Gun Control thread

Since it looks like this issue is taking on a life of it's own, I will start a new thread for it.

Could this be because your government has made it virually impossible to own a gun?

I often do target shoot with an air gun, but there are some competitions that I attend that would be impossible with air guns. Bowling Pin shoots for example.

That is one thing that is blown way out of proportion. Most of the guns used in crimes were purchased legally by a "middle man" who then sells them on the black market. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that it was about 5 years ago that your government rounded up the handguns. Has violent crime gone up or down since then?

Actually, most crimials are creatures of opprotunity. If they have to work at getting something, they will most times not attempt it.

That is because the media doesn't care about it. They are too busy portraying guns as evil entities with their own personal blood-lust that they tend to overlook other deadly weapons.

Yes they are lethal weapons. That is the point. Whether you like it or not, the crimials already have guns and they will continue to have guns, even if they are outlawed. That what makes them criminals!! I don't believe that one could adequately defend oneself without a firearm of their own. I personally would not want to confront an armed home-invader with a baseball bat.

I realize that this is an attempt at humor, but it is comments like this that have a negative effect on responsible gun owners. There are many people who believe that because I own a gun that is how I solve all of my arguments. Agree with me or I will shoot you! I am sorry if I do not fit the stereotype.

 

Vlad, as an avid outdoorsman and gun-owner myself, I'm with you. It does make me sick that the media blows the gun thing outta proportion. Just like everything else they get a notion to eradicate.

I have noticed one thing, however. Since September 11th, the gun control freaks have calmed down. Way down. I also read this in a magazine of some sort, don't remember which one.

 

They haven't really slowed down, Retard, they have just shifted. They are less vocal, but just as active. The current push is that "terrorists are coming from all over the world to buy guns in America". Just look at the curent legislation being pushed by McCain and Schumer to close the so-called "gun show loophole".

 

Are you serious?? I hadn't heard that. Man, I tell you what Vlad, I hope it won't happen in mine and your lifetimes, but I fear there is coming a day, sooner rather than later, when guns will be outlawed.

All because of a biased media with journalists who use the mic and camera as a stand for launching personal crusades, public misconceptions, myths, and miscontrued (sp?) information.

Media, misconceptions, myths, and miscontruity. Wow.

"I'm a poet,
and don't know it,
But my feet show it,
'Cause they're Longfellows."

Quote
My dad

 

No. Despite popular misconceptions, guns are not impossible to own here. Our government does insist, however, on license applicants demontrating ta certain degree of responsibility and even asks reasons other than "I need to use bowling pins as targets" or "I want to shoot intruders."

While I understand the appeal of target shooting, I am not familiar enough with it to comment on the relative merits of the different types of targets, so I'll defer to your greater knowledge.

I believe it was 1997/8 that the law changed. I don't have any hadgun statistics. I looked, but could only find stats for general firearms. Maybe it would be worth comparing firearms crimes per capita in the UK to the USA if we want to guage the effects of stricter laws?

I'm not certain that armed robberies can be considered crimes of opportunity. If they're planned, part of the plan would be "Where do we get the guns?"

Actually, there is surprisingly little in the media here about gun ownership. Although violent crime is naturally an issue, we firearms use is not a burning topic all the time.

Beating an intruder with a baseball bat is a crime over here if it was unnecessary use of force. Personally, I'd feel more at risk if I knew my neighbour, who has a reckless teenager in the house, was allowed to keep a gun for self-defense. Particularly if he was a bit unstable himself and didn't like me much.

I have never had cause to defend myself from an intruder. My friend's sister caught two men breaking into her place one night, and they ran off when she dazedly meandered out of her room in her pyjama's. The presence of a gun in such a situation could have only led to less desirable outcomes.

I'm really not sure what I would prefer if I found an intruder in my house - shooting him or letting him make off with a few of my possessions. On the former I have taken a life, on the latter my insurance premium rises a little and I get new stereo.

While you do not fit the humourous stereotype
that I clearly did not intend to be applied, you do meet with my expectations in other areas of the stereotype I would reluctantly call "US gun owner." Sorry if this bothers you - it is not intended to be offensive. After all you are a US gun owner.

 

Sheriff, I am curious as to what your opinion of stereotypical US gun owner is. Honestly.

I am basing my opinions and statements on figures that I see in various publications. Now, I will be the first to admit that they are probably biased to agree with the prederminations of their readers, so I welcome statistics from other sources. I too would like to compare firearms related crimes per capita in the US and UK, Australia, and any other countries represented in this forum as well.

Fortunately, I have never had to do it either, but what would have happened if those two men had been a little more "couragous" and decided to graduate from breaking-and-entering to rape? Whould a gun led to a less desirable outcome then? As I said, I have never had to use a firearm to defend myself, but there are some real sickos out there and I really do not want to be a victim. Odds are that I will go through my life and never run into one, but if I do I will be prepared.

 

/me goes and sits near the warmth of the flames :smile:

 

Aother "rant" topic, yeah :smile:

In Poland the procedure of obtaining a gun is totally screwed. Even people who have been kidnapped, receive constant threats etc. are denied permission. Personally I'd like to have a gun but at the same time I'd like the law to allow me to use it a bit sooner than when I'm absolutely sure my life is in danger (which would be around the time I'm already dyding). Excuse me Mr Criminal Sir, could you shoot me first so that I could attempt to defend myself? That's about what it looks like right now. Of course there is a "dark side" of possesing a gun which is basically a huge responsibility that follows this fact.

_________________


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dragoon on 2002-03-07 09:58 ]</font>

 

retard has to carry a gun. He lives in Georgia. It's a law there, and the squirrels are really mean.
I think if you check the stats, you'll find that homeowners don't fare too well when confronting intruders. Homeowners are often killed with their own weapons. Guns.
And you can't deny the fact that most of the very young children who died by gunshot would still be alive if there had been no gun in the house.
With that said, however, I still don't have a problem with people owning guns.The phrase "When guns are made illegal, only criminals will have guns" is true. Stricter gun laws will not keep people with evil intent from procuring weapons. We need to enforce the laws already on the books.
And with the Orwellian turn the government is taking, I may need a gun in the near future, to protect myself from the guv'mint.
I say get rid of any and all restrictions on gun ownership and cull the herd. I know I'd sleep better knowing that Bob the dim-witted neighbor has a gun. And if he blows his leaves onto my lawn one more time, I'll show him mine! And I NEED a gun, here. True, there hasn't been a burglary in my neighborhood in...well...never...BUT you never know! Better have a gun just in case. Old Mrs. Johnson next door might stumble over here in her nightgown one night, and I'll have to shoot her. She might try to steal my canned goods.
Let's face it, the NRA is simply an extension of the Republican party. They espouse all of the virtues that Pat Buchanan holds dear: Thou shalt not have the right to choose, thou shalt not be gay, thou shalt not respect religions which do not feature Christ as their central figure, etc. The NRA makes legitimate gun-owners look bad. I wouldn't like to associate myself with them. How many NRA members are Liberal on social issues? Or are most of them of the same Conservative stripe?
When I lived in Miami, I carried a gun, and it was truly for protection. If somebody car-jacked you there, chances are they would shoot you because they didn't posess the English skills to ask you to get out of the car. But does someone living in Suburbia REALLY need a gun for protection? Or will they just get drunk at the Dew-Drop Inn and shoot Ol' Willie in the head because he didn't pick up the last round? A lot of people who carry guns do so for good reason: they've done something that makes people want to kill them.

Well, this should keep the thread going!
Questions? Comments?
God Bless Charlton Heston!!!

 

a) Phew! It is so pleasant to not have a flame war begin as soon as a difference of opinion arises. Thanks for that.

b) My perception (rather than opinion, since I don't know many - if any - US gun owners in meat-space), is that the right to bear arms is defended vigourously by people bearing them, but never with any concrete or convincing arguments (sorry). I know that sounds narrow-minded, but what I mean is noone ever says "I gain THIS definite, specific benefit from my gun that I wouldn't be able to get another way.

*sigh*

*trawls government sites*

*returns with stack of paper*

Check out this report that followed the Dunblane massacre. For those who don't know, the Dunblane massacre was where a madman went berserk with a gun in a school and killed several people, including children. It was the direct cause of the investigations that led to our law being changed regarding handguns.

I'm interested to know what you think you'll be prepared for. Chances are, if your gun's not to hand, it'll do you no good. An intruder is hardly likely to stand by while you go fetch it. Even if you do have it handy, at what point will you decide to shoot the person? How will you know their intentions? What if you make a mistake (wake up groggy in the night for instance) and shoot someone who is intruding legitimately (smelled a fire, or something). What if the intruder turned up without a gun, but stole yours before your discovered his presence?

My point is, there are what ifs and imaginary scenarios for both sides of the argument, but if we take all the speculation out, we are left with the fact that neither you nor I has had cause to resort to a firearm for self-defense.

If it is defense against intruders you're after, preventative measures are probably much more effective, since by the time an intruder is in your house it's too late to have a GOOD outcome. I'd spend the money on alarm systems, security cameras or locks.

If I really wanted a way of disabling an intruder, I would at least consider the less-lethal alternatives. Tasers, or whatever. Mace if it works. Pit traps in the hallway, deadfalls, sonic disruptors, that kind of thing ... er ...

[EDIT]Feldon, I just saw the one you slipped in while I was bashing away.

The police also have them.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sheriff Fatman on 2002-03-07 10:29 ]</font>

 

I guess I do fit that stereotype. I am quick to defend my right to keep and bear arms, but no more vigorously than those in the media defend free speech, or those in the courtroom defend their right to have a fair trial.

One of my guns is always close at hand. The others are securely locked in a gun safe (not a metal box, an actual safe). If an intruder were to try to gain access to my safe, I would tend to believe that I would hear that. As to when to decide I would shoot them, that would be determined by their disposition. I would hope that the fear of being killed would be enough for them to either flee or lie there until the police came. If not and I feared for my life or the life of my wife I would shoot.
My point is, there are what ifs and imaginary scenarios for both sides of the argument, but if we take all the speculation out, we are left with the fact that neither you nor I has had cause to resort to a firearm for self-defense.

I own three of the best alarm systems that can be had. Dogs. They are not attack dogs or anything, but they are one of the best documented deterents to unwanted house guests. I also have tried to burgler-proof my home as best I can. Hopefully, these measures will be enough to ensure that I never have to make the decision to use my gun for home protection.

Here are some statistics that I found on the internet.
Year Assault Suicide Accidents Total
1993 18,839 19,213 1,543 39,595
1998 12,228 17,605 875 30,708
1993-1998 -6,611(-35.1%) -1,608 (-8.4%) -668 (-43.3%) -8,887 (-22.4%)


Violent crime has decreased every year since 1991 and criminologists, sociologists, and law enforcement experts almost unanimously attribute the trend to criminal justice reform in the states and new law enforcement policies in local jurisdictions (both aggressively supported by the NRA), along with the strong economy, low unemployment rate, decline in the "crack" cocaine trade, and the aging of juvenile gang members responsible for drug trade-related violence in the late 1980s and early 1990s. "Gun control" advocates instead credit the Brady Act, but the Act didn't take effect until 1994 and it never affected states in which most firearm deaths occur. Brady supporters claim that the Act reduced crime by reducing handgun purchases (a public health community goal since 1979), but the number of privately owned firearms increased by 37 million between 1993-1999 (BATF, Crime Gun Trace Reports, 1999, National Report, 11/00), U.S. handgun production peaked in 1993 and 1994 (www.amfire.com), and the number of Right to Carry states rose from 17 to 31 between 1993-1998. Also, firearm-related deaths decreased more among persons not subject to the Act. Through 1998, the Act affected only retail handgun purchases, limited by law to persons age 21 and over. Firearm-related deaths among persons of those ages decreased only 20% between 1993-1998, while those among younger persons decreased 34%.

I too am glad this hasn't turned into a flame war. :smile:

[EDIT] Feldon, I am a member of the NRA (suprised? :smile: ) and I tend to lean a little too far to left for my conservative roots. As far as the comment about the Orwellian government that is the reason the Second Amendment exists.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Vlad the Imposter on 2002-03-07 11:41 ]</font>

 

Against my better judgement...

First the US Constitution is full of checks of balances that the founding fathers added to hopefully prevent the abuses of power that most of them we're trying to escape from in the first place.

The right of citizens to bear arms in the US Constitution is the last check and one of the absolute last resort. Perhaps they hoped by including the right for citizens to arm themselves and organize militias would discourage future leaders from trying to impose a dictatorship or at least give the population the chance to resist one.

Oddly enough Herr Hitler was a rather enthusiastic supporter of gun control. Gee I wonder why?

I would have to little digging to get you some facts that we would both deem accepatable and not overly biased. But it looks like by all indications gun crime in the UK is increasing by quite a large amount.
I've seen one pro-gun biased source quote some Scotland Yard figures that homicides involving guns has increased 87% in 2001 compared to 2000.

The problem with violence is not with guns but with society. If the mere existence of large numbers of weapons in civilian hands was the cause of crime why haven't nations like Switzerland and Israel(yeah I know) descended into total anarchy?

Let me add something else. Gun control laws are just that, LAWS. Someone with criminal intent obviously has no respect for the law to begin with. I remember after Columbine there was the usual call for more gun laws and one congressman, whos name I forget, made a statement along the lines of "...it appears that at least 15 different laws were broken in the incident and I don't see how a few more would have prevented anything..."




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Otto Krupp on 2002-03-07 11:58 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Otto Krupp on 2002-03-07 12:02 ]</font>

 

I was looking at some figures earlier. Gun crime IS increasing, and there were more incidencies of handgun crime last year, than before the ban. However, proportinally, handgun crimes are going down. The vast majority of firearm crimes now in the UK involve shotguns. Shotguns are currently also the easiest firearm to get a license for here. I think these to facts are very closely related.

I am still convinced that the number of guns readily available will affect the number of crimes involving firearms.

I urge you to read the report I referenced earlier. It is government-commissioned and I believe unbiased.

I think I'll try to hunt down those per capita statistics. If crimes involving firearms aren't significantly higher in the USA than the UK (per capita), I'll re-consider my position.

 

I strongly support the Second Amendment, but I think it's often twisted around a bit by the NRA. The NRA should stick to guns and stay out of politics as much as possible. Of course, the Constitution is often twisted by the Left, too.

I don't think Britain will invade us any time soon. We don't really need a militia anymore. So the discusion over gun ownership boils down to private rights vs. public good issue. As I said, if someone wants a gun, they can get one, law or no law, so laws are a waste of time when it comes to guns. The same goes for drug laws. They might discourage a few normally law-abiding people from buying a gun or trying a drug in the first place, but if you really want illicit things, you'll find them. The war on drugs is a scam, and so is the whole anti-gun deal. They don't help anyone, but they make great political issues.

Vlad, it's a pleasure to meet someone who can discuss topics like this without flaming. You, I think, are a conscientious gun-owner, conforming to the laws of your state. I'd be interested in knowing in what ways you differ from the more conservative elements of the NRA.
I'd like to form a different picture of the NRA, because the one I have isn't very pretty.

Last thing: about the liberal media. I hear conservatives talk about it. Heston goes on and on about it. What liberal media are they talking about? Rush? O'Reilly? Hannity? Dr. Laura? Gallagher? Man-cow? Bortz? Who are the liberal media icons that NRA members diss over tea after the deer killin'? I need to know.

Gosh, I'm really enjoying this discussion. I hope Bortiss doesn't show up...

 

Being the cynic I am I would consider government sources to be as biased as any other group with an agenda.

Oddly enough I was reading a page about crime/suicide statistics the other day and didn't bookmark it. The US is usually about the middle in violence, gun violence and suicides. Russia and Central/South America are among the worst in violence and Switzerland is usually the lowest. Austrailia and the UK ranked pretty high on violent crime in general. Most Scandanavian countries generally have higher suicide rates than comparable developed countries. By contrast Central/South America have low suicide rates possibly due to the influence of Catholism.

One of the interesting points made in the article is how countries come up with the figures. For example in Japan in the case of murder-suicides all the deaths are listed as suicide. Quite a bit of question as to how the Central/South American figures are counted. For example are executions and "disappearances" by the death squads counted as crime?

As for the NRA staying out of politics they simply can't. The Anti-Gun groups have their own lobbyist's and candidates its the way things are done nowdays

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Otto Krupp on 2002-03-07 12:58 ]</font>

 

Amen to that. That's really the only reason I don't like some of the things Heston is doing, simply because he's sticking his neck out. I, myself, am a VERY right wing republican. Heston is playing the lefties ball game, and it's gonna end up with him getting his own "balls" cut off if he doesn't watch it.

Tom, Dan, and Peter. Need I say more? Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, and Peter Jennings.

Feldon, I get the sense that you are a Democrat. If not a democrat, maybe you consider yourself having leftist views, whatever the case may be, please read my post with a grain of salt, as I have tried to do ever since I started posting here. I am in love with George Bush. (Now, I put that out, I don't expect to be ridiculed from here on out.) Secondly, I listened and refrained from posting all the times that someone posted their opinion, REGARDLESS of how inflammatory I considered it. I simply let it ride. So I kinda expect the same in return. In other words, debate me, baby, but don't flame me.

Feldon, have you read the new book by Bernard Goldberg? (I can picture you rolling your eyes here... :smile: ) I have. This was the most eye-opening book I've ever read. Oh yeah, sorry....the title is Bias:How the Liberal Media Distorts the News.
I never really had an opinion about liberal, conservative...All I knew was, my father was a republican, so was my grandad, so gosh-nab-it, so was I. But, since reading this book, I now have a clearer understanding, and have started forming my own opinions. Right now, I am thinking of all the things that I could quote from the book. There's too many to list here, but I encourage you to check this book out. Now, if you do, keep in mind that Bernard Goldberg absolutely ROASTS Dan Rather in the beginning, but keep turning the pages and you will see why.

For instance...Know why Connie Chung got the boot? Because, The Dan, as he is referred to in the book, was on vacation when the Oklahoma City bombing happened. Dan arrived in Oklahoma to find Connie Chung already reporting. He was so livid that Chung got there first and they were allowing her to report instead of him, that after months of calling his superiors and just frying Chung (off camera, of course) that they got rid of her. (I know that none of this shows bias, or a "liberal conspiracy" but this was the first thing that showed me what The Dan was all about)

Secondly, there is a title called "How Bill Clinton Cured the Homeless". In short, it goes like this....Reagen (one of the greatest pres's of all time) got into office, homelessness was on the rise, continued to rise with astonishing (and exaggerated) numbers, and Clinton got into office, and BOOM!! No more homeless. Now, what Goldberg saw, was ABC and CBS going and finding an attractive, single mother on welfare, and show her on the evening news as "homeless woman" Meanwhile, 95% of the homeless are paint-sniffers, drug-addicts, alcoholics, or mentally disturbed people. did they show the REAL homeless? No. That would not raise public sympathy for the homeless, and angst towards Reagan and Bush for cutting out programs FOR the homeless.

Vlad, this is one of my flags. :smile:
*steps down from soapbox
*cringes in fear

_________________
The next time you are having a bad day, remember this...You are a siamese twin. Your brother, attached at the hip is gay, but you are not. And you have one asshole. Feel better? :hump:


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: retard on 2002-03-07 13:20 ]</font>

 

Well, I have been hunting and hunting but international statistics of worth are eluding me. I will post the ones that I find here, if I actually get any:

• Firearms Per Capita (international by country) 1995: not sure of source. Shows clearly that USA was one of top gun-crime rates at the time, and UK one of bottom. Text states clearly that there seems correlation between high gun-ownership in USA, former Yugslavia and South Africa and a high rate of violent crime.
• Pdf from Institute of Public Affairs (Australian, I think): whoever they are! This one compares stats for Australia, USA and UK. Says Oz has high crime rate compared to USA, USA homicide rate to be more than 3 times that of UK, but UK to be ... um ... bigger thieves and muggers.
• Report from "Canadian International Development Agency" stating:
  
  (basically that there is a direct link between loose firearm regulation and homicide rates).
• PDF doc at smallarmssurvey.org: with 1998/9 stats from UN/ICRC. It clearly shows USA to be way above all other coutries in the survey for firearm deaths, and a fairly apparent correlation between firearm ownership and firearm deaths.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sheriff Fatman on 2002-03-07 14:26 ]</font>

 

Sherrif I'm looking at the first now, the comparison between Canada and the US. I would consider this one of little value due to the fact it doesn't cover crime rates in general. All it shows that the easier is it to get firearms the more people will use them in the comission of crimes. Or use them as a means of suicide over other methods.

Obviously if you had a country that somehow managed to destroy every firearm within its borders that country would have the lowest rates of firearms violence and suicides in the world.

BUT would this imaginary country have any lower rates of violent crime and suicide?

Are these people trying to say that by their very existence that firearms cause crime and suicide? That a firearm somehow exerts some form of mind control over people and makes them do things they otherwise wouldn't be capable of?

Bear in mind a firearm is just a tool and its the person that determines if it used for good for bad.

I'm looking over the rest now.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

This is the figures up to 2000.

"Victimization

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2000, 533,470 victims of serious violent crimes (rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault) stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.
Victimizations involving a firearm represented 8% of the 6.3 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault.
The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 15,517 murders in 2000 were committed with firearms."

Note that overall only 8% of violent crimes involved a firearm. But 66% of murders of the 15,517 murders involved a firearm. If my math is right that means that murders comprised 2.5% of all violents crimes. So 1.6% of all firearms crimes were homicides. Right?

So if firearms are so patently evil what accounts for the 92% of violent crimes that DON'T involve firearms?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Otto Krupp on 2002-03-07 14:48 ]</font>

 

Yeah, I'm not sure about that first one, either. I think it's from Switzerland (not that that's relevant!).

The others pretty much concentrate on firearms, too, except maybe the Australian one. I can't believe these stats are so elusive. I get the feeling I might need to do each country individually from their government sites, and correlate it all myself. Would you be surprised to hear me say "Screw that!" at this point?

I take your point about firearms not being the only weapon used in violent crime, and I actually kind of agree with you. The UK has a higher rate of assualt, for instance. However, I would think the use of a gun would vastly increase the chance of a death occuring (which is why I wanted homicide stats).

I've been beaten up by gangs on three seperate occasions since becoming an adult (irate forum users, I think, but I can't prove it - the slippery buggers). If just one of the fuckwits attacking me had a gun on one of the occasions I might be dead now. I know having a gun doesn't mean using it, but they weren't exactly the most rational of people (one time, everyone was half-cut).

 

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."*

*Some person.....