PDA

View Full Version : Firearms



Bob Phillips
01-05-2007, 05:05 AM
I was reading the posts in this new thread, and came across Zacks. In the things he said he enjoyed, he mentioned firearms.

I want to say clearly and unequivocally that I abhor firearms, and people who enjoy them, love them, whatever they justify it with scare me. IMO there is no justification for unlimited access to firearms in a civilised society (nor capital punishment, but that's another argument).

I know all the arguments for guns, self-defence (must be better to shoot someone that to let them steal your DVD player mustn't it!), it is the people who kill not the guns, etc. etc. A gun owning society has a different ethos than a non-gun society, and so ipso facto the people change and are more likely to use them.

In the West Wing series 2, the Third State of the Union Address episode, Toby is taking part in a TV debate analysis, and there is some Republican arguing that the White House uses the First Amendment to allow all sorts of perversions yet wants to introduce gun control. Toby makes that point that the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and AUstralia is roughly equivalent to that of the United States but in the previous year there were 112 gun deaths in those conutries, 32,000 in the US.

So, are Americans more homicidally inclined, or does gun ownership change social norms, or even rip the social fabric?

lucas
01-05-2007, 06:47 AM
So, are Americans more homicidally inclined, or does gun ownership change social norms, or even rip the social fabric?

Sad statistics but cannot be ignored. Yes Bob we Americans as a lot want to kick some ass. See our history for the last 6 years. There does seem to be a small wind of change blowing here but the issue is not behind us.

Ken Puls
01-05-2007, 10:25 AM
While we don't see the same gun incidents per capita as the US, we still have too many. My understanding is tha being in such close proximity to our southern neighbours, we send them our marijuana, they send us guns and harder drugs in payment.

Over the last few years Canada has made an attempt at a gun registry which has so far been a waste of billions of taxpayers dollars. The thought was good... list where the guns are so that the police know if they're going into a firefight. The logic sucks though. Criminals do not register guns. Instead, we know have a bunch of people made criminals because they didn't want to fill out HUGE volumes of paperwork.

I really struggle with guns. My father is a hobby farmer and uses his rifles to shoot the coyotes that come after his sheep. I dont' have an issue with that at all. There is also a bunch of hunting legal in Canada (birds and large game), and I'd rather see that done by gun than bow and arrow. (Less cruel to the victims.)

I agree without any arguement on hand guns though. The only people that need those are law enforcement officials. Period.

Zack Barresse
01-05-2007, 11:39 AM
I won't argue your points Bob, but only interject my opinion(s). Sadly, you are correct, people kill people, not guns. They are used for things they should not be. I will be damned if some jackass who mis-uses a gun will take away my right to keep and bear arms.

Guns are tools and, sometimes, can be used for enjoyment. I find a certain measure of enjoyment "plinking" away at the firing range. I also enjoy a well run routine or add-in through Excel. All bringing me pleasure. I also like to hunt. I am not an activist, although I feel there are certain boundaries when it comes to hunting game.

Are guns necessary? Absolutely. Are they beneficial? For the majority, no. Hands down no. They are so mis-used it's not even funny. People are killed from guns daily and they just don't seem to learn. I teach my children about gun safety, the purposes for a firearm, how to safely handle them, etc.

The only time they should ever be used on another person is if their life is in imminent danger. Stealing somebody's television set does NOT constitute shooting somebody. Shooting somebody in the back is not self-defense (so long as the person is not, say, shooting behind them whilst running). Somebody coming at you with a knife IS a life threatening situation.

Firearms should not be used for show or power (unless that is to control a life threatening situation, i.e. police, SWAT, military, etc). Firearms should be used safely and responsibly.

Bob Phillips
01-05-2007, 12:22 PM
Sadly, you are correct, people kill people, not guns.

I didn't say that, I said that is the argument used. What I said is that having a gun-owning society changes the social norms, it becomes much more 'acceptable' to shoot somebody.


I will be damned if some jackass who mis-uses a gun will take away my right to keep and bear arms.

And therein lies the exact reason why the US will ALWAYS suffer 32,000+ deaths from firearms every year. The anarchist, no-governmnet redneck in the Tennesse mountains uses exactly the same argument, and the next day a Columbine happens.


Guns are tools and, sometimes, can be used for enjoyment. I find a certain measure of enjoyment "plinking" away at the firing range. I also enjoy a well run routine or add-in through Excel.

Guns are weapons not tools, they have one objective, to kill people. No-one is going to use Excel to kill someone, but a gun is a different matter. One of the jobs of a government is to lead the way, not just let its citizens do whatever they wish. In the UK, if there were a referendum tomorrow, the people would vote to bring back capital punishment. Luckily, our government knows, and has known for many years, that it is barbaric it is not a deterrent, and so we don't have capital punishment.


Are guns necessary?
Absolutely not.


Are they beneficial?
Absolutely not.


They are so mis-used it's not even funny. People are killed from guns daily and they just don't seem to learn.
I am not talking about accidents, but guess what, if there were no guns, it would not be possible to have an accident with them. I amtalking about how society is shaped by its rules, or lack thereof.


The only time they should ever be used on another person is if their life is in imminent danger. Somebody coming at you with a knife IS a life threatening situation.

So, they know/think you have a gun, then they get an Uzi. Therein lies madness.


Firearms should not be used for show or power (unless that is to control a life threatening situation, i.e. police, SWAT, military, etc). Firearms should be used safely and responsibly.

I think in your country, the law enforcers have a policy of massive overkill, enough firepower to wipe out a small town, and are far too ready to use it. Sadly, because we seem to pick up on many undesirable American traits, I fear our police are inclining the same way.

Zack Barresse
01-05-2007, 01:06 PM
Okay Bob, I see where we disagree, they are on minute differences of points.



I will be damned if some jackass who mis-uses a gun will take away my right to keep and bear arms.
And therein lies the exact reason why the US will ALWAYS suffer 32,000+ deaths from firearms every year. The anarchist, no-governmnet redneck in the Tennesse mountains uses exactly the same argument, and the next day a Columbine happens.
No, you're so very wrong here Bob. That is not the exact reason any of these things will happen. That has nothing to do with those reasons. The reason so many people die from firearms every year is that people are stupid, have little moral values, care little for the welfare of others, the list goes on and on. Having the right to bear arms alone does not contribute to any deaths. It is how the people use that right where casualties occur. I shouldn't pay for somebody else's mistake. It happens, sure, but education is a lot better than reform.



Guns are tools and, sometimes, can be used for enjoyment. I find a certain measure of enjoyment "plinking" away at the firing range. I also enjoy a well run routine or add-in through Excel.Guns are weapons not tools, they have one objective, to kill people. No-one is going to use Excel to kill someone, but a gun is a different matter. One of the jobs of a government is to lead the way, not just let its citizens do whatever they wish. In the UK, if there were a referendum tomorrow, the people would vote to bring back capital punishment. Luckily, our government knows, and has known for many years, that it is barbaric it is not a deterrent, and so we don't have capital punishment.
I think barbaric is a harsh word Bob. Do you think I'm barbaric? Guns are tools. They can also kill. Some tools kill, some tools fix things, they do a lot of things. Go back to your days as a laddie, some things are tools, some are toys.



Are guns necessary?Absolutely not.
You're absolutely wrong. Why? Because people suck. There will always be somebody who wants to rob the weak, take from the rich/poor or otherwise do harm to other people. What will one do if they do not know how to defend themselves physically? Get taken advantage of? Would you have crime run rampant and let the criminals do anything they want.

The part about gun control that lawmakers (and others) do not see is that it only keeps the honest people honest. You will always have criminals which won't conform to any laws/policies. If you take away a legal means of self-preservation (which there will always be a need for, look in your history books) then you only give good citizens an illegal means to defend themselves.



Are they beneficial?Absolutely not.
So there is no benefit when it comes to hunting? What about self-defense? What about those that enjoy "plinking"? These are common attributes of people when it comes to firearms. Just because you don't enjoy these things doesn't mean others don't.



They are so mis-used it's not even funny. People are killed from guns daily and they just don't seem to learn.I am not talking about accidents...
Nor am I talking about exclusively accidents. I wasn't even thinking about AD (accidental discharges) with that statement.


... but guess what, if there were no guns, it would not be possible to have an accident with them. I am talking about how society is shaped by its rules, or lack thereof.
Please tell me you're joking. There will always be guns. You know that as well as I do. So there will always be accidents with them as well as incidental casualties. Society can be shaped by rules or lack thereof. I think about the UK with that statement. No guns and now taking away knives. What has happened to your crime rate? Do you think that is coincidence? If I were a mugger and I knew that a law abiding citizen had something I wanted, I would be able to take what I wanted through threat of physical harm and know they weren't armed for self-defense. Same thing with Australia, crime rates have risen.


So, they know/think you have a gun, then they get an Uzi. Therein lies madness.
That is madness Bob. How do you make that jump? Sure some people may do that. I know that is not my mentality and I am a gun owner. Are you saying you think I will graduate to an Uzi and gun down innocents? I certainly hope not.

People do stupid things and I believe guns should be regulated. Regulated to no guns at all? That is absurd. I will have a means to defend myself and my family if a situation should ever come to that. Home invasions are more prominent now than ever, even in broad daylight. Will I stand idly by while a stranger comes into my home, uninvited, wants his way with my wife or children or myself? No, I do not think so. Will I start strapping on fully automatics while walking the streets? No. It's just not as simple as you want to put it Bob. There are so many other factors that come into play.


Sadly, because we seem to pick up on many undesirable American traits, I fear our police are inclining the same way.
Ouch Bob, slow down there. The US is not everything that is wrong with the world. All countries have problems, which includes both yours and mine. Your police need to be thinking about that. The criminals in your country have a large advantage over the common citizen with the laws you have in place. If the criminals can out-do the police, what do you think will happen then?

Ken Puls
01-05-2007, 01:33 PM
For the record, I do not, have never, and hope to never, own a gun. I do not feel the need. There are less guns here, true, and I feel safer for that. Call me deluded if you like, but I'd rather face attack by knife than gun any day. It's much harder to kill with a knife than a gun.

One of the fundamental differences between our countries, Zack is the right vs the priviledge to own a gun. Guns have one purpose: to kill. Human or animal, their only purpose is to kill. Why anyone should have the right to own a device with that intent, I will never know.

Sorry bud, you'll never convince me of that argument.

tpoynton
01-05-2007, 01:51 PM
Not to make light of an interesting and thought provoking thread, but...


No-one is going to use Excel to kill someone

Some students would disagree...

Zack Barresse
01-05-2007, 01:59 PM
Yes, right and privilege are very different. Privilege is given by another, generally a government of sorts, set forth by laws and policies. While I, or others, may or may not have the privilege, I believe we should all have the right, if we should so choose. In my belief, everybody has the right to choose, but we are all ruled by the same guidelines to use our tools safely and with good moral standards, as bad things may happen if we do not.


Why anyone should have the right to own a device with that intent, I will never know.
For the same reasons I stated above. Self-defense, hunting, pleasure, etc. If somebody tries to take my life, I feel I have the right to defend myself.

I firmly believe in the saying, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Firearms give people a method to do such things, it takes people to pull the trigger(s) and their judgment (good or bad). Taking guns away does not make the world a safer place, it never will. You can apply this to almost any aspect of life. Anything that is mis-used can more or less be construed as a bad thing. Does that mean the "thing" (whatever it might be) is bad and should be taken away? I think you'd be attacking it at the wrong end if you did that.

And, also for the record, I am not trying to influence anyone's view one way or the other. I still have much respect for all here. I do reserve the right to agree to disagree though. :devil2:

Bob Phillips
01-05-2007, 02:05 PM
No, you're so very wrong here Bob. That is not the exact reason any of these things will happen. That has nothing to do with those reasons. The reason so many people die from firearms every year is that people are stupid, have little moral values, care little for the welfare of others, the list goes on and on. Having the right to bear arms alone does not contribute to any deaths. It is how the people use that right where casualties occur. I shouldn't pay for somebody else's mistake. It happens, sure, but education is a lot better than reform.
No you are so very wrong. A gun-owning society has different norm to a non-gun owning society.

Let me pose you a question. Why do the countries I mentioned have 112 gun deaths, and ths US has 32,000+? I am looking forward to hearing your explanation for that.


I think barbaric is a harsh word Bob. Do you think I'm barbaric? Guns are tools. They can also kill. Some tools kill, some tools fix things, they do a lot of things. Go back to your days as a laddie, some things are tools, some are toys.
I said that capital punishment was barbaric. But if you want, use one of those guns you own (just how many guns do you own Zack, it only takes one?) and yes I will call you barbaric.

A gun as a toy is only used to re-inforce those societal norms.


You're absolutely wrong. Why? Because people suck. There will always be somebody who wants to rob the weak, take from the rich/poor or otherwise do harm to other people. What will one do if they do not know how to defend themselves physically? Get taken advantage of? Would you have crime run rampant and let the criminals do anything they want.
We know people have base instincts, but hey, that is why we have society, a society with rules. It is to keep those base instinct under control, not to give rein to hicks!


The part about gun control that lawmakers (and others) do not see is that it only keeps the honest people honest. You will always have criminals which won't conform to any laws/policies. If you take away a legal means of self-preservation (which there will always be a need for, look in your history books) then you only give good citizens an illegal means to defend themselves.
112. 32,000+!


So there is no benefit when it comes to hunting? What about self-defense? What about those that enjoy "plinking"? These are common attributes of people when it comes to firearms. Just because you don't enjoy these things doesn't mean others don't.
Paedophiles enjoy abusing children. Should we allow that?


Please tell me you're joking. There will always be guns. You know that as well as I do. So there will always be accidents with them as well as incidental casualties. Society can be shaped by rules or lack thereof. I think about the UK with that statement. No guns and now taking away knives. What has happened to your crime rate? Do you think that is coincidence? If I were a mugger and I knew that a law abiding citizen had something I wanted, I would be able to take what I wanted through threat of physical harm and know they weren't armed for self-defense. Same thing with Australia, crime rates have risen.
112. 32,000+!

As I keep saying, but you keep ignoring, society is shaped by the rules.


That is madness Bob. How do you make that jump? Sure some people may do that. I know that is not my mentality and I am a gun owner. Are you saying you think I will graduate to an Uzi and gun down innocents? I certainly hope not.
What guns do you own Zack? What did you own 5 years ago, 10 years ago? Are you 'stepping up'?


I People do stupid things and I believe guns should be regulated. Regulated to no guns at all? That is absurd. I will have a means to defend myself and my family if a situation should ever come to that. Home invasions are more prominent now than ever, even in broad daylight. Will I stand idly by while a stranger comes into my home, uninvited, wants his way with my wife or children or myself? No, I do not think so. Will I start strapping on fully automatics while walking the streets? No. It's just not as simple as you want to put it Bob. There are so many other factors that come into play.
Why is it absurd? It is basically what we have over here. It doesn't mean no guns unfortunately, but it does mean that we have a society norm whereby guns are not acceptable, not even for the police. 112. 32,000+!


Ouch Bob, slow down there. The US is not everything that is wrong with the world. All countries have problems, which includes both yours and mine. Your police need to be thinking about that. The criminals in your country have a large advantage over the common citizen with the laws you have in place. If the criminals can out-do the police, what do you think will happen then?

I am sorry if my statements came across in that way. I am not a US hater, I love the place. Without the US we in Europe would not have the democracy we have today, we would be democratic, but we would be a lot less open. And I know that the vast majority of Americans are good, decent people. But there are many things wrong with your country (as with mine), Christian fundamentalism, rampant capitalism, insularity, capital punishment, and your gun culture to name but a few. WE do not need to import the bad. I saw an article recently when Hugo Chavez came to New York and criticised Bush. Some half-baked politician argued that regardless of what he was doing, no foreigner would be tolerated criticising the US PRESIDENT. Sorry, he (any US President) is not God, this one is a dangerous radical, and even if he weren't, democracy means being able to criticise regardless.

And the criminal always has an advantage, the police have to chase to keep up. But climbing on the escalator is no way to keep on the ground floor.

All your arguments could be used for saying that all countries should have the bomb (another facetious argument by your government and mine IMO)!

Ken Puls
01-05-2007, 02:34 PM
Why is it absurd? It is basically what we have over here. It doesn't mean no guns unfortunately, but it does mean that we have a society norm whereby guns are not acceptable, not even for the police.

I remember my Mother, who is English, btw, saying that one British Bobby could stop more crime with a simple "what's going on here then?" than 30 of our law enforcement agents with guns. (Sorry for the British comment, Bob. She's not of Wessex. ;) )

Ken Puls
01-05-2007, 02:35 PM
Not to make light of an interesting and thought provoking thread, but... Some students would disagree... (that you can't kill someone with Excel)

ROFL!

Zack Barresse
01-05-2007, 03:02 PM
A gun-owning society has different norm to a non-gun owning society.
Sure, I'm not arguing that. Of course they are different.


Let me pose you a question. Why do the countries I mentioned have 112 gun deaths, and ths US has 32,000+? I am looking forward to hearing your explanation for that.
I cannot argue that statistic Bob. The only West Wing series I know of is a television drama. I do not know the actual statistics. I do believe the US is much higher in that statistic in reality though. What do I contribute this to? People are stupid. Having a fraction of the population of the US (somewhere around 60M vs 300M) we (the US) are going to have much more of a bad populous than you (the UK) ever will.

I think the laws in and around this country give the ability for people to brew stupidity, I'll not argue that. There are a very many things wrong with this country.


I said that capital punishment was barbaric. But if you want, use one of those guns you own (just how many guns do you own Zack, it only takes one?) and yes I will call you barbaric.
I own a few guns. Different guns for different purposes. I have a shotgun for duck/goose hunting, which I very much enjoy. I have an archery bow for target practicing (I do not hunt with that, although I would contemplate it) and a hand gun for home defense and to take out target shooting.

Shooting, or "plinking", has been a sport for many, many years. Archery as well. They are even Olympic sports. I think that says a lot about the subject. They can be used for fun, to unite nations, to preserve life, to repel wildlife, even to stand up as a people when a government is over-stepping their boundaries (as has been shown in both of our countries histories).


A gun as a toy is only used to re-inforce those societal norms.
There is no gun that is a toy. It can be used for enjoyment, sure; they are dangerous no matter what though. Societal "norms" I do not think are a part of what I am talking about. This subject may add to different societal norms, some may be good, some may be bad.

There is one quote I would like to mention. Just as food for thought...


This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!
That was said by Adolph Hitler in 1935. There is a lot to learn by, not only this, but past events in history. An armed populous is a safe populous. Yes, it will also lead some paths to destruction and abused by others.


We know people have base instincts, but hey, that is why we have society, a society with rules. It is to keep those base instinct under control, not to give rein to hicks!
Hicks? I think you've got it all wrong there Bob. Hicks are not people with pitchforks and guns. I know a lot of hicks which do not own guns. I grew up as a hick, most of my family are hicks, and most of my family does not own guns. Just because somebody has a gun does not make them a hick.


Paedophiles enjoy abusing children. Should we allow that?
Totally different situation Bob, you cannot even compare the two. It's like comparing apples to oranges, they are not the same basic units of measurement.


As I keep saying, but you keep ignoring, society is shaped by the rules.
Society can be shaped by the rules. They can be shaped by a lot of things.


What guns do you own Zack? What did you own 5 years ago, 10 years ago? Are you 'stepping up'?
I mentioned that above. I owned my shotgun five years ago, was about to purchase my bow. Ten years ago I was too young (legally and mentally) to own any weapons.


Why is it absurd? It is basically what we have over here. It doesn't mean no guns unfortunately, but it does mean that we have a society norm whereby guns are not acceptable, not even for the police.
I refer to the quote I made above.


WE do not need to import the bad. I saw an article recently when Hugo Chavez came to New York and criticised Bush. Some half-baked politician argued that regardless of what he was doing, no foreigner would be tolerated criticising the US PRESIDENT. Sorry, he (any US President) is not God, this one is a dangerous radical, and even if he weren't, democracy means being able to criticise regardless.
See, it is people like that who give the US a bad name. Anybody in the world can state their opinion - and rightfully so - especially about the US President, who is more prominent than most. Foreigner or not, they should be allowed their opinion, I don't care who they are or who they may be criticizing. This particular jacka$$ has his head up his butt.


And the criminal always has an advantage, the police have to chase to keep up. But climbing on the escalator is no way to keep on the ground floor.
There is no such thing as a ground floor. We are always climbing. As a comparative, look at our technology.


All your arguments could be used for saying that all countries should have the bomb (another facetious argument by your government and mine IMO)!
No Bob, that is very different and is again comparing apples to oranges. A very large fundamental difference exists between the two.

Brandtrock
01-05-2007, 05:08 PM
Interesting dialogue here. I have fired firearms before, but never owned any. I would be uncomfortable living in a society where only "the authorities" were allowed to own them though. I have never had the desire to own a firearm, and when I did get the chance to shoot the ones (rifles and handguns) at a freind's farm in Minnesota, the frankly scared the hell out of me.

What an enormous amount of responsibility is required to have that kind of power in one's possession.

The biggest problem I see with gun control has been voiced in this thread before: outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns.

I googled "gun death statistics' just for kicks. The thing with statistics is that they are easily manipulated to suit the desired result.

The gun lobby points out that, while gun deaths do occur, rarely do opponents bring out the point that many lives are saved through defensive gun use. High gun death rates are cited by those who would like to see guns controlled while conveniently ignoring the fact that violent death rates as a whole seem to go unchanged when gun control is practiced. Suicidal individuals with no access to guns will find an alternate way to do the deed.

Any given technology is neither good nor evil in and of itself. The intentions of the individuals or groups using that technology determines that.

Remember that the next time Excel prompts you to enable macros.

Just my :2p:

TrippyTom
01-05-2007, 06:12 PM
One can compare apples and oranges, and with enough forethought, find a link somehow! This book proves it.
http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/006073132X

Desert Piranha
01-06-2007, 08:11 PM
Guns are weapons not tools, they have one objective, to kill people.The statment above is just to weird. Just my opinion. I have owned and used weapons (guns) for the last 57 years. I carry one daily. No not for people, but for Coyotes and Rattle snakes, hunting and target practice. Competition shooting is a sport also.


Drugs would be a more important thing to get all upset about.

Brandtrock
01-06-2007, 10:16 PM
Guns are weapons not tools, they have one objective, to kill people.
Perhaps it is a minor point, but guns don't have objectives. Individuals have objectives.

Guns have a function. The sole function of a gun is to deliver the load of munitions in a controlled and directable manner.

If an individual utilizes a gun's functionality to achieve an objective, the gun is in no way responsible for the moraltiy or ethics of that objective.

:2p: more I guess.

XLGibbs
01-06-2007, 10:35 PM
Wow fun thread!

All I have to say, is guns shouldn't be illegal, but they shouldn't be common property either. Bullets however, should cost 50 Grand each.

Otherwise, I agree with what everyone else says. :hide:

Bob Phillips
01-07-2007, 05:50 AM
Sure, I'm not arguing that. Of course they are different.
Of course they are, and my argument is that it is different for the worse.


I cannot argue that statistic Bob. The only West Wing series I know of is a television drama. I do not know the actual statistics. I do believe the US is much higher in that statistic in reality though. What do I contribute this to? People are stupid.

It is that TV series I am quoting, but the numbers are correct.

Again though, you are not listening. I can only see two possible explanations for why the numbers are (so much) higher in the US; namely that the citizens of the US are more homicidally inclined than citizens of my country; or that a society where guns are allowed distorts that society, creating an inevitability that they will get used more frequently. Now I do not believe the former, so that only leaves the latter in my view. As yet, you have singulalrly failed to even attempt to argue that point. You just keep saying there are stupid people. There are stupid people over here too, but because guns are not prevalent, most of them don't get the chance to use/abuse them.

There is a hot news topic over here at this moment about vicious dogs. There is a certain type of person who own these dogs, it makes them feel big, and helps to over-compensate for their low self-esteem (IMO). Too often, these dogs are used to try and compensate for these individual's deficencies. I believe these are exactly these are the type of people who would carry guns if we had a society like yours, and INEVITABLY a number of them would use them, and the escalation starts, and we would be where you are now.


Having a fraction of the population of the US (somewhere around 60M vs 300M) we (the US) are going to have much more of a bad populous than you (the UK) ever will.

I think the laws in and around this country give the ability for people to brew stupidity, I'll not argue that. There are a very many things wrong with this country.
Again, you are not listening. You are doing a Harlan on me, arguing something other than what I said to assist your point.

I re-iterate, the population of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and AUstralia is roughly equivalent to that of the United States but we had 112 gun deaths in total in those countries, you had 32,000+ in the US.

I have yet to hear any argument, let alone a convincing one, as to why for a similar sized population sample you have 250 times as many gun deaths (Lord only knows what they multiplier for gun injuries is).


Shooting, or "plinking", has been a sport for many, many years. Archery as well. They are even Olympic sports. I think that says a lot about the subject. They can be used for fun, to unite nations, to preserve life, to repel wildlife, even to stand up as a people when a government is over-stepping their boundaries (as has been shown in both of our countries histories).

So is synchronised swimming, but that isn't sport either, but at least synchronised swimming doesn't also kill people.

I am not arguing that, in the words of your own constituion, we should not have 'regulated militia' that are armed, none of us want to be subject to miltary takeover, but I fail to see anay conection between that and allowing the general populace to own firearms. As I have quoted many times regarding the many countries, gun control works, and as yet neither you nor anyone else has given an argument as to why it doesn't.


There is no gun that is a toy. It can be used for enjoyment, sure; they are dangerous no matter what though. Societal "norms" I do not think are a part of what I am talking about. This subject may add to different societal norms, some may be good, some may be bad.
I was answering your point about having toy guns (as children), but I think you knew that.


There is one quote I would like to mention. Just as food for thought...


this year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!' That was said by Adolph Hitler in 1935. There is a lot to learn by, not only this, but past events in history. An armed populous is a safe populous. Yes, it will also lead some paths to destruction and abused by others.

I don't think that just by quoting Hitler proves anything, however obnoxious Hitler was. What was the context? Was it in the light of uncontrolled gun access, in which case it is undoubtedly safer. But we don't have full gun registration, we have GUN CONTROL, which means you can't legally own guns except in very strict circumstances. Safer yet.


Hicks? I think you've got it all wrong there Bob. Hicks are not people with pitchforks and guns. I know a lot of hicks which do not own guns. I grew up as a hick, most of my family are hicks, and most of my family does not own guns. Just because somebody has a gun does not make them a hick.

I am referring to hicks with a gun. Maybe your definition of hicks differs from mine, but the thought of ill-educated, none too smart, disenfranchised people all owning guns scares the be-jeebers out of me. Even the thought of you owning one scares me, never mind the less well-balanced.


Totally different situation Bob, you cannot even compare the two. It's like comparing apples to oranges, they are not the same basic units of measurement.
I deliberately picked a provocative subject to see how you would respond. Again, you read the headlines, not the content.

The point is that just because people want to do something, that does not mean the government should allow them to do it. Some things they definitely should not allow individuals to do, paedophilia is one, owning guns is another IMO.


I refer to the quote I made above.
But stiil no not offer a counter argument!.


See, it is people like that who give the US a bad name. Anybody in the world can state their opinion - and rightfully so - especially about the US President, who is more prominent than most. Foreigner or not, they should be allowed their opinion, I don't care who they are or who they may be criticizing. This particular jacka$$ has his head up his butt.
Yeah, but I bet he is funded by the NRA, and is a passionate advocate of unlimited gun access.


There is no such thing as a ground floor. We are always climbing. As a comparative, look at our technology.
I was using that as an analogy, which you are twisting, as that seems simpler than actually making a counter argument.


No Bob, that is very different and is again comparing apples to oranges. A very large fundamental difference exists between the two.
No they are not Zack. You seem to be saying to me that you should be allowed to own guns so that you can defend yourself. By that same argument, Iran should be allowed nuclear weapons because (at the least) Israel has them, and there is a high probability IMO that Israel will use them against Iran one day. So, take the argument forward, Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

On a lighter note, of course you can argue apples and oranges. All reasoning is done on the basis of axioms, so by the axiom of apples and oranges are fruit, you can argue apples and oranges. You can even use axioms that are not self-evident in order to take reasoning to new levels (but we are way off-topic here).

XLGibbs
01-07-2007, 07:43 AM
America is a unique country. There are big problems with how the founding fathers as it were have crafted the consitution and how it continues to be misinterpreted, especially with the second amendment.

Too many times those in our country who argue against legislation which appears to inhibit the freedoms laid out in the Bill of Rights, simply on the basis that the framers of the constitution intended it that way (in this case, that we should <snip...have the right to bear arms..>). The problem with arguments like that is context. Things were quite different back then. Perhaps everyone should have muskets, as this was the framer's intent?
At the time the Bill of Rights were crafted, the country was still technically at war trying to gain our independence. It was a hostile time, and in many many ways much less civilized (sic) than we are pre-supposed to be now.

Just as they make changes to other elements of the constitution, this is something that should probably change. Different gun laws don't work, the numbers don't lie. I agree with Bob here, the mass availability of guns is part of the problem. People who think that the Right to own was is the Need to own one are the same thing are part of the problem.

Society, and how our country embraces freedom is also part of the problem. Too many times, we take the freedom to <fill in blank> to the extreme.

It is our society that has created the problem over the last 200 years. Our country has created a quarter million professional victims--and it is getting worse. So in typical fashion, our country would respond that it is not our fault that 32K homicides deaths vs 112 in similar sample population elsewhere. Arguing of course that the freedom to own the gun didn't cause the death, an individual did. But didn't society create that individual by giving him the gun?

It is people that pull the trigger, but it is the freedom to own a gun in the first place that creates situations where a gun becomes an option.

I would like to chime in more, but my daughter needs to explain to me the inner works of the Dora / Boots dychotomy regarding how to get to Big Mountain.

Bob Phillips
01-07-2007, 09:23 AM
America is a unique country. There are big problems with how the founding fathers as it were have crafted the consitution and how it continues to be misinterpreted, especially with the second amendment.

Too many times those in our country who argue against legislation which appears to inhibit the freedoms laid out in the Bill of Rights, simply on the basis that the framers of the constitution intended it that way (in this case, that we should <snip...have the right to bear arms..>). The problem with arguments like that is context. Things were quite different back then. Perhaps everyone should have muskets, as this was the framer's intent?
At the time the Bill of Rights were crafted, the country was still technically at war trying to gain our independence. It was a hostile time, and in many many ways much less civilized (sic) than we are pre-supposed to be now.

Just as they make changes to other elements of the constitution, this is something that should probably change. Different gun laws don't work, the numbers don't lie. I agree with Bob here, the mass availability of guns is part of the problem. People who think that the Right to own was is the Need to own one are the same thing are part of the problem.

Society, and how our country embraces freedom is also part of the problem. Too many times, we take the freedom to <fill in blank> to the extreme.
I think that is an extremely valid point point, that the context in which the law was drafted is different to the context today, and laws should be reviewed in the light of the current context (one I wish I had artculated).

The almost evangelical fervour raised whenever it is suggested changing your constitution seems, to an outsider, to be both the strength and A weakness of your democracy. It is the strength, because the constitution cannot be changed without a thorough debate, and needs to very properly justified. It is a weakness because it allows lobby groups to override the wishes of the majority (e.g. stem cell research), and/or stops the government enacting changes that changing times would properly demand (e.g. gun control).

Herein of course lies the dilemma, the Catch-22. How do you square that circle? I have no idea, I just know that for a civilised country like the US of A to have such free access to guns is wrong, just plain wrong.

There is an interesting Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)item on the 2nd Amendment for those who care to look.

BTW, how does your governement get away with the freedom curtailing laws they are introducing now? I know how ours does it, we don't have a written constitutiom to measure their actions against.


It is our society that has created the problem over the last 200 years. Our country has created a quarter million professional victims--and it is getting worse. So in typical fashion, our country would respond that it is not our fault that 32K homicides deaths vs 112 in similar sample population elsewhere. Arguing of course that the freedom to own the gun didn't cause the death, an individual did. But didn't society create that individual by giving him the gun?

It is people that pull the trigger, but it is the freedom to own a gun in the first place that creates situations where a gun becomes an option.
Exactly the point I was making when I said that gun-owning chnges the society.

The thing that worries me most of all is the number of reasonably intelligent people from your country that I hear defending the right to own guns. If they make that argument, the NRA has an easy job.


I would like to chime in more, but my daughter needs to explain to me the inner works of the Dora / Boots dychotomy regarding how to get to Big Mountain.

All of that went straight over me.

XLGibbs
01-07-2007, 09:55 AM
I think that is an extremely valid point point, that the context in which the law was drafted is different to the context today, and laws should be reviewed in the light of the current context (one I wish I had artculated).

That is the problem, many of our laws are antiquated--at best--based on context.



The almost evangelical fervour raised whenever it is suggested changing your constitution seems, to an outsider, to be both the strength and A weakness of your democracy. It is the strength, because the constitution cannot be changed without a thorough debate, and needs to very properly justified. It is a weakness because it allows lobby groups to override the wishes of the majority (e.g. stem cell research), and/or stops the government enacting changes that changing times would properly demand (e.g. gun control).


It is a tremendous weakness of a supposed democracy. It is not by the people as intended at all. It is by the people and industries with the most money and influence over those who craft the laws. Many lawmakers, I sense, would like to change, but the financial support to their political careers and other interests conflict with that...making the whole cycle of the nature of our politics narcissistic and self serving to those in office. Common sense and practicality are strangled by political motivation, ambition and greed.

Guns won't be controlled, because the gun lobby and the politicians they support stand too much to lose personally in the matter.




Herein of course lies the dilemma, the Catch-22. How do you square that circle? I have no idea, I just know that for a civilised country like the US of A to have such free access to guns is wrong, just plain wrong.



I agree. It should not be a fundamental right that is exposed as a need. I equate this to the right to free speech as the media uses it. Just because we have the right to know doesn't make it the need to know. Just like the right to have guns, shouldn't perservere as an argument to need guns.




BTW, how does your governement get away with the freedom curtailing laws they are introducing now? I know how ours does it, we don't have a written constitutiom to measure their actions against.


That is a question many here ask as well. Some in government feel that the laws only apply to those they feel it should apply to. Themselves excluded.



Exactly the point I was making when I said that gun-owning chnges the society.

The thing that worries me most of all is the number of reasonably intelligent people from your country that I hear defending the right to own guns. If they make that argument, the NRA has an easy job.


I long for the day when NRA stands for Not-Relevant-Anymore




All of that went straight over me.

Dora is a cartoon character, very popular, and Boots is her monkey friend. Their storylines often involve solving riddles to get to a destination, usually someplace like "Big Mountain".

It was just my way of saying my daughter wanted me to watch Dora with her.

Bob Phillips
01-07-2007, 10:13 AM
It was just my way of saying my daughter wanted me to watch Dora with her.

You are lucky to have a daughter of that age. My two are both grown up now, and I miss things like that. Cherish it, it doesn't last nearly long enough!

XLGibbs
01-07-2007, 03:18 PM
You are lucky to have a daughter of that age. My two are both grown up now, and I miss things like that. Cherish it, it doesn't last nearly long enough!

Nope. 4.76 years now. Gone in a blink. Way to fast.

mdmackillop
01-08-2007, 03:04 AM
I've been a target rifle shooter for nearly 40 years now and a nicer, saner bunch of folk, it's hard to imagine. Occassionally a prosopective member turns up in his camoflage/army type gear but it's soon made clear that this is not our image, and the "cowboys" never hang around long. I guess it's not exciting enough for them. Our oldest regular shooting member is 90 years of age

From my point of view, the rifle is a piece of sports equipment used as a test of skill, which at the ultimate is putting all your shots through a 15" bull of a 10' x 6' target from a distance of a thousand yards. On a windy day, being blown completely off the target is not uncommon. While we can't win much cash, we certainly have big prizes!

http://www.westatholl.org.uk/

matthewspatrick
01-08-2007, 07:27 AM
Guns are weapons not tools

Logical problem with this statement: there is not an absolute distinction between "weapons" and "tools". Common household tools such as hammers, screwdrivers, and tire-irons are and can be used to facilitate acts of violence. Indeed, a "weapon" might be properly thought of as a subset of "tools".



I re-iterate, the population of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and AUstralia is roughly equivalent to that of the United States but we had 112 gun deaths in total in those countries, you had 32,000+ in the US.

I have yet to hear any argument, let alone a convincing one, as to why for a similar sized population sample you have 250 times as many gun deaths (Lord only knows what they multiplier for gun injuries is).


As for the 32,000 vs. 112 stat... I found several web pages that substantiate the 32,000 number. It fluctuates a bit year to year, but that is the right ballpark. I found nothing (in an admittedly short search) to substantiate the 112 number. If anyone can offer more credible sources than a television drama series, that would be helpful.

However, in that 32,000 number, slightly more than half were actually suicides, and then a large chuk of what was left were a result of accidental discharge. The number of deaths resulting from Person A intending to shoot at Person B, while tragically large, does not come close to approaching 32,000.



I am not arguing that, in the words of your own constituion, we should not have 'regulated militia' that are armed, none of us want to be subject to miltary takeover, but I fail to see anay conection between that and allowing the general populace to own firearms. As I have quoted many times regarding the many countries, gun control works, and as yet neither you nor anyone else has given an argument as to why it doesn't.


This statement shows a misunderstanding of American history. Please do not take offense--most US citizens would not do any better. When the 2nd Amendment mentions a "well regulated militia", the term did not refer to a "National Guard" or similar military force. The term at that time basically described all able-bodied adult men who have had at least rudimentary training in operating a firearm.

The writings of many of the "Founding Fathers" indicates that they fully intended the 2nd Amendment to confer the right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms. Indeed, they saw having private citizens being able to defend themselves as one of the guarantors of liberty and the last defense against a tyrannical, overreaching government. (Recall that the framers of the Constitution tended to fear a strong central government. Recall that the wording of the Bill of Rights, Amendments 1-10, tends to say more about what the federal government cannot do than what it can do.)



But we don't have full gun registration, we have GUN CONTROL, which means you can't legally own guns except in very strict circumstances. Safer yet.


That sort of gun control is very effective at keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, but how effective is it at keeping the criminals unarmed?



I am referring to hicks with a gun. Maybe your definition of hicks differs from mine, but the thought of ill-educated, none too smart, disenfranchised people all owning guns scares the be-jeebers out of me. Even the thought of you owning one scares me, never mind the less well-balanced.


Without going into hicks/not hicks... I do not love guns. I do not like them. I have no desire to own one, and having small children, I would never knowingly allow one in my home. That said, I will not say that other private citizens should not be able to own a gun. I made my choice, but I want to be very careful before I start wishing to enforce my choice upon others.

Yes, there should be limits:

People with criminal convictions should never own a gun
People should be required to undergo a rigorous gun-safety class before being allowed to own a gun
I am not happy about concealed weapons! If you want to be armed, you should advertise yourself as such. (Indeed, if the weapon is concealed, doesn't that destroy the supposed deterrent value?)
I am all for background checks, and it would not bother me a whit if that background check took a couple of weeks. (Take that gun safety class while you wait!) If that makes sales at gun shows near to impossible, I am not the least bit troubled


I deliberately picked a provocative subject to see how you would respond. Again, you read the headlines, not the content.

The point is that just because people want to do something, that does not mean the government should allow them to do it. Some things they definitely should not allow individuals to do, paedophilia is one, owning guns is another IMO.


In our society, there is a very strong presumption that if people want to do something they should be allowed to, unless the government can present a very compelling reason why they should not. There is no reasonable person who thinks pedophilia should be allowed. There are plenty of (IMHO) reasonable people who think firearms should be allowed with some reasonable restrictions.



Yeah, but I bet [President Bush] is funded by the NRA, and is a passionate advocate of unlimited gun access.

Bush received campaign contributions from the NRA and its members, Bob, but it is absolutely not true that he has ever argued for unlimited gun access. Unlimited access means just that. It means things like "convicted criminals should be allowed to buy" and "there should be no background checks whatsoever." Bush is on record as an advocate of enforcing existing federal gun laws (which include such restrictions as limiting the ability of people with criminal convictions to get guns, and also mandating background checks).

That said, Bush is also for relaxing some limits (for example, he is a fan of "instant" background checks, which to me is just patently ridiculous).

So, let's be honest and accurate, especially when it comes to making statements about what we think other people believe.



[Zack] seem[s] to be saying to me that you should be allowed to own guns so that you can defend yourself. By that same argument, Iran should be allowed nuclear weapons because (at the least) Israel has them, and there is a high probability IMO that Israel will use them against Iran one day. So, take the argument forward, Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.


Yes, there is a certain logic to Iran being allowed to have nukes, but then again it is a very flawed analogy: the rights and privileges accorded to a private citizen in a democracy are not the same as those accorded a sovereign nation. In any event, I see a close to zero percent chance that Israel would ever make an offensive nuclear strike against Iran: it is unclear that Israel would be able to strike enough targets to be effective, and the moment it tried to do so Israel would find itself embroiled in a fight for its very survival and almost certainly abandoned by all its allies. Nukes are not for using, they are for having (i.e., their value comes from being a deterrent), and I think the Israeli government fully understands that.

But to address Zack's point, there are very bad people in the world and in our societies. People who mean to do us harm. I do not choose to arm myself, but I am not willing to say that everyone else should have to adopt my choice.

matthewspatrick
01-08-2007, 07:31 AM
BTW, I meant to include this, but forgot:

I believe, fervently, that gun makers can do a lot more to guns safer and mitigate the chance of accidental discharge, and that if they will not do it voluntarily, I would be open to seeing some governmental coercion to make it happen.

Sir Babydum GBE
01-08-2007, 09:11 AM
...the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and AUstralia is roughly equivalent to that of the United States but in the previous year there were 112 gun deaths in those conutries, 32,000 in the US.


So, are Americans more homicidally inclined, or does gun ownership change social norms, or even rip the social fabric?

Bob, though your observations may still hold up after this, there does seem to be a problem with this quote.

As guns are more readily available in the USA, it is no surprise that gun related murders are greater there than they would be in a country where it's not so easy to obtain guns. But the question of whether Americans are more homicidally inclined or not will depend on a comparison of all murder statistics - as opposed to just gun related murders.

Also, even if it should hold true that murders in America are greater in number than the combined numbers of murders in Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia. This would not necessarily mean that the availability of guns was of itself the cause of the trend.

I'm not suggesting that I agree with firearms. But having said that, as has been noted already in this thread, it is possible for statistics to be used to give credibility to an argument where, in fact, gross over-simplification has occurred.

I'm not suggesting that you're twisting the figures - but I wonder if you've considered this aspect of things.

CBrine
01-08-2007, 09:39 AM
Some interesting information in a Star Article here in Toronto. We have some pretty strict gun control laws in Canada.



Broken down further, the crime gun statistics indicate many criminals are arming themselves with starter's pistols, air pistols, replicas, toy guns, paintball guns, cap guns and flare guns. In fact, more than a quarter of the recovered guns are not normally considered lethal weapons.

More than half of the total number of firearms seized by Toronto police last year were considered "non-criminal," coming into their possession through a variety of means, such as a family member turning in an antique rifle after its owner dies or through a gun amnesty.


So it sounds to me like only about 25% of the guns recovered were actually considered Illegal Lethal weapons.

I think we are on about our 5th or 6th gun related crime here in TO for this year. At least 2 murders.

Another point


The statistics also show that Toronto police are only seizing a small number of the estimated 5,000 firearms reported missing each year across Canada. The task force recorded just 40 stolen firearms recovered as of Dec. 18.


Which seems to support xld's claim. Those responsible gun owners are having thier legimate weapons stolen from them, and then used for crime.

Ken Puls
01-08-2007, 10:33 AM
Those responsible gun owners are having thier legimate weapons stolen from them, and then used for crime.

To futher extropolate... where most citizens are able to purchase guns under less agressive gun control laws than we have, there are more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. More guns in their hands leads to more thefts (the guns are available during our typical B&E, where they currently aren't as we don't have them.) More guns stolen in theft now mean more guns in the hands of already proven criminals, who are also more apt to use them.

No facts to base any of that up, of course, but it seems logical to me that if the pool is bigger, the opportunity is bigger.

As an aside, Pete, I spent some time on the Dora/Boots/Big Mountain thing this weekend as well. :)

matthewspatrick
01-08-2007, 10:46 AM
As an aside, Pete, I spent some time on the Dora/Boots/Big Mountain thing this weekend as well. :)

Fortunately for me, my girls have moved past Dora. Much to my chagrin, they have fixed their attention now on Winx Club.

johnske
01-08-2007, 03:09 PM
Anyone that's ever worked on the land in a country such as Australia, where predatory animals are a problem will tell you that guns are most definitely a tool.

Anyone that's ever served in the armed forces will also tell you that guns are a tool - in this case they're usually used as a visible threat to enforce peace on a group of ppl that have gone berserk and are running around killing others. But even a threat such as this would fail if they were never used, so sometimes the military are forced into using their guns to protect the lives of others or themselves. Do you think it would be better that the military went back to the 'old ways' of clubs, axes, spears, swords etc? Now THAT is really barbaric - standing face to face to club, stab, or hack a man to death, and all while close enough to observe their fear, pain, and anguish.

The point is that if someone wants to kill someone, guns are not at all necessary, almost anything can be used - including carpet-knives and 'planes - no guns were used there...

An interesting observation I would make is this:
When I was a teen, almost every house in Australia had a firearm - usually a small-calibre weapon such as a .22, this was usually a bolt-action or semi-automatic (self-loading) device. - The possession of fully-automatic weapons, hand-guns, and larger caliber military type weapons being strictly curtailed by law. We used to read in horror and amazement about ppl in the US that were able to freely purchase the types of weapons forbidden to us and wonder why on earth anyone would want to own an assault rifle or machine-gun - these have absolutely no place in the hands of law-abiding civilians.

In those days, Australia was a peaceful society, burglary was almost unheard of, home invasions were certainly completely unknown (many thieves considered the risk of being shot too great a price to pay for following their chosen profession - and even .22s can kill).

Today we're much more enlightened, guns have now been been outlawed, which effectively means only the outlaws have them, and the laws really only increase their blackmarket value - very few law-abiding citizens now own them. As a consequence, the outlaws in our society are now almost the only ones armed and have a free hand to do as they like - burglaries and home invasions are becoming fairly common place (and yes (sadly) even drive-by shootings) and try as they might, police are unable to cope with this situation. Over-all violence has dramatically increased in Australia since guns were taken out of the equation.

Guns really aren't the problem, the problem is the mentality of the criminal (or deranged) mind that sees violence of any sort as being their way of getting what they want and are oblivious of the many advantages that come from co-operation and peaceful co-existence.

This (http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/FailedExperiment.pdf) might make an interesting read for some, it's a study of the consequences of the introduction of prohibitive gun laws in Australia, Canada, and the UK - it's titled 'The Failed Experiment'.

Bob Phillips
01-08-2007, 03:24 PM
However, in that 32,000 number, slightly more than half were actually suicides, and then a large chuk of what was left were a result of accidental discharge. The number of deaths resulting from Person A intending to shoot at Person B, while tragically large, does not come close to approaching 32,000.
I am not arguing that guns creates more intentional shootings (although I belive that it does), but that it creates more deaths period. A suicide, or an accidental discharge is as much a waste of a life as being shot by somebody holding up the local liquor store.


This statement shows a misunderstanding of American history. Please do not take offense--most US citizens would not do any better. When the 2nd Amendment mentions a "well regulated militia", the term did not refer to a "National Guard" or similar military force. The term at that time basically described all able-bodied adult men who have had at least rudimentary training in operating a firearm.
Absolutely no offense taken, the argument is more important. I accept it was a very different militia, but it was still REGULATED. Nobody could call gun ownership in modern day USA regulated in any form whatsoever.

[/quote=matthewspatrick]The writings of many of the "Founding Fathers" indicates that they fully intended the 2nd Amendment to confer the right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms. Indeed, they saw having private citizens being able to defend themselves as one of the guarantors of liberty and the last defense against a tyrannical, overreaching government. (Recall that the framers of the Constitution tended to fear a strong central government. Recall that the wording of the Bill of Rights, Amendments 1-10, tends to say more about what the federal government cannot do than what it can do.)[/quote]

I think that is highly debatble. Just look at that Wiki article I posted earlier, it has been debated enormously, upto and including you Supreme Court.


That sort of gun control is very effective at keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, but how effective is it at keeping the criminals unarmed?
Streets more effective than in your country.


In our society, there is a very strong presumption that if people want to do something they should be allowed to, unless the government can present a very compelling reason why they should not. There is no reasonable person who thinks pedophilia should be allowed. There are plenty of (IMHO) reasonable people who think firearms should be allowed with some reasonable restrictions.
I accept that point, but let's not get bogged down with my comparative. Just because that strong presumption exists, and just because reasonable people like yourself will argue for it, it does not make it right, or even civilised IMO.



Bush received campaign contributions from the NRA and its members, Bob, but it is absolutely not true that he has ever argued for unlimited gun access. Unlimited access means just that. It means things like "convicted criminals should be allowed to buy" and "there should be no background checks whatsoever." Bush is on record as an advocate of enforcing existing federal gun laws (which include such restrictions as limiting the ability of people with criminal convictions to get guns, and also mandating background checks).

That said, Bush is also for relaxing some limits (for example, he is a fan of "instant" background checks, which to me is just patently ridiculous).

So, let's be honest and accurate, especially when it comes to making statements about what we think other people believe.

Four things here:
- I wasn't referrring to Bush, but that guy who lambasted Hugo Chavez (for criticising Bush). I suggested (but do not know) that jingoists like him were in the pay of the NRA, the point I was making (and XLGibbs made better) was that such law-making is in the purview of large organisations that run the funding of politicians
- Bush's wanting to relax limits (because it works so well doesn't it) is not the action of someone who believes in gun controls
- demonstrate to me, with references, that he has never always argued against anyone who advocated unlimited gun control, and vetoed it if necessary
- do you honestly believe that in the USA the law that excludes criminals from buying guns has any effect whatsoever?


Yes, there is a certain logic to Iran being allowed to have nukes, but then again it is a very flawed analogy: the rights and privileges accorded to a private citizen in a democracy are not the same as those accorded a sovereign nation. In any event, I see a close to zero percent chance that Israel would ever make an offensive nuclear strike against Iran: it is unclear that Israel would be able to strike enough targets to be effective, and the moment it tried to do so Israel would find itself embroiled in a fight for its very survival and almost certainly abandoned by all its allies. Nukes are not for using, they are for having (i.e., their value comes from being a deterrent), and I think the Israeli government fully understands that.
I am sorry, but I find that argument laughable in it's lack of rigour and naievety. If nuclear weapons are for having not for using, their value is nil. Israel believes (and I do) that in the event of a strike against her the USA would support her all the way.

As for '... the rights and privileges accorded to a private citizen in a democracy are not the same as those accorded a sovereign nation ..', that is totally immaterial, we are talking about governments, and global interests. If you believe that the USA would not deploy exactly the same sort of measures that Iran would to protect what they see as their interests, I think you are deluding yourself. In that case, why are you in Iraq, but not in Somalia; why do you support a totalitarian Saudi Arabia, and so many more.

Bob Phillips
01-08-2007, 03:39 PM
As guns are more readily available in the USA, it is no surprise that gun related murders are greater there than they would be in a country where it's not so easy to obtain guns. But the question of whether Americans are more homicidally inclined or not will depend on a comparison of all murder statistics - as opposed to just gun related murders.

I think that was exactly the point I made earlier. The vast differential in firearms deaths could only be attributed to one of two things in my opinion, citizens of the US are more homicidally inclined, or the incidence of guns disproportionately increases the chances that they will be used. My beliefe is the latter, and I have yet to hear an argument for a possible further cause, or an argument as to why they have 32,000+ against our significantly smaller number. All I have heard is statements picking holes in minor details, statemensts that I am wrong with nothing to back it up. Until I hear a reasoned argument, this thread is dead AFAIAC.


Also, even if it should hold true that murders in America are greater in number than the combined numbers of murders in Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia. This would not necessarily mean that the availability of guns was of itself the cause of the trend.

SO your alternative arguments is ...?[/quote]

Zack Barresse
01-08-2007, 06:00 PM
Again though, you are not listening.
But I am Bob. :)


You are doing a Harlan on me, arguing something other than what I said to assist your point.
Should I be flattered? ;) While I'm not trying to argue something other than to what the point(s) are, I have been trying to hit all areas here and not leave anything out. Obviously one can [hardly] never do that and many,
many good points have been made by others posting to this thread. I agree with almost all of them. What I fail to put into words, they have done rather well. Pete and Patrick are two particularly more well versed and adept at communicating it than I.

I believe everyone has the right to bear arms. I also believe that many have lost that right (whether or not they actually/legally did so) if they have committed violent crimes, not taken safety classes and not proven that they have a profound respect for firearms and the responsibility which goes with them. Are guns far too available? I believe they are. But I do not believe gun control is the method. As far as curtailing abuse, I think the punishments should be much more severe.

[QUOTE=xld]I re-iterate, the population of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and AUstralia is roughly equivalent to that of the United States but we had 112 gun deaths in total in those countries, you had 32,000+ in the US.
There is no way that all of those countries have only had 112 deaths involving firearms in a years time. Sorry, I do not believe that. Something more than a television series (which I do not think is even that good) will be needed to back that up.


I am not arguing that, in the words of your own constitution, we should not have 'regulated militia' that are armed..
You must have misread our second amendment of our constitution. It says (and I know you linked it, maybe you just mis-typed), "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


..none of us want to be subject to military takeover, but I fail to see any connection between that and allowing the general populace to own firearms.
Johnske has posted a very good paper to which I am referring, and many others have pointed to. I'm not sure how you fail to see it Bob. Just read the information. There are plenty of figures and information to back it up. And the information is not from a dramatic television show with no real data to back up with it is saying.


As I have quoted many times regarding the many countries, gun control works, and as yet neither you nor anyone else has given an argument as to why it doesn't.
I still don't follow Bob. The information shown and that I have read says the exact opposite. If you have any other data to support your opinion, let it be known. I applaud your effort, but there is, as of yet, no real data to support it. What exactly have you quoted showing that gun control works? Anything besides the TV show? If so I have missed it, as you keep referring back to your 112vs30k figures. Why should anybody give an argument to facts predicated on a fictional television series? (A dramatic one at that.)


I don't think that just by quoting Hitler proves anything, however obnoxious Hitler was.
And prove nothing it does. It only goes to motive where one extreme can get you. How many times has that happened in the world? There was only one like it, and it probably will not happen again. But the history is there, a living history, a testament many people will tell as the worst times of their lives, which many have not had the chance - or ever will get the chance - to tell.

The idea behind the history is (and this is only one philosophical viewpoint) you can have one person/entity take control and regulate everything, but beware what happens when one person/entity contains too much control and others cannot even defend themselves. I'm sure there are many topics which can be spawned off the passage I quoted, and I'm definitely not here to get into a historical debate regarding the Third Reich. I do, however, think the idea and historical aspects are relevant to the topic at hand. It doesn't matter the context, that was not the intention of quoting that passage, for reasons stated above.


I am referring to hicks with a gun. Maybe your definition of hicks differs from mine, but the thought of ill-educated, none too smart, disenfranchised people all owning guns scares the be-jeebers out of me.
Yes, I am a hick with a gun. And yes, my definition of hick differs from yours. That is probably because I know that the term "hick" does not represent a state of mind. A "hick with a gun" is not scary to me, nor is it threatening, nor is it a pleasant though. It just is. What matters is who that person is as an individual and how s/he safely handles said firearm(s) and any intentions thereof. You should come visit sometime. Out in the Pacific Northwest of the USA it is a different life. We're almost all hicks here (minus the cities), some scary, some not. :)


Even the thought of you owning one scares me, never mind the less well-balanced.
I certainly don't hope to incite fear in my friends!! (Only those who would try to hurt my family.) I certainly do not wish to hurt anybody. I enjoy target practicing and general "plinking". I also enjoy archery with my bow. My bow can be used as an instrument of death, most certainly what it was designed for, but I do not use mine for such purposes. I do not carry a weapon on myself, nor have a concealed weapons permit. (Those I believe should be heavily regulated, more than they are now.) I have a weapon in my home, safely tucked away from where the children can reach and stored in a manner (I believe, to my skill level) safe to those occupied in my house. Yes, they will be used if I ever have a home invasion (if I can).

Will I hunt somebody down? Of course not! I will call the police! A firearm should only be used in the very, very last case scenario. I would hope that my family and friends would have faith in me enough to learn about something thoroughly enough to be safe and proficient with it before actually using it.


The point is that just because people want to do something, that does not mean the government should allow them to do it. Some things they definitely should not allow individuals to do, pedophilia is one, owning guns is another IMO.
I agree that some things should be regulated. Guns should be regulated - to a point. Just like a drives license. Should they be regulated? Of course! While being regulated, do you know how many people die behind the wheel each year? It is a far cry more than those who die from firearms, accidental, suicidal, homicidal, all combined. Does this mean we should not let anybody drive? Take away all of their cars?

In its own context, it is a lot like what you are saying. Cars are tools. They were not designed to kill in mind (the largest difference of similarities) yet they do every year, and a lot of deaths too. Cars kill more than firearms, planes, suicides, etc, all combined. So would regulating drivers licenses increase the security on the road? To an extent, sure, but only to an extent. License regulation will not stop people from dying on the road. It would not only have a negative effect, but it would be extremely costly to maintain, hard to manage and (IMHO) ineffective. The answer would not be regulating the license, but regulating the person behind it. This is much related to gun control.


I was using that as an analogy, which you are twisting, as that seems simpler than actually making a counter argument.
I am certainly not trying to twist anything here Bob, you can count on that. What I was referring to was an analogy myself, which you have also done and should be of no consequence in the course of a civilized debate. Have you not noticed the rate of ascencion which we, as a civilization, have achieved with our technology? Look at the last 50 years. 100 years. 200 years. 500 years. It is amazing! We have come leaps and bounds. Technology is now advancing at an astounding rate. The comparative, was to us as a civilization. As with technology, we have evolved in our way(s) of life all across the globe. That is what we humans do, we evolve. Explore, divide, evolve.


No they are not Zack. You seem to be saying to me that you should be allowed to own guns so that you can defend yourself. By that same argument, Iran should be allowed nuclear weapons because (at the least) Israel has them, and there is a high probability IMO that Israel will use them against Iran one day. So, take the argument forward, Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
That is not what I am saying at all. They are two different things, yet there are some similarities, I'll agree that much. Nuclear weapons are in a different class [of weapons]. They have been used (regrettably) by my country in the past; the only good coming from it being the possibility of more lives being lost, which no one will never know. Nuclear weapons should not be had by anybody. Would I get a gun because my adversary did? Of course not, that is absurd. I would only arm myself to as much means as I would feel safely needed to protect myself and the one's I love. This of course, I have done. Will I get an automatic rifle? No, I don't think so.


A suicide, or an accidental discharge is as much a waste of a life as being shot by somebody holding up the local liquor store.
If somebody wants to commit suicide, it is not a waste of a life. If they want to take their own life they will. They may say they want to, but it is only a cry for help. Do it right or shut the hell up. That's what I say. Harsh, maybe.


Streets more effective than in your country.
This confuses me Bob. Would you mind elaborating on your comment to Patrick's statement?


On a lighter note, of course you can argue apples and oranges.
No you can't. :nya:

matthewspatrick
01-08-2007, 08:10 PM
Bob,

Before getting into my response, I want to say that while I find myself disagreeing with much of your rhetoric, I am very grateful that we are able to have this debate in a civil manner. That is something that I fear is vanishing from our society, and I thank and applaud you for maintaining your civility.


I am not arguing that guns creates more intentional shootings (although I belive that it does), but that it creates more deaths period. A suicide, or an accidental discharge is as much a waste of a life as being shot by somebody holding up the local liquor store.

It is creating more gun deaths, but it is not at all clear to me that it is creating more deaths overall. Looking at the paper that johnske referred us to, it appears that if anything it is deadlier to be in the UK, Australia, or Canada now, as all three countries are shown as having higher homocide rates and higher violent crime rates than the US (measured as crimes per 100k in population). Perhaps the net result of taking the guns away from law-abiding citizens has made our British, Canadian, and Australian cousins was to make them more vulnerable to the criminal element.


Absolutely no offense taken, the argument is more important. I accept it was a very different militia, but it was still REGULATED. Nobody could call gun ownership in modern day USA regulated in any form whatsoever.

Again, trying to apply 21st century notions to an 18th century document can be dangerous. When the 2nd Amendment refers to a "well regulated militia", the regulated part does not mean that the government is stipulating to a large degree what the private citizen can and cannot have in the way of firearms. Have you seen statutes from the time, Bob? They are absolutely silent as to prohibited firearms or ammunition; indeed, some states required able bodied men who owned property to also own a weapon.


[On Bush and unfettered access to guns...] Four things here:
- I wasn't referrring to Bush, but that guy who lambasted Hugo Chavez (for criticising Bush). I suggested (but do not know) that jingoists like him were in the pay of the NRA, the point I was making (and XLGibbs made better) was that such law-making is in the purview of large organisations that run the funding of politicians
- Bush's wanting to relax limits (because it works so well doesn't it) is not the action of someone who believes in gun controls
- demonstrate to me, with references, that he has never always argued against anyone who advocated unlimited gun control, and vetoed it if necessary
- do you honestly believe that in the USA the law that excludes criminals from buying guns has any effect whatsoever?

Sorry if I misunderstood you, Bob.

Would Bush like to see some of the gun regs relaxed? I know of at least one area where he is on the record for that: he wants to see "instant background checks" in place of the current waiting period. I happen to think that is ludicrous--I take the background check very seriously, an I want it to be thorough. I am also 100% in favor of increasing the hurdle for the first-time gun buyer with such items as mandated, serious gun safety instruction before being allowed to buy. It would not shock me if there are other areas where Bush would like to relax the limits.

And no, I do not believe for a second that US gun laws exclude criminals from getting weapons. What I do believe is that if you make it so that ordinary, law-abiding citizens find it virtually impossible to own guns, then the situation will only get worse, as now the criminals will still have their guns and the ordinary citizen will have no defense.





Yes, there is a certain logic to Iran being allowed to have nukes, but then again it is a very flawed analogy: the rights and privileges accorded to a private citizen in a democracy are not the same as those accorded a sovereign nation. In any event, I see a close to zero percent chance that Israel would ever make an offensive nuclear strike against Iran: it is unclear that Israel would be able to strike enough targets to be effective, and the moment it tried to do so Israel would find itself embroiled in a fight for its very survival and almost certainly abandoned by all its allies. Nukes are not for using, they are for having (i.e., their value comes from being a deterrent), and I think the Israeli government fully understands that.
I am sorry, but I find that argument laughable in it's lack of rigour and naievety. If nuclear weapons are for having not for using, their value is nil. Israel believes (and I do) that in the event of a strike against her the USA would support her all the way.

As for '... the rights and privileges accorded to a private citizen in a democracy are not the same as those accorded a sovereign nation ..', that is totally immaterial, we are talking about governments, and global interests. If you believe that the USA would not deploy exactly the same sort of measures that Iran would to protect what they see as their interests, I think you are deluding yourself. In that case, why are you in Iraq, but not in Somalia; why do you support a totalitarian Saudi Arabia, and so many more.

I did not do a good job of explaining myself in that paragraph.

When I said that I believed Israel would be abandoned by its allies if it made an offensive nuclear strike, what I meant is that if Israel launched a "first strike" nuclear attack. If another nation struck Israel first, I believe as you do that the US government would support her unconditionally if she chose to retaliate.
As for the "having, not for using" comment... What I meant to convey was that nukes are for deterrence and are a doomsday weapon. Nukes are the ultimate ace in the hole, but the trouble is that they have zero value as a tactical weapon: the moment you use them as such, you become the whole world's public enemy #1. The only time it makes sense to use them is in the greatest strategic extremity, where your country faces a substantial risk of annihilation unless you resort to the nukes. That is what I meant, and I am positive that the leadership of Israel understands that. The Israeli leadership might be contemplating a conventional strike against Bushehr, but they realize that a nuclear strike there to try and wipe out the Iranian atomic program would be a strategic disaster for Israel even if it were a tactical success.
Yes, I agree that the US looks out for its own interests first and foremost. That makes us like, well, every other country in human history. And we are not the only country that supports horrendous regimes. The French were too busy making money off of their illegal "oil for food" deals to even want to hear about more sanctions against Iraq. Until recently, many of our European allies were too reluctant to press Iran about much of anything, lest that make things complicated for some of their business dealings. Why does the rest of the world not send their own force into Darfur, rather than just sit back and complain that the US is not doing it?

OK, I got a bit ranty at the end there. Anyway, envigorating debate, Bob. I do not expect to win you over, but I do hope that you can see that people like Zack and I are not raving lunatics just because we think it is OK if people own guns.

And I do have to ask... The US has had in the ballpark of 30k gun fatalities a year lately. The same figure for car-related deaths is 150% of that--about 45k a year, give or take. Why do you not vent your spleen against the carnage on the roads?

matthewspatrick
01-08-2007, 08:52 PM
Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and AUstralia


There is no way that all of those countries have only had 112 deaths involving firearms in a years time. Sorry, I do not believe that. Something more than a television series (which I do not think is even that good) will be needed to back that up.

Zack, you have good reason to doubt.

I have already stipulated to the ~30k figure for the US. That is substantiated by many web sites. Some quickie research...

Australia
http://www.guncontrol.org.au/index.php?article=75
In 2003 they had 290 gun deaths. Several other articles mention that in the mid-1990s a typical figure would be 500-700 or so.

Looking at: http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/forum/docs/sept04lemaire.pdf (slide 9)

France looks to have about 2,400 / year (61MM population; 4 gun deaths per 100k people)

Germany: about 1,200 (82.5 MM people; rate ~1.5/100k)

Japan stands out as having like 2 a year.

From this site the UK is hard to figure out. I have seen rates of 0.5 or so per 100k for England, Wales, and Scotland, but for Northern Ireland the number jumps to 6.6/100k.

Anyway, the point is made: unless Bob can come up with a better reference for the 112 figure, it appears to be so far off the mark as to be farcical. All of which hardly excuses the number of US gun deaths, which is positively tragic.

Bob Phillips
01-09-2007, 04:28 AM
I am only going to answer two points on this one.


OK, I got a bit ranty at the end there. Anyway, envigorating debate, Bob. I do not expect to win you over, but I do hope that you can see that people like Zack and I are not raving lunatics just because we think it is OK if people own guns.

I do not, never have thought that Zack or you are raving lunatics, just because you disagree with me, even if you are wrong :devil2:.

What I worry about, besides the obvious number of deaths (and Zack, a suicide is a wasted life, how can you say what you said, that makes me almost weep) is what happens to people like Zack when they do use that weapon, and they kill someone



And I do have to ask... The US has had in the ballpark of 30k gun fatalities a year lately. The same figure for car-related deaths is 150% of that--about 45k a year, give or take. Why do you not vent your spleen against the carnage on the roads?

I agree to an extent, but driving is controlled. You have to pass a test, you have to have a license, it can be withdrawn just for using that weapon badly, let alone if you kill someone with it.

The problem with driving IMO is that the test is too easy, the laws are not strictly enforced, and again the citizens consider it a right, not a privilege. And I will rant about cars, especially petrol heads, but Zack didn't claim to be one of those in the post that provoked my response, he said he liked firearms.

matthewspatrick
01-09-2007, 06:17 AM
Bob,

Thank you for a lively and civil debate. I cannot speak for you, but I think I have made all the points that I wanted to bring up. We did not convince each other of our points of view, and that's OK.

Zack Barresse
01-09-2007, 11:01 AM
I do not, never have thought that Zack or you are raving lunatics, just because you disagree with me, even if you are wrong :devil2:.
And I really appreciate that Bob. :yes


What I worry about, besides the obvious number of deaths (and Zack, a suicide is a wasted life, how can you say what you said, that makes me almost weep) is what happens to people like Zack when they do use that weapon, and they kill someone
Well, let me define a little more what I think here. I did not explain myself very well here. In the cleanest sense of definitions a suicide is a waste of life, I agree. What I disagree with is that I don't think people should ever resort to suicide. It is tragic, of course, but more than that it makes me angry. Angry that people would resort to such a stupid, stupid decision that is not needed.

That being said, if people are going to do it, they are going to do it and there is nothing anybody can do about it. Those who attempt but are unsuccessful are either too dumb to accomplish the task or do not really want to complete it. This, IMO, is the majority of people. I tend to find that these types of people (and yes I may be stereotyping harshly here) are more or less begging for attention or do not have the mental capacity to know any better.

Surmising to say that if somebody is going to take their own life, what are they wasting? Would they be better off doing well with their life? Yes! Looking at the other extreme, there are people who are alive and are wasting their life as well. Nevertheless, it is sad in any case. I have had friends along the way take their own life, some even with firearms. There are very few times I have ever been so sad in my life. In the literal sense, their life was indeed a waste.

Lastly, let me echo Patrick's comments about the debate. It is indeed nice to be able to civilly have a debate amongst friends, even if we agree to disagree. :) .. and even if you are wrong. :devil2:

Zack Barresse
01-09-2007, 11:02 AM
what happens to people like Zack when they do use that weapon, and they kill someone
I hope to God I never, ever have to use a firearm on another human being. :(

Aussiebear
01-12-2007, 10:52 PM
Having owned and used firearms for a good 40 yrs of my life, I can see points on both sides of the argument. The Australian Federal government as of a couple of years ago further restricted the privilege of owning firearms after the Martin Bryant affair. I personally opposed the method of the restriction on the basis that it affected my privilege of owning and operating a firearm. Responsiple owners lost out because a few have failed to take responsibility of gun ownership.

Then just a few months ago I was travelling down a highway not far west of here, when some louts overtook us, and in the process of doing so, one of them pulled a handgun on us. They thought it was a joke. I on the other hand, rang the police and asked them to pull the vehicle over for an impromptu inspection.

Last I heard, was the handgun was registered but the guy has now lost his right to hold any firearms, so I'm sort of glad for the restrictive laws imposed upon us.

Ted

Brandtrock
01-12-2007, 11:13 PM
...Then just a few months ago I was travelling down a highway not far west of here, when some louts overtook us, and in the process of doing so, one of them pulled a handgun on us. They thought it was a joke. I on the other hand, rang the police and asked them to pull the vehicle over for an impromptu inspection.

Last I heard, was the handgun was registered but the guy has now lost his right to hold any firearms, so I'm sort of glad for the restrictive laws imposed upon us.

Do you think they would have been as brazen if the "law of the land" was that anyone could be carrying a handgun?

Aussiebear
01-13-2007, 06:40 PM
Yes I do. This was just the act of a teenager, who had his brain switched off.

johnske
01-13-2007, 08:04 PM
@ Ted: Ted, the law in Australia with respect to handgund has always been that to apply for a license for one you needed to show a strong overwhelming reason for needing one - e.g. you were a policeman, you worked on an armoured car, had a high-risk job in a bank, etc. Sporting shooters had very strict standards placed on them and having a handgun for the sake of having a handgun was simply not a reason. AFAIK the new laws are no different to the old in this regard so you can't say you're in favour of the new laws because of that incident.

Long-arms - rifles, shotguns had no such restrictions and under the old laws almost anyone that did not have a history of violence used to be able to walk into a gunshop and buy a long-gun. The only licensing required for long-guns was in the categories of: Semi-automatic weapons with a calibre larger than .22" and, any .303 caliber (a military calibre) rifle (you needed to show you were a grazier to purchase one of these) - fully-automatic weapons of any kind were totally banned and could only be purchased or used by the police and military.

A few years prior to the latest gun-laws being introduced I read that quite a number of people were in possession of AK47s, SLRs and other such-like assault weapons, so obviously the police weren't doing their job (and when the gun buy-back scheme was introduced I heard of quite a number of people burying their weapons rather than surrendering them for destruction)... Anyway, ignoring that little aspect - what reason is there to believe that the police will now do their job better? They would have been better off doing their job in the 1st place.

Under those old laws, Martin Bryant, a mentally ill person, was forbidden to have a weapon of any sort, yet the police did virtually nothing to stop him getting a rifle and murdering 35 ppl with it in a killing spree where many others were also wounded. In our PC world, the police also did little to stop the killing, cornering him in a house and negotiating with him (even tho snipers had opportunities to pick him off) while he killed the 2 occupants of the house during the negotiations. This is the incident that caused our PM to make a political decision to - and with no study being done to justify it - introduce the new gun laws which has cost in excess of one billion dollars (and that's still rising).

In our pre-PC world many many lives could have been saved because this person would have simply been shot down like the mad dog that he was, and even at the latest, no negotiations, it would been - a snipers shot, or - storm the house. That's the "old' way of doing things...

@ Ken: You mentioned something earlier about a knife. Obviously you've never been confronted with someone intent on killing you with said weapon - I have, and spent six months on crutches with two+ years of rehabilitation due to the fact that my only recourse to dying right then and there was to jump out a window. Oh yeah - this is after said gun-laws were introduced.

Believe me, I would feel quite confident about disarming someone with a rifle, but there's really nothing scarier than someone coming at you armed with a knife held behind them and out of your reach and intent on killing you. Give me an attacker with a firearm any day...

Aussiebear
01-13-2007, 11:17 PM
@ Ted: Ted, the law in Australia with respect to handgund has always been that to apply for a license for one you needed to show a strong overwhelming reason for needing one - e.g. you were a policeman, you worked on an armoured car, had a high-risk job in a bank, etc. Sporting shooters had very strict standards placed on them and having a handgun for the sake of having a handgun was simply not a reason. AFAIK the new laws are no different to the old in this regard so you can't say you're in favour of the new laws because of that incident.

The new laws now restrict how you carry firearms and in particular handguns. In the old days we used to carry firearms around in the landcruiser and its was accepted ( in the rural areas) that you could drive into town to pick up parts etc and no one really cared. All that has stopped. Thankfully. The carriage of handguns has tighened up considerably more so.


Long-arms - rifles, shotguns had no such restrictions

Really? There was an age restriction where you had to over 17


Semi-automatic weapons with a calibre larger than .22" and, any .303 caliber (a military calibre) rifle (you needed to show you were a grazier to purchase one of these) - fully-automatic weapons of any kind were totally banned and could only be purchased or used by the police and military.

Sporting shooters and members of gun clubs had access to .303 caliber or higher.


A few years prior to the latest gun-laws being introduced I read that quite a number of people were in possession of AK47s, SLRs and other such-like assault weapons, so obviously the police weren't doing their job (and when the gun buy-back scheme was introduced I heard of quite a number of people burying their weapons rather than surrendering them for destruction)... Anyway, ignoring that little aspect - what reason is there to believe that the police will now do their job better? They would have been better off doing their job in the 1st place.

True, there were a phenominal number of semi and assault weapons out there. And yes there are stories of some of these firearms having been buried in PVC piping. I have faith that the police will have a understanding of what is out there.


Under those old laws, Martin Bryant, a mentally ill person, was forbidden to have a weapon of any sort, yet the police did virtually nothing to stop him getting a rifle and murdering 35 ppl with it in a killing spree where many others were also wounded. In our PC world, the police also did little to stop the killing, cornering him in a house and negotiating with him (even tho snipers had opportunities to pick him off) while he killed the 2 occupants of the house during the negotiations. This is the incident that caused our PM to make a political decision to - and with no study being done to justify it - introduce the new gun laws which has cost in excess of one billion dollars (and that's still rising).

In our pre-PC world many many lives could have been saved because this person would have simply been shot down like the mad dog that he was, and even at the latest, no negotiations, it would been - a snipers shot, or - storm the house. That's the "old' way of doing things...

There's a bigger picture out there than just shooting down people who have committed an offense with a firearm. Shooting someone is the easy way out of this situation, but we are becoming a better society slowly but surely, because we are prepared to take these people into custody and then to gain an understanding of what caused this person to commit the crime. Its one thing to fix the symptom but it takes more courage to fix the cause.

Ted

johnske
01-14-2007, 02:30 AM
Of course there were age restrictions, and these varied from state to state (but I didn't mean to bog things down by going thru the entire firearms act re age limits, gun clubs etc here)


There's a bigger picture out there than just shooting down people who have committed an offense with a firearm. Shooting someone is the easy way out of this situation, but we are becoming a better society slowly but surely, because we are prepared to take these people into custody and then to gain an understanding of what caused this person to commit the crime. Its one thing to fix the symptom but it takes more courage to fix the cause.Unfortunately, there's a very big difference between taking someone into custody after they've committed a murder and taking them out during the commission of a murder - that's what I was referring to. The police hemmed and hawed and tried to negotiate even while the killing was still going on!! A much more robust response was needed...

Why did he do it? No-one will ever know that - he said himself he didn't know - he was assessed as having the IQ of an 11yo and the emotional age of a 2yo. When someone asked how he - as a prohibited person - was able to obtain the weapons, his response was "when you've got a million dollars you can get whatever you want". He was also suspected of killing the woman who left him the money in her will, as well as his father (who was found in a dam with Martins (diving) weight-belt wrapped around his neck) and several other ppl prior to his spree.

Perhaps you think "shot down like the mad dog that he was" is too strong, but consider this: he set fire to the house where he'd killed his last victims and then surrendered to police while his clothes were afire from that act.

Now, the police took him to hospital for treatment for his burns - the very same hospital where his victims were being treated (or had been consigned to the morgue) and the doctors and nurses in that hospital were so disgusted and horrified they flat-out refused to treat him - we're talking here about the worlds two most caring and compassionate of professions, every single one refused - from memory, I think the police had to get a court order that compelled that he be treated, yet even then - in direct defiance of a court order - they still all refused and I think his treatment then fell on the head of the director of the hospital, who was eventually forced to treat him personally. I think the actions of those ppl says something in itself...

Brandtrock
01-14-2007, 03:40 AM
Interesting point John,

The WILL of the people is sometimes displayed more poetically by the WON'T of the people.

Regards,

Ken Puls
01-14-2007, 11:35 AM
@ Ken: You mentioned something earlier about a knife. Obviously you've never been confronted with someone intent on killing you with said weapon - I have, and spent six months on crutches with two+ years of rehabilitation due to the fact that my only recourse to dying right then and there was to jump out a window. Oh yeah - this is after said gun-laws were introduced.

Believe me, I would feel quite confident about disarming someone with a rifle, but there's really nothing scarier than someone coming at you armed with a knife held behind them and out of your reach and intent on killing you. Give me an attacker with a firearm any day...

Okay, so let's look at this a bit. The guy with the knife was intent on killing you. I'll give you that. So at that point, any comment on laws is a waste of time. He's past those.

I would suggest, though, that if he had a pistol, you'd be dead. He would not have needed to get close to you, or would have been able to shoot you as you tried to (sensibly) run away.

As terrifying as it might be, I'd still opt for the knife. I'm not trying to diminish your experience at all, but at least you're alive to talk about it.

Brandtrock
01-14-2007, 07:09 PM
He brought a knife. Had you been "packing", he'd have brought a knife to a gun fight. That is generally a losing proposition for the knife wielding thug. Additionally, the guy with the gun might not have to use it as the guy with the knife will realize he's out gunned.

Like Ken, I'm in no way trying to minimize your experience either and am glad you managed to get away.

Zack Barresse
01-15-2007, 07:25 PM
If the person is within 25 feet, I would rather be facing somebody with a firearm. Hands down I agree with John there. Somebody with a knife who knows how to use it (which I understand is apparently rare) is a much bigger threat than somebody with a firearm. I have faced people with both a firearm and a knife. I felt I was in a better situation being opposed by somebody with a firearm and was absolutely fearful for my life opposed with a knife.

I was in church yesterday with my mother (a few town's over) and they were mourning the loss of a boy and his mother, the boy was young twenties. They lost their life to a home invader. The town they lived in was about the size of mine, around 3-4k people. The killer stabbed them to death. He called the police right after the act and surrendered to the police, stating he, "just wanted to know what it felt like to take a life." Quite sick. The victims had a lot of prayers for them and their loved one's. Very sad.

CBrine
01-15-2007, 07:42 PM
My wife and I were held up at gun point once about 15 years ago. It's not a fun experience and I wouldn't encourge anyone to repeat it. Since we were robbed of a deposit from my wife's business, we then spent about 4 hours in the police station being interrogated, since there were no witnesses to said crime. Would it have mattered if the criminal was armed with a knife? When someone is holding a weapon on one of your loved ones, your brain kinda stops. I can just remember focusing on the gun. If I'ed had a gun, I don't believe I would have even realized it, and if I had realized it, I would have most likely ended up getting my wife shot. Thank the Lord the guy took the money and it ended there.
Solution: Get the freaking criminals off the streets and the guns and knives and crimes will follow!! The judical systems in both the US and Canada are so lax, that they allow criminals to commit a crime get back out on good behaviour and step thier criminal activities up to the next level on the next offense, and then treat the victims like the criminals without any rights to restitution.
My 2 cents.

peterwmartin
01-21-2007, 04:01 AM
Just my 2 cents worth. I find it strange that the goverments that restrict the use of guns. Will sell them so easily to other governments so that they can attack and kill thousands of inocent people. Where did Israel get it weapons that killed thousands in Lebanon whilst the world watched on. Made in the good old USA.

mdmackillop
01-21-2007, 05:16 AM
Just my 2 cents worth. I find it strange that the goverments that restrict the use of guns. Will sell them so easily to other governments so that they can attack and kill thousands of inocent people. Where did Israel get it weapons that killed thousands in Lebanon whilst the world watched on. Made in the good old USA.
Unfortunately these deaths are a drop in the ocean compared with the deaths which will result from the deliberate actions of the tobacco companies in addicting third world population to their products.

Ken Puls
01-21-2007, 10:29 AM
Malcolm,

Have you seent the movie "Thank you for smoking"? It's fantastic. Well worth the rent. :)

mdmackillop
01-21-2007, 11:07 AM
I've not Ken. I'll keep a look out for it.

Ken Puls
01-21-2007, 04:07 PM
Here's their Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_You_for_Smoking

GaryB
02-07-2007, 01:19 PM
I took 5 years of Karate just for the purpose of having a way to defend myself if I ever found myself in a hostile situation. Mugging etc.... My wife insisted we buy a hand gun to have in the house and against my better judgment I went along with it. She took it to a range, fired it the one time and it has sat in a drawer for the last 10 years. I hid the bullets, guessing that I would be the most likely target she would take a shot at. HA! It makes me nervous to have it in the house. You really have to think to yourself, would I really use it.

Gary

malik641
02-07-2007, 06:57 PM
Gary,

My mother used to have a refrigerator magnet that said "A woman never shot a man...while he was doing the dishes." I think this could be your preventative way of avoiding a confrontation if your wife ever found the bullets ;)

Ken,

Great suggestion on "Thank you for Smoking"! Excellent movie. After you suggested it, I put it on my netflix as my next movie. My girlfriend equally enoyed it :thumb


Everyone,

Great conversation overall. Lots of interesting points. And as mathewspatrick said, very civilised.

One thing that amuses me was the start of the whole conversation included some statistics that were quoted from a television show. There were no links to prove that data, but still was used repeatedly to make counter arguements. Now that the data is disproved, there hasn't been any more counter arguements. This makes me wonder if Bob was just really playing with us this whole time? :think:

GaryB
02-09-2007, 09:18 AM
Joseph,

I do the dishes, why do you think she wanted the gun!

Gary

s?ren
02-19-2007, 02:52 AM
First, I believe it is necessary to respect life! Not just our own, but our neighbors as well.


Selfdefense!!!
How many times have any of you been threatened by anyone?
Out of these, how many times were weapons involved?
Of these weapons, how many were firearms?

I believe hunting was the way our forefathers supplied their families with food. So weapons have always been in society. And fighting have always been one way of trying to solve a problem (not and never the best way).
And, as mentioned earlier in this thread, the idea of "the right to bear arms" is often misinterpreted or taken out of context. I believe that at the time when this right and privilege was instituted, there was no real lawenforcement that would and could protect each individual. (Did that right apply to other than white people at the time?) How many people really need to defend themselves with firearms or any other weapon for that matter?
Those that really need defending are often the weakest groups in society. So how about letting children who are exposed to abuse, own guns. They really need to defend themselves. (Often against their own family). Yes? No?
When do you have the right to defend yourself? When you get old enough? When the assault is lifethreatening? What is life?
So, is there an excuse to bear arms, in any form? Search your own conscience - be honest, at least to your self)!

GaryB
02-19-2007, 08:33 AM
First of all I live in Stockton, California and it has an extremely high rate of crime ( Gang Related ) . My wife and I both took classes, she stayed long enough to learn the basics and I ended up running the Studio for 2 years.

I have been in a situation once where I had to use what I know and I subdued the person without hurting him. The beauty of the art I studied is you can handle a situation if you have to with or without violence. In this particular instance I was lucky. That was 8 years ago and I have never had to use it since. Knowing what I know makes you a lot more tolerable of what people say and do without letting anger take control. What ever the case, It beats using a gun.


Gary