Gun Control thread

Are you being serious?? You actually have?? Damn...............

 

"People don't eject high velocity bits of metal, guns eject high velocity bits of metal." - Me.

Yeah, I been beaten up. Are you surprised? I think it is the donkey's fault. Amongst the meaty thuds and crunching noises, I sometime pick up a mumbled "smart ass."

Funny thing. Being beaten up by a gang is not as bad as you think. The worst time, my friend got it worse than me. He was literally purple all over, where I just had a bit of major bruising.

 

Here's a breakdown of crimes involving firearms and injuries for the US from 93' to 97'.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fidc9397.htm

"
Firearm Injury and Death from Crime, 1993-97
Reports on the incidence of fatal and nonfatal firearm injuries that result from crime. Most of the data presented are from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Vital Statistics and the Firearms Injury Surveillance Study which collects data on injuries treated in hospital emergency departments. This BJS Report includes descriptions of victim characteristics and circumstances surrounding the crimes. Data about the number of law enforcement officers injured or killed by firearms are also included.

Findings include --

Of serious nonfatal violent victimizations, 28% were committed with a firearm, 4% were committed with a firearm and resulted in injury, and less than 1% resulted in gunshot wounds.
Of all nonfatal firearm-related injuries treated in emergency departments, 62% were known to have resulted from an assault. For firearm-related fatalities, 44% were homicides.
The number of gunshot wounds from assaults treated in hospital emergency departments fell from 64,100 in 1993 to 39,400 in 1997, a 39% decline. Homicides committed with a firearm fell from 18,300 in 1993 to 13,300 in 1997, a 27% decline.

10/00 NCJ 182993

Personally I would rather see all the money being spent on both sides of the gun control go to better mental health screening and treatment. It seems it would be a better for all of us to identify these people and try to help them rather than throw away money fighting each other and buying politicians.



Sheriff I think if your attackers would have been intent on killing you they would have simply done so. Don't know what you call it but here in the states it used to be called "curbing". Thats where you would stomp someone senseless then drag them over to a curb and place there head up on the sidewalk then stomp down on it as hard as you can crushing their skull. But then again you fracture someone's skull with steel-toed boots without too much difficulty. If someone truly intends to kill they will find the means to do so.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Otto Krupp on 2002-03-07 15:08 ]</font>

 

I'd like to sum things up. Both sides have good arguments about the issue. Personally, I am indifferent about the matter. There are advantages to it and disadvantages. There is support and critcism.

 

This statement is nothing more than a definition of a good discussion on controversial subject. It doesn't really sum up anything

 

Damn, the posts are coming faster than I can respond. I drive home from work and there are 4 more!

Feldon, in response to how I lean to the left, I was not refering to the NRA, I was refering to how I am viewed politically. I tend to believe in compromise in certain situations. That alone alienates me in most political settings. Compromise is too right for leftist and too left for rightist. As far as the NRA is concerned I believe in some of their methods but not all. I can't stand lobbying. It is just a legal form of bribery. I realize that the NRA has to do it because the factions that oppose the NRA have deep pockets and lots of lobbyists. You should check out some of the programs that the NRA supports, such as the Eddie the Eagle program (used to educate children about gun safety) and Project Exile (a test program that actually enforces the current gun laws). I don't always agree with their methods, but I believe the good things they do outweigh the bad. Now about the media, you asked and Retard has given you names, I will cite some examples. The Arkansas kid that shot up his school. The press wouldn't let it go up until the punishment phase. Then it disappeared. Why? That is the deterence part! If you start showing kids the bad things that will happen to them if they do something like this maybe, just maybe, the next school shooting will be avoided. Instead they glamorize it. How about the Million Mom March (which actuall turned out to be around 13,500)? It got tons of coverage. But do you hear about NRA sponsored programs like Eddie the Eagle or Project Exile? No.

Otto, you bring up some interesting statistics. I tend to agree with you on the whole. Crime is going to be there no matter what. Guns just make it easier. The reason that most suicides occur with guns is that it makes it quick. Most of the time if someone takes pills they are found and saved before death. The other methods tend to be a little gross and sadly enough that is a factor when you talk to kids about suicide. Not that splattering your brains against a wall with a shotgun isn't gross.

Sheriff, do you think that the drop in handgun ownership is directly related to the rise in muggings and beatings? I would tend to think that if a mugger is deciding who he should mug he would choose the one less likely to have a weapon to defend themselves. If it is common knowledge that it is illegal to have a handgun you have just made his job much easier. Now, he doesn't have to decide, he can just rob anyone. What's more if he does get shot and live, he can sue the person that shot him and probably win, because their crime was greater than his. If he doesn't live the shooter goes to jail. Retribution from the grave.

I am not suprised that you are having trouble finding actual statistics. Having taken a few statistics courses I know how easy it is to skew the data to achieve a desired outcome, therefore, anyone trying to make an argument for legitimate reasons shys away from them. Ours on the other hand is a purely academic pursuit so don't feel shy.

BTW, read the article you linked. Very interesting.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Vlad the Imposter on 2002-03-07 15:42 ]</font>

 

I saw those BJS ones when I was looking, Otto, but skipped over them because they are not initernational, and I don't really have a frame of reference to know what the figures mean.

My point about the people attack me was that they might not intend to kill me, but with a gun around it is just one squeeze of a trigger away.

THat's really part of how I feel about the whole thing. If you have ever hit anyone, you'll know how ... messy ... it is. I don't mean gorey, just ... um ... awkward on psychological level. It feels bad, unless you're on a violence-high.

With a gun, the acto is distanced - literally - from the consequences. It requires the operation of a machine to hurt someone, not the actual violence of assualting them physically. I believe this very much seperates, in a lot of psychological ways, the two types of violence.

I suppose the one hard fact in my opinion is that a gun is a dangerous machine both to the user and the people around them. I don't have faith in the people around me to act responsibily enough to be given charge of something that dangerous. I assume this is where we differ - you do believe people have what it takes to act responsibly with their guns, or maybe you just don't think in those terms and are only concerned with whether you personally should have access to one.

[EDIT]Just saw your post Vlad. I doubt the mugging rise is related to the handgun bill. It has always been illegal here to carry any kind of a gun. The handguns that were turned in were owned under strict sporting licenses that governed how they were stored, transported and used.

I believe part of the rise is to do with mobile phones. I have seen some article stating that 90% of muggings in one area studied turned out to be "mobile phone related" (although that could be dubious given that no mugger would be likely to say "Give me all your stuff - except your mobile phone").

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sheriff Fatman on 2002-03-07 15:54 ]</font>

 

If we did that, who would run our country? :lol:

 

I've been dying to respond but the damn computer people are messing with some cord or other. Vlad In your first post you said criminals are opertunists so should it not be more difficult for them to aquire guns? I've been salivating all day for someone to trott out ye olde 2nd. I've got a conference call now but after we will explore the issues of historic relevancy, the Constitution as a living document, and the shifting opinions of the right on judicial activisim

 

One of the best things instituted in the states that have Concealed Carry Permits is the fact that you must attend a gun safety course. I am a firm believer in that. It makes you think about the point that you brought up, Sheriff, it is a distance thing, but you are still going to injure or kill someone if you pull that trigger. Most classes also educate about the consequences of shooting without justification.

Sure, there will always be the idiots out there who should not own guns, but for the most part, those are the ones that can't legally own them in the first place (due to current laws).

One more thing. Do those statistics include justifiable shootings (i.e. police officers in the line of duty)?

 

Vlad, I was editing a previous post when you made that one. I'd be grateful if you'd backtrack to my edit, since it was to you.

Regarding the stats - they were for homicides in the main, so would exclude justifiable shootings, I think (I'm not sure)

 

If you are refering to stealing them yes, but as you can see from the article that Sheriff linked in his post, only 6% of the guns used criminally were stolen from a home. The rest were black market.

 

I agree with SF on the psychological issues involving firearms.
I once had a psych class where the Prof. asked why the suicide rate in the US was higher than anywhere else. (I don't know that he was correct about that, but that was the question.) The answer was that we have more guns. A gun is one of the surest ways to commit suicide, because it's so quick. With pills, you might have a little time to re-think your situation and call 911, but with a gun -- BAM! -- it's over. One moment of idiocy and you're dead. It's too easy. Kind of relates back to what the Sheriff was saying.

retard, if I must be labelled, I'm a Libertarian. I'm very Liberal on some issues (I'm extremely pro-choice and I support individual rights vigorously), but I'm Conservative fiscally.
Therefor I support the right of individuals to own guns, smoke weed, and do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm me. But if they screw up, I don't want to pay for it, and they should be punished, cheaply.

As far as the examples given as liberal media icons -- PLEASE!!! Who watches them? You even felt it necessary to spell out their entire names for me. Why? Because they are dead! Nobody watches them or listens to them anymore. I'll bet you recognized every name I listed, and more people would recognize my list than yours. Try it.

The media may have been liberal at one time, but it certainly isn't now. Hell, O'Reilley's book was the #1 best-seller! Dr. Laura's book was a best-seller! I'm tired of the right-wing complaining about the "liberal" media. It's bullshit. It's political posturing, and it's as bad as what the Left does. Who's more famous -- Rush Limbaugh or Dan Rather? Dr. Laura or Connie Chung? Do your own survey. Right now, Conservatism sells, so the "liberal" media is a myth.

And I apologize if I came across as flaming you in any way. I really do get just as annoyed by the Democratic Party. ALL politicians are whores, and not to be trusted.

 

The figures I've seen lately show "family and freinds" as the #1 source of firearms for criminals. Seems it was around 35-38% of the firearms used in crimes.

 

i'm gonna try and walk the fence now, as i've been on both sides of this argument.

my parents never owned guns when i was growing up, which was singularly weird living in a cowtown in arizona. but all my friends' parents had guns, and i used to go hunting with them. the first time i killed something, i was eleven, i attacked a rabbit with a shotgun. you can't really say shot, cuz there wasn't anything left afterwards.

now, i enjoy hunting. i get a very primal sense of satisfaction from it, and i ate everything i ever killed (i never killed another bunny). now, there was no reason for me to hunt for meat--i live in america, after all, and there's plenty of food here. but i never felt as alive as i did when i was hunting.

on the flip side, i was an extrememly suicidal teenager. i made several attempts, and if any of them had involved a gun, i obviously wouldn't be here. right now i'm rather thankful that my parents are anti-gun, and i don't own a gun right now, nor do i ever intend to.

i'm not sure what kind of point i'm trying to make. out here in the "old west" as it were, guns are everywhere. we grow up with a pretty healthy respect for their lethality, but we treat them the way we treat cars. more than half my friends recieved rifles for their 14th birthdays. on top of that, i grew up not 6 miles from the mexican border. we actually needed guns for protection. not from illegal aliens, but from smugglers who wouldn't think twice about killing you if they thought you had seen part of their operation. also, robberies are fairly common in this section of the state: the majority of people don't live within a half hour of a police station, or within a five minute's drive of their neighbors.

there's no real way to solve this dilemma, because both sides do have the right answers.

 

Actually I was refering to the people who before brady could pick up a same day handgun 'cause they were having a bad day and shoot their wife. Oh and I loooove bush but not dick. Also maybe preface "Regan the greatist Pres," with an "in my opinion." You really think that, better than Washinton, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR? and the homeless problem did rise under his administration. Between trickel down economics, giant space lasers and the foceable deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, there is gonna be a risev in the homeless.
I was going to post on the 2nd but got bored writing the thing if you're interested go here http://www.linguafranca.com/0002/showdown/html its a good article fairly balanced but long.


_________________
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ThreeDogs on 2002-03-07 16:55 ]</font>

 

Okay, I finally get to join in!

1. For the record, I haven't been beaten up. Yet. Although, I get the feeling my days are numbered.

2. Gun laws are pretty tough here, after one guy went on a killing spree one day in 1997. Killed over 30 people in one day, torched a couple of buildings, and got off on an insanity plea. Bloody terrible what happened, he shot everyone he saw - children, women and men alike.

3. Personally, I would like to learn how to use a handgun, and perhaps own one some day.

4. I have no clue what Feldon, Otto and Vlad are referring to in their posts, so I can't really say much. Please don't bother explaining it to me - I'm not that involved in my own country's politics :smile:.

 

It is pretty hard to see Newsweek, Time, and US News and World Report as Liberal

 

OK Sheriff I've found a summary of the UN crime survey in PDF. Unfortunately I don't know what it defines as "crime".

http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/WCTS/wcts.html

The link to the survey pdf is:
http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/WCTS/trc000927.pdf

 

Yeah, I had already meesed with the data xls from that report, too. Unfortunately, the spreadsheet was built by a maniac - you have to uncheck a gazillion boxes to anything like specific data. With my usual efficiency, I noticed that the USA was not on the spreadsheet after I has laboriously unchecked them all.