your foot out of your mouth now.

And I suppose criminals don't have the knack for breaking into "gigantic safes".....

Your average criminal is not going to be braking in to the liberty safes in some short amount of time, they are heavy duty, look them up if you don't believe me.

If you don't have a defense for a point in an argument you might just want to do what you have been doing all along and not offer a rebuttal!

You might want to try and actually raise a point, or just stop typing.

No. Hammers are tools. Bats are sporting implements. Cars are vehicles. Guns are weapons.

Isn't a bow&arrow a weapon too?

Here’s a shocker – some people buy firearms to KILL other human beings. Wouldn’t a registered handgun used to kill someone help the police find the murderer

Here's a shocker, No it wouldn't! they would need the firearm, police already find out who the murder is by finger prints, serial numbers, and other things on the firearm.

I don’t know about you, but most people experience changes in moods. Are you denying the possibility that someone very angry at the time is buying a firearm to fulfill its primary purpose – to hurt or kill something? Let’s try a scenario –

You keep playing on the worst case scenario, if we ran out lives by the worst case scenario we would not drive since we might crash, we would not swim since me might drown, we would stay in our houses because a monkey might escape from the zoo and pummel us to death.

Okay. I never thought I’d say this, but the military has to maintain at least some form of advantage over the general population. Wouldn’t you agree that if the public can be as well – equipped as the military, there would be someone who would start their own “liberation” force? Namely, an anti – government force who wants to disrupt any government activities, whether it be collecting taxes up close and personal, any censuses, or police officers trying to track down certain murderers associated with a certain “liberation” force?

But say what would we do if the government becomes more corrupt? how do the people fight back for their freedoms? I am not saying it will happen, but since you keep using the what if scenario, I figure I'd use one too.

Oh? Explain how my morals don’t make sense. Please.

Because as I said, this is not a happy friendly world that works the way it should.

Let’s reconstruct this analogy so it somewhat resembles real life. The main purpose of a firearm is to hurt or kill. Therefore, let’s say a kid brings a jagged rock in the classroom he or she found in recess. Then, the kid throws the rock at the teacher or a fellow classmate. Would it be unreasonable to say that the kids couldn’t bring in somewhat – big rocks in from recess?

Why do they need to bring a big rock in from recess in the first place?

HappySuitcase Man I totally agree with everything you are saying...

Which is why you will always be wrong.

The main reason non-killers (i.e. everyone contributing to this discussion, I damn well hope) want to own guns is cowardice. The knowledge that there are people out there bigger, stronger, meaner and a bit on the crazy side scares them a lot.

Now now put down the tarot cards Miss Cleo and let me tell you why I want to own a firearm.

I want to own an M16 because it is fun to shoot, I want to own a shotgun because I like to go skeet shooting, I like to own a M1 Garand because I like to use it for hunting, I like to own the majority of the rifles I own because most have historical roots. With a firearm I have a piece of history that I am interested in.

Also, OTB, I am trying my best to keep it under control, I just ignore people who act like that.

[Ghetto Goose]

i think everyone will agree with me:

SW0NED!

[Gargantua]

Happy suitcase man! I REALLY enjoyed all your what if's, and theories

so here is another one..

In a world where guns are welcome(As the should be), would it not be reasonable to assume that more people would own them? IE the Big Shot lawyer sleeping with Joe Blue collar's wife? In which case, if Joe decided to attack Big shot, Big shot could stop him... or... perhaps Joe might be dettered from killing him, because he KNOWS Big Shot owns a gun too?

Not only that... but with more Law Abiding citizens carry guns, more and more petty crimes would be prevented. It would be reasonable to assume that Bank robberies would be less likely, as with other crimes.

The simple fact is criminals would be more restricted with the crimes they could commit.

And in a worst case scenario a government becoming a dictatorship (IE NAZI GERMANY "the first nation to pass gun control Laws") Guns give people the option to resist, if their lives truthfully hang in the balance, under Tyranny and Opression.

You should agree... unless of course... your a power grabbing Nazi?
are you?

[Ghetto Goose]

...please see preivious post for a demonstration in ultimate sw0nage

[Jimmyjay86]

Hammer tried to recover the ball but fumbled

You never said the criminals got their firearms from the firearm manufacturers, you did however say "If criminals are mostly getting their weapons illegally, then what is the source of those guns? I am thinking it is from breaking into people's homes while they are not there and stealing their guns.".

Blarg, god bless his soul did the footwork for me here in his previous post. I assume he got it from a credible source...

Percent of State inmates
possessing a firearm
Source of gun 1997 1991
Total 100.0 % 100.0 %
Purchased from --- 13.9 20.8 (totals)
Retail store 8.3 14.7
Pawnshop 3.8 4.2
Flea market 1.0 1.3
Gun show 0.7 0.6
Friends or family 39.6 33.8
Street/illegal source 39.2 40.8
In 1997 among State inmates possessing a
gun, fewer than 2% bought their firearm at
a flea market or gun show, about 12% from a
retail store or pawnshop, and 80% from family,
friends, a street buy, or an illegal source.

So it appears that there is a possibility of 80% of criminal's weapons may be stolen. I simply deduced from this data that the majority of guns on the black market were not purchased legally and were for the most part stolen from people who had legally purchased them.

[Jimmyjay86]

It's the only way to get my post count up

[Ghetto Goose]

nice double post there JJ.

[HappySuitcase Man]

Here's a shocker, No it wouldn't! they would need the firearm, police already find out who the murder is by finger prints, serial numbers, and other things on the firearm.

Since learning is accomplished by asking questions, let me respond with one -- Why are you against firearm registration?

You keep playing on the worst case scenario, if we ran out lives by the worst case scenario we would not drive since we might crash, we would not swim since me might drown, we would stay in our houses because a monkey might escape from the zoo and pummel us to death.

*Deep Breath*

Are you arguing that making someone wait five days, in the hopes that some angry people would cool down, isn't helping to save any lives? If so, care to explain?

If no, yet you still think that a five - day waiting period is wrong, would you be willing to say that your inconvenience is greater than any lives that would be lost, which would otherwise have been kept had the five - day waiting period remained enforced? If so, why?

But say what would we do if the government becomes more corrupt? how do the people fight back for their freedoms? I am not saying it will happen, but since you keep using the what if scenario, I figure I'd use one too.

More corrupt? That's something I can't imagine, unless they start rigging votes for Representatives outright, instead of relying on propaganda to do it for them. They wouldn't have to rig presidential elections, since by the time you get up to the executive level, it's all run by policy - makers and corporations. And if you're going to say that the government might create a secret police, I'll reply by saying, "Then the government might create a Central Intelligence Agency."

Yerp! Back from my rant, and back into your question. What if we have to fight for our rights? I'm assuming you mean a full - blooded revolution. Then you go motherfuckin' Vietcong style! Time to either make your own weapons or buy some off the Black Market, which should be willing to become more available and willing to drive the prices down (according to the capitalism theory I assume you lovingly support, based on your signature and all). Some folks who previously sold those weapons might even give them away, as stranger things have happened during revolutions.

Of course, the revolution is doomed from the start, because if you have assault weapons, the government has tanks. If the government can fund death squads in foriegn countries to keep the population in line (read: massacre) during any kind of democratic revolution unfavorable to U.S. interests (i.e. - ALL OF THEM), then what makes you think they can't do this at home? But this sounds like the doomed theory, "If you can't win, don't even try," doesn't it?

Okay then! If you're able to answer those two questions to my satisfaction, I'll do all of your dirty laundry for two years. Until then, I remain unconvinced.

[Jimmyjay86]

I can see that OTB is going to have to give some lessons in proper use of logic as the arguments start getting weaker and weaker:D My vote for the funniest is Gargantua's post! Can it be called reasoning if it lacks reason?

Good Night and watch your back.....

[Kaine]

I have no problems with gun ownership - I own a handgun and think I have that right. Concealed carry should not be included as a right. I don't own a gun for protection as a primary reason, I just like to target practice ocassionally. There are very few situations where you would be able to protect yourself with a concealed gun anyway. Think about it. If someone comes up to you unsuspectingly with a gun and tries to rob you are you going to whip out your glock and take the punk down?

Police officers have the right to carry all of the time and there are some that abuse that right offduty. Just think what it would be like if any bozo in a bar could be a carrying. Can you say shooting arcade?

And then there are people who are a little off-balance who as long as they have no criminal record can go and spend all of their money on enough guns and ammo to supply a small banana republic!

Here is what I think the law should allow: You can buy all of the guns you want to keep Winchester, H&K or whoever in business. Bullets for handguns on the other hand can only be purchased by civilians in and for use in shooting ranges. Lets's just let the government regulate bullets because guns don't kill, bullets do...

Ok, don't bitch if this has already been answered...i needed to get my words in.

First, as for the situations to protect myself with a gun, if some ass comes to your car and raps on the window with a knife or gun asking for money, you say "Sure", reach under the seat, pull out the glock and shoot the sonofabitch. Nobody is gonna infringe on my right to live.

Second, for concealed carry in bars: It is ALREADY illegal. I have a concealed carry permit and you cannot bring a weapon into a place that serves alcohol.

As for people buying weapons LEGALLY and supplying weapons to a small banana republic, if they dont do it legally, they can just buy them in other countries...why waste the time legally?

And as for the ban on ammunition, that would be the most ridiculas thing i have ever heard. I can make ammo FROM SCRATCH with household items and some molds, including bullets, primers, and cases if need be. A ban on that would be like trying to ban sandwiches but none of the ingredients to make them.

[HappySuitcase Man]

Happy suitcase man! I REALLY enjoyed all your what if's, and theories

so here is another one..

In a world where guns are welcome(As the should be), would it not be reasonable to assume that more people would own them? IE the Big Shot lawyer sleeping with Joe Blue collar's wife? In which case, if Joe decided to attack Big shot, Big shot could stop him... or... perhaps Joe might be dettered from killing him, because he KNOWS Big Shot owns a gun too?

Not only that... but with more Law Abiding citizens carry guns, more and more petty crimes would be prevented. It would be reasonable to assume that Bank robberies would be less likely, as with other crimes.

The simple fact is criminals would be more restricted with the crimes they could commit.

Dear GOD!

Everyone having a gun would reduce crime? Wouldn't that reduce humanity to pre - civilization standards, i.e. "survival of the fittest?"

Moreover, how would laws be enforced? No, really. I want to know. How would laws be enforced if the police have no advantage over the general population? Really. Tell me.

And in a worst case scenario a government becoming a dictatorship (IE NAZI GERMANY "the first nation to pass gun control Laws") Guns give people the option to resist, if their lives truthfully hang in the balance, under Tyranny and Opression.

You should agree... unless of course... your a power grabbing Nazi?
are you?

I'm against the usage of the eye roll smiley, but you are so tempting me. Using the same old cliches again, are we? "If someone wants to pass a law I don't agree with, their obviously Nazis!" Maybe you're being sarcastic, I don't know. My sarcasm detector was removed a long time ago.

To overthrow an existing government, you have to have popular support. You know that people willfully supported Hitler, right? How do think he came into power? Do you think he just slipped in as leader?

[Kaine]

Times change bud, we don't have to protect ourselves from the local injun war party. That's one of the reasons we spend so much damn money in taxes to support a peace time army of overpaid guberment employees to protect us from the precious-fluid stealing commies and nasty towel-headed terroorists banging on our back door, thank you. If you are so interested in protecting me from the tyrannical government, why aren't you in Washington D.of C. right now with your guns a-blazing at George W's backside so help you god!

Nazi Germany had one of the most successful gun control programs of all time...Look how that turned out for the people... Mousillini was the same, as well as Khadafi...

Gun Control: Allowing Criminals To Kill Innocents With Even Greater Ease!

(i know i'm late on the post...if someone has already mentioned this sorry)