Kennedy 0 #226 August 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteAnd would you be 6 times less likely to be killed if guns didn't exist? Or would you just be killed another way? I already answered that. Fewer, means fewer. I highly doubt that the odds of being murdered would stay the same - do YOU really believe that it would? Can you support that with anything other than a gut feel? According to NSC, 11 people died in 2000 on 3 wheeled ATV's, whereas hundreds died in previous years when they were legal. So I do actually have some indication that removing the 'tool' will reduce the percentage. Not by six-fold, but certainly reduced. Now you're crossing accidents with committing crimes. Remember, the two rates have little or nothing to do with each other.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #227 August 3, 2004 QuoteI quoted 3 sources that back my definition, please quote some sources that back yours as to why guns were designed and developed in the first place. I did read all three of your cites....none of them mention firearms being designed for killing. Your OPINION is that they are designed for killing - again, big difference. Use <> design QuoteI never said any such thing Implied by the tone of the argument - since more children die by drowning each year, there SHOULD be more of a demand for regulation of 5 gallon buckets and swimming pools. QuoteI agree, and the fact that there are too many guns is at least part of that problem, hence the debate that we are having. Disagree - it is society that has glamorized guns - look at today's music or movies - THERE is your driving force, not the guns themselves, but the glamorization of them. QuoteI agree, but I also know that guns have been used unnecessarily in too many cases as well. While it may be the 'ultimate self defense weapon' and preferred for most people, innocent dead people have rights as well. Dead is dead, right or wrong, and unnecessary force is generally frowned upon by the same society that promotes gun ownership. So everyone should be penalized due to some people having poor impulse control or bad judgement? If that is the case, then by the same logic skydiving should be outlawed since people have commited suicide doing it, or have murdered other people by tampering with their rigs. Quote So again, i wonder why the NRA, if they want to meet their goals, do not promote some sort of mandatory training for gun owners as an everyday part of American gun-ownership. The NRA actually started out as a civilian marksmanship program, if I recall. It was not until later years that they became active politically to try and preserve the constitutional right to bear arms.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #228 August 4, 2004 QuoteActually I suggested twice that the NRA should be doing that if they are so adept at it. Is such legislation being lobbied by the NRA at this time? No. That is part of the hypocracy that I see with the organization. Their true intents are not what they would like us to believe they are. You cannot validly claim to know that their intentions are not what they claim to be without having at least some claim of insight into what their true intentions actually are. So please, enlighten us: what are the true intentions of the NRA? QuoteMaybe if we all had tasers - more of the 'criminals' that we need to defend ourselves from would be wearing heavy leather coats in case they got hit. In Florida - that would make them easier to identify and therefore more information to 'assess' the risk to my life, my family and my property. And since it wouldn't help at all in places like Alaska, North Dakota, Utah... what would we do then if TASERs were all we had to deal with criminals? And would you ban the wearing of heavy coats in Florida, under the claim that they were simply worn to negate the utility of the TASERs of the law-abiding? Have you noticed that everything you say trips up everything else you say? I think that a lot of the rest of us have. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #229 August 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteIf someone killed you with a handgun or with a tire iron, would you care about the difference? No I would not, but I did state that I am 6 times more likely to be killed by a gun that other sharp object - NSC stats. TK So you're saying that not a lot of people are running around with sharpened tire irons in your area? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #230 August 4, 2004 Quote California required registration of certain rifles, promising not to require people give them up later. Guess what? CA later outlawed those rifles, requiring people turn them in or become instant felons. To be most accurate, CA extended the deadline for registration - action by the GOP AG - and then was sued by the gun controllers for doing so. Those who registered in the extended period were the ones that got hozed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #231 August 4, 2004 QuoteOne thing that we do know for sure is that more people die in the USA due to the use of firearms. We also know that we have more firearms than similar countries. Simple comparison, simple results Fewer guns, fewer gun deaths. Absolute fallacy. We have 250,000,000 guns, appx. in the U.S. (very nearly 1 per capita) If we had, say, only 1 percent of that, a tiny ONE PERCENT of that, we'd have 2.5 million guns. And yet even with 1/4 billion guns we have a TOTAL of 30,000 gun-related deaths per year (which total includes all suicides, criminal homicides, and justifiable homicides, and accidents). Would a tiny one percent of the current number of guns (which qualifies as FAR fewer guns, IMO) -- still amounting to 2.5 million of them -- be inadequate to have 30,000 deaths from guns?!? All you'd really need are enough guns in criminal hands to accomplish the same number of murders that go on right now. Let's say that you have 1/4 billion guns. You do something that causes there to be FAR fewer guns... say, only 100,000 of them. But all those guns are in the hands of criminals, who never registered them, who stole them, and the government doesn't know who has them or where. Those guns, even though they represent a tiny fraction of one percent of the original quarter billion, are not enough to be used in 5,000 murders a year? Besides, I mean, just how many "fewer" are you talking, if you're "not arguing for a ban"? Are you talking some absurd number of guns, like, say, 10,000? 100? 7? When do we reach the number that is "fewer" enough to cause an acceptably low number of deaths for you to be satisfied? My point is that making there be "fewer" guns around will do NOTHING unless "fewer" means "so few that they simply can't really even be found," -- and then you have a BAN. Quote No guns, no gun deaths Yes, and why don't we stop even mentioning this, since it would be impossible to make it happen; since it has been impossible to make it happen even with an all-out ban, on an island nation like England? I mean, I might as well stand on the corner and hope that a bag of gold will fall from the sky and land at my feet rather than go out and get a job, if I want wealth. That's how realistic a fantasy the "zero guns" babble is. QuoteBefore you get all bent - I am not and have not advocated a gun ban in any of my posts. I have stated an ideology that "If there were no handguns, then no onecould be killed by a handgun" And since you don't like people getting killed by handguns, it is really so unreasonable of us to infer, by extension, that you would want guns gotten rid of? Everything you have advocated either implies a ban on handguns, or leads to one eventually. Same difference. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #232 August 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteAnd would you be 6 times less likely to be killed if guns didn't exist? Or would you just be killed another way? Can you support that with anything other than a gut feel? According to NSC, 11 people died in 2000 on 3 wheeled ATV's, whereas hundreds died in previous years when they were legal. So I do actually have some indication that removing the 'tool' will reduce the percentage. Not by six-fold, but certainly reduced. TK That example proves little - 3 wheeled ATVs are inherently unstable in careless hands - too easy to turn em over which is why they were banned. People instead moved to 4 wheel ATVs which substituted quite nicely. Accidents still happen. In contrast, guns are rarely responsible for accidental deaths. Most are intentional, not due to bad design. If legions of people were accidentally shooting friends because the Glock or Sig doesn't have a true safety, then perhaps the response would be to ban such designs. But that isn't reflected in reality, at least not one outside of HCI land. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #233 August 4, 2004 Quote If someone flips you off in traffic, you flip them off yourself, they come at you with a bat and you shoot them, you're wrong and will be held accountable. It doesn't matter who starts it, what matters is whether you willingly participated in an altercation or made every attempt to avoid it. I'm not buying it. No one ever died from getting the bird. But a bat has often been used to kill. It was the other person that escalated the conflict to lethal force. I think you can hold the person responsible for having reasonable belief that they were in immediate danger (you don't get to draw and shoot from 30 ft), but otherwise the victim made this situation happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #234 August 4, 2004 QuoteI'm not buying it. It's a fact. You can find most state statutes regarding self defense online. Take a look. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #235 August 4, 2004 That's not entirely accurate, Kev. Vairies state to state, but I don't think flipping someone off (in return for their own bird) would qualify as provoking a fight. Hell, you can start a verbal altercation which becomes a shoving match, but if you walk away, it's like a clean slate. If the guy comes at you 5 minutes later with a knife, you can shoot him in self defense and have the law on your side. (the above scenario is the short version of facts from a SCUS case) Self defense laws are so convoluted that no simple search online will turn up everything you want to know, even about just one state.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #236 August 4, 2004 QuoteHell, you can start a verbal altercation which becomes a shoving match, but if you walk away, it's like a clean slate. If the guy comes at you 5 minutes later with a knife, you can shoot him in self defense and have the law on your side. (the above scenario is the short version of facts from a SCUS case) I don't know what an SCUS case is, but is it a trial? If so, then I would consider that being held accountable. I didn't say you would be convicted of murder or couldn't use self defense as a trial defense. But if you participate in an altercation whether you started it or not, and kill someone in the process, you will be charged with something and put on trial. Whereas if you're walking down the street and a mugger comes at you with a knife and you kill them, you're not going to be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #237 August 4, 2004 Lemurs are from Madagascar. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcrocker 0 #238 August 4, 2004 About a week ago the cops were chaing a KID (teenager) down the street in front of my office. The kid was carrying a fully loaded, fully automatic AK-47! I'm all for the 2nd amendment but this is ridiculus. I say, forget the gun control laws, Let the cops shoot first and ask questions later when they see some idiot running down the street with an assault rifle. I don't think gun control laws will actually work. I think we should have something so when they are broken we can arrest/shoot the people (aka criminals) breaking the law. I'm all for hunters running around the woods blasting any furry animal that moves. It isn't something that I would do but I still think it is ok. I don't think a hunter needs a semi-auto, high power, combat/assault style rifle to hunt rabbits, but what do I know? Hell, it would be kinda fun to go rambo on a paper target at shooting range. I also think that the Government is just like organized religion which is fully of hipocrocy. It isn't democrates verse republican, they are all two faced policticians Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #239 August 4, 2004 QuoteI don't think gun control laws will actually work. It most likeley will not. ***I think we should have something so when they are broken we can arrest/shoot the people (aka criminals) breaking the law. What if that was a toy?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #240 August 4, 2004 QuoteAbout a week ago the cops were chaing a KID (teenager) down the street in front of my office. The kid was carrying a fully loaded, fully automatic AK-47! Can you provide a news story reference for this? I question your "fully automatic" claim. There are AK-47's sold to civilians that are semi-auto only. That is what the large majority of AK-47 rifles are that you hear about. The general public tends to assume that all AK-47's are machine guns, and this just isn't true. But it makes a nice sensational headline that sells papers and scares people into wanting more restrictive gun laws... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #241 August 4, 2004 QuoteAbout a week ago the cops were chaSing a KID (teenager) down the street in front of my office. The kid was carrying a fully loaded, fully automatic AK-47! And you know it was full-auto how, exactly? QuoteI'm all for the 2nd amendment but this is ridiculOus. I say, forget the gun control laws, Let the cops shoot first and ask questions later when they see some idiot running down the street with an assault rifle. I don't think gun control laws will actually work. I think we should have something so when they are broken we can arrest/shoot the people (aka criminals) breaking the law. I'm sorry, and don't take it personally, but that's one of the dumbest ideas I've heard in a long time. QuoteI'm all for hunters running around the woods blasting any furry animal that moves. It isn't something that I would do but I still think it is ok. I don't think a hunter needs a semi-auto, high power, combat/assault style rifle to hunt rabbits, but what do I know? Hell, it would be kinda fun to go rambo on a paper target at shooting range. What's wrong with a semi-auto rifle for hunting? You should realize that most actual combat firearms are inadequate fore hunting. The 7.62 used in AK 47s and other knock offs, and the 5.56 used in M-16s and knock offs, are relatively low power and not the choice of hunters. Who cares what "style" rifle it is? Why is black plastic more frightening to you than walnut? QuoteI also think that the Government is just like organized religion which is fully of hipocrocISy. It isn't democrates verseUS republican, they are all two faced policticians Then why do you trust them to regulate every facet of your life?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #242 August 4, 2004 Josh Sugarmann, of the Violence Policy Center, 1988 QuoteThe weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these guns.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #243 August 4, 2004 Water Buffalo are not from Africa.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcrocker 0 #244 August 4, 2004 QuoteWhat if that was a toy? Don't be silly, ALL toy guns have the nice easy to identify orange tip on them. Duh! I wonder when the criminals will start dipping their guns into orange paint? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcrocker 0 #245 August 4, 2004 QuoteCan you provide a news story reference for this? I'll try to find a local news source, no shots were fired I think. The kid was caught and arrested. Our small, bankrupt city is having a couple shootings per week so the news didn't make the front page. Maybe is wasn't full-auto, that is what I heard on the radio the following day. Media was probably wrong. I still think it is rediculus for a anyone to be running down the street with ANY rifle. There is no need for it. Transporting to/from car when hunting/target practice is fine. In a case, un-loaded. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcrocker 0 #246 August 4, 2004 QuoteI'm sorry, and don't take it personally, but that's one of the dumbest ideas I've heard in a long time. Well obviously it was dumb, it was said with a bit of tongue in cheek. I do firmly believe that the cops should be give more power to handle a situation. Chasing someone with an illegal firearm (unlicensed, stolen, etc.) only to later arrest, slap on wrist and release is a joke. I'm not talking 1st time offenders. I'm talking your standard, inner city kid with gang ties carrying weapons. And before you ask 'How is the cop to know it isn't a 1st time offense' Just ask any beat cop, they know who their 'regulars' are. QuoteWhat's wrong with a semi-auto rifle for hunting? I'm not a hunter so I truly don't know. From my vantage point, hunting is a sport involving skill. Isn't it much more skillful to use a bolt-action, single shot rifle? Do hunters regularly need to pop off 10 rounds to hit ONE deer? Or, do I have it completely wrong? Is 'hunting' more about drinking beer in the woods with some buds while you generate 'shotgun fade' on transformers and fiber cables? Quote Then why do you trust them to regulate every facet of your life? Where did I say I trust them to regulate every facet of my life? I must of missed that part. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #247 August 4, 2004 QuoteI don't know what an SCUS case is, but is it a trial? If so, then I would consider that being held accountable. I didn't say you would be convicted of murder or couldn't use self defense as a trial defense. But if you participate in an altercation whether you started it or not, and kill someone in the process, you will be charged with something and put on trial. Whereas if you're walking down the street and a mugger comes at you with a knife and you kill them, you're not going to be. I don't agree. If, for example, there are witnesses to the altercation who tell the responding police that you may have argued with someone, but you only responded in self defense when the other guy went from yelling at you to coming at you with a 5-inch blade in his hand, and then you shot him, I doubt they'd arrest you, and I doubt they'd recommend charges to the DA. There are plenty of cases where the police arrive well after someone has shot someone else, and it is so clearly a case of self defense that they determine that it is unnecessary to have the courts bring the circumstances to trial. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #248 August 4, 2004 Are you kidding me? Around here anyway, you fire a gun in the city and the police know, you're going to jail. It might just be until you're releases OOR, or pay bail. But the police are NOT going to make a determination at the scene not to arrest someone that just shot and killed someone else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #249 August 4, 2004 QuoteAre you kidding me? Around here anyway, you fire a gun in the city and the police know, you're going to jail. It might just be until you're releases OOR, or pay bail. But the police are NOT going to make a determination at the scene not to arrest someone that just shot and killed someone else. No, I'm NOT kidding you. This sort of thing has happened in Florida PLENTY. Sometimes the situation involves a traffic altercation, or a home invasion, or a jewelry store robbery. But I have 100% certainly read of cases in which the shooter was NOT arrested and held, because there was clear indication of having acted in lawful self defense. Maybe Philly is just fucked up. It seems lately that the closer you get to the geographical historical seats of our government (Boston, Philadelphia, NYC, D.C.) the more fucked up things are regarding guns, and self defense. Just a coincidence I've noticed. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
321seeya 0 #250 August 4, 2004 Guns dont kill people...Husbands who come home early from work kill people. The gun was just laying there. Remember without the second amendment, it is hard to enforce the first amendment. Now shut up and lets JUMP! BASE 3:16 - Even if you are about to land on a cop - DONT FORGET TO FLARE! Free the soul -- DJ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
