Make up your mind, you GUN BAN HOPLOPHOBES!

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

If that gun is sitting in that nightstand for 10 years, then y'know what? It is not needed. They have forgotten how to use it, they would probably not react properly because they were not trained, they might get their own ass shot off with it.

So you believe people are so inept that they could not figure out how to shoot an intruder because they haven't shot in ten years? I could put a revolver in front of most people who have never shot, and they could figure it out.

Also, do you think shooting once or twice every year grants police officers mystical control and skills with their firearms? Many LEOs don't shoot in ten years except for qualification.

Also, by your logic, if they haven't fired in the line of duty in ten years, there's no reason for them to carry, right? Obviously if something requiring deadly force hasn't happened in ten years, it never will. crazy

Quote

Now if they did currency training and regularly used it, then I would have no problem, but in the above case, i consider that unused.

Take it away form them - no. Give them something in exchange for it? - yes. Offer to train them OR take it away? Maybe. Then it is their choice to take the training or give it up.

So you advocate confiscation of private property, holding Joe and Jane Citizen to higher standards than police officers, and basing policy of uniformed ideas rather than numbers or intelligence. Wonderful.

Quote

In the hands of the untrained housewife or joe-blow at the office - it is more a menace than a self-defense weapon.

Then explain why there are so many more defensive gun uses, crimes prevented, and lives saved, than there are gun crimes.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

That would never happen. I know a few people who would have a total shit fit and threaten to sue everyone if the school took their kid near a firing range. But at least having a basic into to the subject would be a good thing.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

product safety recalls, banning the use of various products, new regs, lawsuits over product liability - but not for guns - God forbid - they are our RIGHT!

We banned lawn darts fer chrissake - they are toys. SO please do not assume that we do not do anythign about unneeded deaths. Airplanes crash - we build better airplanes. People tak eoverdoses, we build child-proof caps - skydivers go in and we invent better equipment.

Apples and oranges.

If you find a defect in the product, something wrong with the gun, then a safety recall and liability lawsuits may be in order. However, there is nothing wrong with the firearm itself.

Oh yeah, and let me know when you ban buckets, or reform them somehow, since they contribute to more accidental deaths than firearms each year.

Quote

Ask for some training on guns and making it mandatory, and suddently I am stepping on your rights and no one shall do that!

And who determines the requirements? Politicians, many of whom have stated confiscation is theri goal? Some faceless bureaucrat, unaffected by the public and immune to the affect of his mistakes? Anyone who pays attention to government realizes it always expands as far as it can (and then often moves the boundary).

Quote

If we ban lawn darts becasue a few kids got blinded and killed by them - is it unreasonable to ban guns which kills many people each year?

You are crossing accidents with criminal actions. If you look only to the accidental gun death tally, it is low, compared to many other deadly accidents.

Quote

If you need to defend yourself - how about arming everyone with tasers? Likely a less fatal result, certainly fewer surgeries and costs related to recovery (all costs eventually borne by society)

Hmmm, I wonder if the NRA would support trading in all the guns for Tasers

If you need to get to work, how about letting everyone ride covered mopeds? It would reduce traffic deaths, and save gas, and all kinds of other good things. So what if you are requiring people not use the best tool for the job, right?

I don't know about you, but when defending myself, my family, and my community, I want the best damned tool for the job, and an assortment of appropriate tools to the many possible threats.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

1) Registration leads to confiscation. Period. There are no two ways about this. If you want to claim that we gun owners are yelling about a boogeyman with regard to this equation, we have only to point to NEW YORK CITY, WASHINGTON D.C., CALIFORNIA, ENGLAND, AUSTRALIA, and NAZI GERMANY. Those are real-world examples of exactly what we are concerned about: GUNS WERE FIRST REGISTERED, and then the knowledge that the police had regarding who had what guns and where was used TO GUIDE THE POLICE IN THE CONFISCATION OF THOSE GUNS. How can you argue that we are making a big deal out of a phantom fear when it's a fear that has become reality already, even in parts of the United States?!

I could argue that gun manufacturing leads to confiscation. Afterall, the manufacturing came first right? Then the confiscation?

Tying the registration with the confiscation it a stretch in the USA.

Were you not paying attention? He said "NEW YORK CITY, WASHINGTON D.C., CALIFORNIA" and so on. It has been tried here in the US, and it has gone according to (gun banners') plan.

You could argue that manufacturing leads to confiscation, but then I'd have to laugh at you, because while confiscation has followed registration everywhere, you would look quite the fool trying to say that confiscation followed manufacturing everywhere.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 2,435]

>If some putz cuts in line, then shoves me when I call him on it, no
> big deal. But if he continues to rant and rave, and looks, acts, and
> talks crazy, then comes at me grabbing a club on the way, I can
> defend myself, no?

?? You would shoot a crazy man who swings at you? I can run faster than crazy men, and shooting someone who has no control over their actions is not that good a solution. I'm all for use of whatever weapons you need for self-defense, but if possession of those weapons makes you think it's a better idea to shoot a crazy person than simply remove yourself from the threat - it's doing more harm than good.

I think deadly force is acceptable as a final means of preventing serious physical harm. But when deadly force replaces fleeing a threat, something is wrong.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

You would shoot a crazy man who swings at you?

Depends on what he swings and where I am. If I'm in line, with people behind me, and he swings something heavy at me like a club, I have to act to defend myself.

Quote

I can run faster than crazy men, and shooting someone who has no control over their actions is not that good a solution.

If I can run, that's a good choice sometimes. Avoiding it all together is even better. Sometimes those aren't options.

Shooting someone not in control of their actions is sometimes the only option you have. It's not one anybody likes, but there's a reason even good cops carry guns, right?

Quote

. I'm all for use of whatever weapons you need for self-defense, but if possession of those weapons makes you think it's a better idea to shoot a crazy person than simply remove yourself from the threat - it's doing more harm than good.

Well, I appreciate that you are sensible enough to accept that people deserve the best tools available.

If removing myself from the threat without exposing anyone else to it is an option, most people would take it in a heartbeat. I would. But a guy charging me in a crowded area from not far away doesn't leave me a whole lot of options. There are a few, and a firearm is never the first, but it's a short list.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 2,435]

>It's not one anybody likes, but there's a reason even good cops >carry guns, right?

Well, all cops carry guns, but the better cops don't need them very often.

>If removing myself from the threat without exposing anyone else to
>it is an option, most people would take it in a heartbeat.

Not sure I understand that one. If you were a cop, you would have a responsibility to evaluate the threat mr. crazy angry guy poses to everyone else. But if you're not a cop, and he's coming after _you_, I can't see many situations where running isn't a good option. Being in a dead-end alley, perhaps, or if you only have one leg, might qualify.

>But a guy charging me in a crowded area from not far away doesn't
> leave me a whole lot of options.

Agreed, but firing a weapon in a crowded area to stop someone with a club who is coming after you seems to come in a very distant second to just removing yourself from his threat.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Well, all cops carry guns, but the better cops don't need them very often.

Where are you getting that?
There are a lot of justified/necessary/medal winning police shootings every year. You only hear about the bad ones though.

point 2and 3: like you said, sometimes running just isn't an available option. Remember, the vast majority of permit holders have the idea "It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it." We don't want to use it, but would rather use it than loose all options permanently.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

We don't want to use it, but would rather use it than loose all options permanently.

Unfortunately that's not always the mentality....or even *frequently* in some necks of the woods. There are many, many people who would love to use it and justify their actions later. Better yet, they would love to use it against certain classes of people more than others....which opens up another can. That being said, I still would argue for people's rights to keep their guns (without registration). Crimes that are committed with those guns should be prosecuted, whether it be the good-ol' redneck boy who shoots without thinking or the real criminal.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[billvon 2,435]

>>Well, all cops carry guns, but the better cops don't need them very often.

>Where are you getting that?

It is my opinion that a cop who can stop a criminal without killing him is a better cop than one who uses deadly force more quickly. Sure, there are cases (sniper in a tower) where it's unavoidable. But I think that a cop's brain is a far more potent weapon than his gun, and those that are better at using their brain are, in my opinion, better cops.

[Kennedy 0]

Do you think that everytime deadly force is used, the person who does so does it as the first option?

If not, I truly resent you implying that. One of the men I admire most in this world had to use dealy force in the line of duty. You impunge him, every other shooter who didn't have a choice, and every armed man, and it is not appreciated.

It is a sign of the circumstances, not the man, when deadly force is required. The poorer men use it when it might not have been required, but don't let that translate into thinking that only the lower quality of men will or have used it.

That is wrong.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

JohnRich writes

Quote

I haven't heard you comment yet on my suggestion to you about making gun safety training mandatory in the public school system. What say you? Wouldn't that achieve the goal you desire - everyone having the knowledge to be safe with guns?

Tho it might be hard to convince the publice to have special courses in gun safety plus gun use, I don't think it would be too difficult to include some gun-safety education as part of health education or whatever. I think this could be done in a way that is acceptable to both pro-gun and antigun parents.

There have been too many examples where pro-gun groups have offered to provide programs and materials on gun safety only to be turned down because the info and programs came from the NRA. Well, who else out there maintains state-of-the-art gun safety training programs? Is HCI going to show up at schools with gun-handling safety training, and accident avoidance programs?

The gun ban people talk out one side of their mouths about wanting kids saved from gun accidents. Education is obviously the solution that is needed -- but when it's offered they reject it almost exclusively because it comes from a pro-gun-rights group! This gives lie to their stated goals, and makes clear they are not interested in saving kids' lives, only in getting rid of guns rights. If they cared about kids, they would allow the preeminent organization in the world on guns teach them how to not get killed with them.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[billvon 2,435]

>Do you think that everytime deadly force is used, the person who
>does so does it as the first option?

No; although I think that sometimes people use deadly force as the third or fourth option instead of the absolute last option. Like I said, in some cases (i.e. the sniper in the tower) it may be unavoidable. It depends on the situation. A good cop will be able to avoid its use in all but the most extreme situations. A lesser cop will see it as a valid option in more situations. (IMO of course.)

[Ron 7]

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No, not SENTANCED TO DIE...But if you get killed in the ACT of COMMITING the crime thats different

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I fail to see the difference - someone is dead. And in this case the perpetrator in both avenues.

OK...

1. Durring an attack you don't know what level the attacker is willing to go. It is your right to defend yourself. So if durring a robbery I pull a gun and the attacker charges me, or goes for a weapon...And then I shoot him. I am justified.

This is QUITE different than situation #2. Where a criminal has been arrested and is NO LONGER A THREAT.

In situation #2 it would be foolish to kll someone for trying to steal a 20.00 bill from my wallet.

But in situation #1 where I could be in danger and he is in the ACT of robbing me that is a different story.

Quote

But yet you would defend that person's right to shoot you since he felt HIS life was in danger.....

If I wasa CROOK and was STEALING from him yes, it would be his right.

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Make it harder for just anyone to get a handgun without training, and "crush the nuts" of anyone that uses a gun in a crime.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

smartest thing you have said in the whole thread....

I am still waiting for you to say something smart about this.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Not sure I understand that one. If you were a cop, you would have a responsibility to evaluate the threat mr. crazy angry guy poses to everyone else. But if you're not a cop, and he's coming after _you_, I can't see many situations where running isn't a good option.

Friend of mine was standing outside work at noon smoking a cigarette. Crazy guy runs up to someone and starts beating them screaming nonsense. That person gets up and runs away. Crazy guy grabs my friend who stood there in shock for a few seconds and beats her putting her in the hospital, by this time everyone else had run away leaving her to get beaten, except the old lady with the walker. He grabbed her next and beat her. Finally a couple guys driving past stopped, jumped out of the car and chased the guy off.

They weren't cops. Should they have run away too?

Quote

Agreed, but firing a weapon in a crowded area to stop someone with a club who is coming after you seems to come in a very distant second to just removing yourself from his threat.

Step 1 - avoid
Step 2 - evade
Step 3 - defend

Running isn't always an option. Another friend of mine (actually the previous story's friend roommate) was walking home late at night and a mugger pulls a gun on him. This friend is in very good physical shape, bikes miles every day. He decided to run. The mugger chased him down, shoved him from behind and pistol whipped him. Luckily he didn't get shot.

Personally, I've got a gut and smoke. If my choices are turn my back on an attacker and try to outrun him or fight, I'll probably choose fight unless they have a fake leg. Because they'll catch me and I don't want my back to them when they do.

[tkhayes 140]

Quote

Were you not paying attention? He said "NEW YORK CITY, WASHINGTON D.C., CALIFORNIA" and so on. It has been tried here in the US, and it has gone according to (gun banners') plan

Were YOU not paying attention? - you can still get a gun in all those cities and places..... as stated earlier. It is just more difficult.

Except DC, where it is banned - but it seems that it is being challenged (your rights under the laws that you so staunchly defend) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,71750,00.html

I expect that DC has a different reason for wanting that - ie. Nations' capital vs. just trying to reduce crime. Just like no-fly zones and such. Still paranoid I think but WHATEVER.....

I tried to find some stats about 'accidental death' by firearms, but the NSC and other sites mostly use state-level numbers, so my work is not yet done.

I expect that while the murder rate in DC may be high (as it is in other cities), I expect that the accidental shooting rate is very low compared to similar cities.

TK

[tkhayes 140]

Quote

Apples and oranges.

If you find a defect in the product, something wrong with the gun, then a safety recall and liability lawsuits may be in order. However, there is nothing wrong with the firearm itself.

Oh yeah, and let me know when you ban buckets, or reform them somehow, since they contribute to more accidental deaths than firearms each year.

Actually not apples and oranges at all. Not only did I talk about product safety recalls, I also mentioned NEW REGS, which seem to regularly go into place for other products, but not for guns. (seatbelt legislation, banned products, minimum standards for swimming pools and such)

As I have stated earlier, the bucket has other uses - and it has never (OK maybe not never, but seldom, if ever) used as a murder weapon or a suicide. It does cause accidental deaths, but it is also used plenty more for it's intended use than a gun is for its intended use (self defense). More people die in car accidents, because more man-hours are spent in cars driving, than are spent with guns in self defense.

Don't get me wrong, i am all for improvements with cars and driving as well. And buckets and swimming pools too.

Quote

And who determines the requirements? Politicians, many of whom have stated confiscation is theri goal? Some faceless bureaucrat, unaffected by the public and immune to the affect of his mistakes? Anyone who pays attention to government realizes it always expands as far as it can (and then often moves the boundary).

Actually 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.

Quote

If you need to get to work, how about letting everyone ride covered mopeds? It would reduce traffic deaths, and save gas, and all kinds of other good things. So what if you are requiring people not use the best tool for the job, right?

I don't know about you, but when defending myself, my family, and my community, I want the best damned tool for the job, and an assortment of appropriate tools to the many possible threats.

I do too - but my point was - if a better tool came along - one that does not cause death, would you be willing to trade in your gun for that? Would you be willing to amend the constitution to reflect such a change? Taser was just a suggestion.... I realize they are not perfect.

Maybe 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.

TK

[tkhayes 140]

Quote

So you believe people are so inept that they could not figure out how to shoot an intruder because they haven't shot in ten years? I could put a revolver in front of most people who have never shot, and they could figure it out.

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I am saying - just like I would not expect a skydiver who had not jumped in 10 years to be able to properly react to an emergency. Nor would I expect a pilot do recover from or react to an in-air emergency after 10 years of no flight.

The skydiver could jump yes, the pilot could fly, yes. The driver could drive, yes. But react properly in an emergency? I doubt it very much. Training has been my argument from the beginning of this thread - perhaps you missed that, so I will state it again.

Could they shoot a gun? Yes, easily. Could they shoot it properly in a crisis sitation? I doubt - we are afterall talking about a dire, life threatening emergency right? Self defense is YOUR arguement, not mine.

Quote

Also, do you think shooting once or twice every year grants police officers mystical control and skills with their firearms? Many LEOs don't shoot in ten years except for qualification.

Also, by your logic, if they haven't fired in the line of duty in ten years, there's no reason for them to carry, right? Obviously if something requiring deadly force hasn't happened in ten years, it never will. crazy

I am all for more training for police as well, and I NEVER suggested we take their guns away, nor that they do not need them. I am talking about average joe american who currently has the right to buy that gun, stick in their nightstand drawer and leave it there for 10 years.

TK

[tkhayes 140]

Quote

And even here in the good ol' USA, it's been tried. Look at Washington, D.C., where handgun ownership is banned outright. To own long guns, you have to have a permit, and register the guns. D.C. has everything you want. According to your theory, D.C. should be a utopian crime-free haven. Yet, every year, it is one of the cities with the highest murder rate in the nation.

And using your 'facts about Washington', other large cities that allow people to carry guns, should have drastically lower crime rates since the criminals all know that everyone out there could be carrying, right? But they do not in fact.

Criminals, even if you are carrying, will simply target someone else. Few crimes are random I think - most are opportunity and are sought out.

Professional burglars do not break into my house because I have dogs. They will take the neighbor's house because they do not (and for many other reasons as well)

TK

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Criminals, even if you are carrying, will simply target someone else.

That's kind of the point. And if criminals thought anyone could be packing, they may pick a different crime. Like stealing a car instead of armed robbery or assaulting someone to rob them. Peronally I'd much rather have my car stolen than physically attacked.

[tkhayes 140]

Quote

It has been proven not to work in other countries. Why do you so easily dismiss those examples? You're wearing blinders.

I asked earlier, but did not receive the definition of 'violent crime'. I am sure that it varies from country to country, as do the way that the stats are collected and measured. So I doubt that we can accurately compare one country to another and blanket say that it does not work.

One 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. No guns, no gun deaths

Before 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"

TK

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I have stated an ideology that "If there were no handguns, then no onecould be killed by a handgun"

If someone killed you with a handgun or with a tire iron, would you care about the difference?

[tkhayes 140]

Quote

Guns were responsible for just 1.6% of all accidental deaths.

If we should ban guns to prevent 1,500 accidental deaths, then we
should also ban cars, buildings and ladders over five feet tall,
poisonous substances, matches and flammable liquids, pools and bath tubs, and lastly, gluttony. That would save 75,000 lives per year!

I will re-state that the gun has a purpose of killing - I said it before and I will say it again - http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.silcom.com/%257Evikman/isles/scriptorium/firearm/handgonn.html where they refer to its usage in battle, and http://www.fnhusa.com/contents/tw_57x28system.htm where they discuss piercing body armor and soft tissue, and http://www.civil-defence.org/english/history/history.html where they discuss the history in terms of military and warfare, whith only half of one sentence mentioning 'sport'.

The gun is used relatively little compared to the uses of the other products that you state, so the stats are skewed quite a bit.

Not sure where you got those numbers, but they are 10 years old. More current data is at NSC's website http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm
and if you search you can find 2000 and 1999 as well.

I am more 6 times more likely to be assaulted and killed by a gun that other sharp object. That supports your need for a gun, sure, But it also supports an argument to try and ban all guns. Not that I am advocating that.

But the well-respected survey that says Americans use guns 2.4 Million times a year to defend themselves has also been widely criticized http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm
with many flaws in the way and manner in which the data was collected.

Burglar breaks into my house, I confront them and they run - I defended myself.

Burglar breaks into my house, I pick up my gun and they run, now I defended myself from a life-threatening situation using my gun - therfore I need to keep one.

Logic is flawed to say that a gun was 'required' to defend myself in that situation. again, I bring up the taser, pepper spray and a dog - many other non-lethal forms of defending yourself.

TK

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I am more 6 times more likely to be assaulted and killed by a gun that other sharp object. That supports your need for a gun, sure, But it also supports an argument to try and ban all guns. Not that I am advocating that.

But the well-respected survey that says Americans use guns 2.4 Million times a year to defend themselves has also been widely criticized http://www.saf.org/...eviews/Hemenway1.htm
with many flaws in the way and manner in which the data was collected.

You're contradicting your self here. You're trying to imply that assaults with a gun wouldn't have happened without a gun. But defenses with a gun, would have happened without a gun.

[tkhayes 140]

Quote

So, because some people are careless with guns, therefore nobody deserves to own them? Gosh, what a model for freedom that is!

I actually did not say that, nor do I advocate it, but it is still an ideology.

Quote

Maybe since some people hurt themselves with hook turns, therefore nobody should be allowed to skydive. How's that idea sit with you?

Actually some dropzones do ban hook turns, and we most certainly have gone out of our way to CHANGE the sport with more training and knowledge and minimum requirements to do hook turns.

Do we have a 'parachute problem' in skydiving? Yes, and I think people will agree, because we have so many fatalieis related to that.

Do we have a 'gun problem' in the USA? Yes we do for the same reason.

Quote

I haven't heard you comment yet on my suggestion to you about making gun safety training mandatory in the public school system. What say you? Wouldn't that achieve the goal you desire - everyone having the knowledge to be safe with guns?

I am all for it -

TK