Gun Control thread

So you like the Constitution so long as it protects your right to own a gun but when it comes to due process its those evil defense lawyers. Maybe you should try to understand the constitution better before so try to critize it. Also a lot of pleas are Nolo contendre, they don't go in as the same as guilty for conviction count purposes.

 

I understand the Constitution just fine, and I also believe in due process, you brought up speedy trials, I mearly pointed out that the reason the courts are swamped is due to long trials. As far as the Constitution is concerned, I like it exactly the way it is. I don't believe it is outdated. I believe that it was written so that despite technological and social advances it still applies. And I am pissed off that there are people out there who are trying to change it.

What I was talking about was plea bargins (where you plead guilty for a lesser charge.

 

If you love guns: Play computer-games until you grow up.

If you're afraid of a wacko: Make it harder for them to get guns.

Most common kind of murder: Family tragedy. Guess how good a gun for self-defence is there?

Dangerous terrorist organization responsible for a lot of deaths in America: NRA

Less dangerous terrorist organization: Al-Quaida

 

Interesting claims Gonk. I assume you can provide some sort of data to back them up?

On the age thing I personally don't consider myself "grownup" but others may disagree. I learned to handle a firearm properly and to shoot before there were too many computers to play games on. Actually my families first computer was a Tandy Color Computer and the games came on cassette tapes. I'll leave you to do the math on that one.

I believe Vlad stated he had a concealed carry permit which places him at a minimum age of 21.

The terrorist comments I assume were intended to be purely inflammatory.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Otto Krupp on 2002-03-08 18:33 ]</font>

 

Thank you Otto.

Gonk, we have done a very good job of making a very good thread without any flaming so far. Sure there is some disagreement, but most of it has been backed with some proof. There has been some friendly (at least I take it that way)opposition between ThreeDogs and myself, actually that is what started this thread. With that said here you go:

Never once did I say that I love guns. I enjoy doing things that involve firearms. If you truly wish to know my age, I joined the Navy when I was eighteen and did 10 years. I have been out for 6 months. I guess that makes me all grown-up. At least I can disagree with someone with a semblance of intelligence.

Once again, I have never stated that I am afraid of a wacko. I just like to be prepared for everything, at the same time hoping they will never happen.

Really, can you give me proof of this? As far as the gun being good for self defense, if my wife comes at me with a knife (the most common weapon used in family killings) I am pretty sure that I defend myself with my gun. Not that she ever would.

The last I checked the NRA didn't bomb any schools or fly any fucking jets into sky-scrapers, did they?

Then maybe you should go to Afganistan and join them you fuck-knuckle.

Next time you feel the need to make a post like that one: If you don't hear a popping sound just previous to it, stop, because your head is still firmly wedged between your butt-cheeks.

 

ummm Vlad Nolo Contendre is a plea bargan

 

Oh, I realize that. I was mainly refering to pleading to a lesser charge. I could be mistaken, but if you plead No Lo you are charged with the crime that you are accused of.

Did that make any sense?

 

ThreeDogs, I just got off the phone with my county's assistant DA. You were right about pleading No Lo. It does happen more than guilty pleas. About 60% in my county. Now, I realize that that is a pretty small basis, but I am confident that it is the same across the country. According to him pleading No Lo usually results in a lighter sentence, but the conviction is the same as if you had plead guilty. That could be why it is so popular. The defendant gets a lighter sentence and the DA gets a heftier conviction. I guess I was splitting the wrong hair with the "guilty plea" thing. It is convictions that I should have been talking about. Either way, I wanted to let you know that you were right.
[EDIT]- BTW, the 60% is for non-traffic related pleas. If you add those the numbers go up to about 80%
_________________
You know what? I'm glad I'm not a laboratory animal. Do you have any idea how many of those little bastards get cancer?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Vlad the Imposter on 2002-03-09 08:54 ]</font>

 

Sorry if I flared up. I don't see anything wrong in thinking firearms are fun and I certainly don't have any love for Al-Quaida. I just don't like the idea of easy access to firearms and I'm a firm believer that the easy access is the cause of a lot more deaths than terrorist attacks (taken over a longer time than last year anyway). Here's some interesting statistics:

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t3140.pdf

Firearms are in vast majority as murder-weapons.

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t3141.pdf

This was a bit of a surprise to me. In my home country the big majority of murders are made by someone close to the victim. That actually don't seem to be the case in the U.S. Most of the cases are instances where access to firearms for self-defence probably just made the situation worse though.

 

Good stats, Gonk. Let me put them into perspective. There were an estimated 284,796,000 people living in the US in 2000 (from http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/nati ... able01.php ).

Of those people approximately 2.5 million of them legally owned firearms. From that we can deduce that only .877% of the population legally owned firearms.

From the statistics that you provided there were 8,259 murders or manslaughters known to police. If we take that number and make the assumption that they were all commited with legal weapons, we could say that only .33% of legal owners killed people with their guns. Now I am going out on a limb here, but I doubt very seriously that all those killings were performed by law-abiding citizens.

Also, according to The National Vital Statistics Report ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/nvsr50_03.pdf ) there were 2,409,000 deaths in the US during 2000. If we use that number along with the firearms murder number we see that only .343% of all deaths in 2000 were killings with firearms. Less than a half a percent!

What is killing everybody else? Second-hand smoke if you believe Milo. Seriously though, the anti-gun industry (I use industry for lack of a better word) is a multi-millon dollar one (this includes lobbying money, advertisement money, etc.). Don't you think that maybe we should concentrate some of that money on something that might actually make a difference, like cancer or AIDS research? On the flip side, the pro-gun industry is also multi-million. They could also channel money in that direction instead of lobbying and advertisement as well.

The bottom line is, it may ease someone's peace of mind if all guns are outlawed. It will personally disturb mine and a lot of others' too I suppose. I believe that it should be harder for criminals to get guns. Making it harder on people that actually obey the laws isn't how that is going to get done. I hope one day we can find a solution to this problem, but right now there isn't one.

[EDIT]- I also apologize for my inflammatory remarks in my earlier post to you, Gonk

_________________
You know what? I'm glad I'm not a laboratory animal. Do you have any idea how many of those little bastards get cancer?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Vlad the Imposter on 2002-03-09 13:59 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Vlad the Imposter on 2002-03-09 14:00 ]</font>

 

No offense Vlad. The remark on plopping sounds was actually quite funny. Reminds me of some less tasteful comedies, but anyway:

Most people in a wealthy country lives a long life and dies at a high age by natural causes like heart-disease or cancer. However among those who die young homicide is a common cause, see:

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html

As you say though, this table also makes clear that finding better treatments for cancer is far more important than propagating for or against weapons. And, OH DEAR!, fasten your seatbelt, don't drink and drive and hold the speed limit. There's about 40 000 deaths in traffic every year.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gonk on 2002-03-09 15:51 ]</font>

 

So are you saying General Motors and the other automobile manufacturers are terrorist organizations? What about the makers of alcohol? Are they terrorists?

 

Nah, that remark was a stupid flare-up. Terrorists kills and maims intentionally. The Tobacco-industry for instance kills and maims indirectly through ignorance and greed. NRA is probably just ignorant. In traffic it's usually normal people who are ignorant and cause a lot of unecessery deaths through ignoring seat-belts, drinking and driving or driving too fast. The car-industry is of course responsible for making safe cars and teach people the dangers of traffic.

 

So anyone or group that doesn't share your personal beliefs, morals, viewpoints etc. is ignorant then?

Heres an interesting research project for you Gonk. Why don't find out how long firearms capable of semi-automatic and full automatic fire have been around. Next at what point did governments start removing them public hands. And last try to find some statistics relating to their use in crime and homicides. Also see what you can find relating specifically to youth violence.

I think you'll find that these types of firearms have been around since end of the 19th century. But the rash of mass shooting has only occurred in the last 4 decades. Possibly starting with the "Texas Tower sniper" or at least thats the first one to get a lot of publicity.

 

Ok, I already posted this link but anyway:

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html

Click "submit request". Study. Learn. I found something interesting here: The number of fire-arms homicide peaked around 18.000 a year in the early ninties and have since then dropped quite steadely to about 10.000 in 1999. Does anyone have a good idea of the reason for that?

Another interesting link on this page is:
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/ypll10.html

I think ALL firearms should be regulated, not just automatic or semi-automatic.







<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gonk on 2002-03-09 17:01 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gonk on 2002-03-09 17:40 ]</font>

 

I think I can answer your questions. I believe the reasons are two-fold. One increased knowledge on the part of responsible gun owners. Knowledge is power my friend and I hate to tell you this but the NRA is driving the bus on that one. They are the leader in providing gun safety in this country. Second is the increase in punishments for firearms offenses. I realize that you don't share my belief, Sheriff, but it does make sense. If a would-be mugger is sure that his or her victim is unarmed, and the penalties for firearms offenses are high, they can get the same results, with lower consequenses, with a knive or other weapon. Now all of this is comes in spite of the fact that more guns are being sold than in the late 80's, early 90's. So, there are actually more guns out there but less deaths because of them.

 

I think that was discussed previously. Reasons were drop in the crack cocaine trade and associated wars. Aging gang-banger population. A lot of them are probably dead or in prison. And in general I think everyone finally just got sick of it. And realized just how utterly pointless and stupid it all was.