0
JohnRich

Should guns be banned from the law-abiding to help fight crime?

Recommended Posts

Quote

I fail to see any problem with that article. An apparent rise in legal firearm ownership and certification. The anti-gunners that you so despise complain... Where's the issue?



You said it yourself: The anti-gun folks think there is something wrong with law-abiding people, who have been vetted by police, owning guns for sport. That idea frightens them... They think that these law-abiding people will shoot their spouses in domestic disputes, and that their guns will be stolen by criminals. In order to eliminate those possibilities, they would prefer that even law-abiding people not be allowed to own guns. Do you agree with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Well, not so long ago you were going on and on about the soaring crime rate in the UK. So I guess there must be a strong correlation between legal gun ownership and crime.:S



You know better than that. So why are you trying to confuse people here about correlations that don't exist? Oh yeah, you love to make legal gun ownership look bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hi Vortexring,

you're waking up Skyrad, dear! If you want to adress your post to Big John - just watch out for screen name of JohnRich :P

BTW: JR does not know what "arsed" means. Would you explain ? Bwahahaha....


:D:D:D:D



Skyrad>Zzzzzzzzzz.....Wha, wha...er?...Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz <


Pissin' myself! Reckon I'm in John's bad books though:)

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A teenage suspect in at least one slaying was killed Wednesday night and police were examining the possibility that his killing was retaliation.



A murderer has been murdered. So what's the problem?

No one has ever claimed that carrying a gun is perfect protection, like a Star Wars force shield. But they are the most effective tool of last resort against most criminal attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps, just for a minute, maybe not everyone who doesn't agree with you are not actually gun-a-phobes John.

Now, I'm not wanting to send you insane here John, but perhaps a lot of these people are actually in the military and operate weapon systems week in week out! :o FOR REAL!!!

Perhaps people not sharing your obsession are not actually gun-a-phobes??? :S

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Maybe some day they'll come for your hunting rifles, in order to "reduce exposure" to your agents of death. Would that be okay with you?



Yes. I do not need my (how I love them) weapons to survive in the German jungle. And if *IF* one day laws for hunters and licensed weapon owners will be intensified - so might it be! I do not need my (*lovely*) weapons to enjoy my life (wiping away tears)



Quote

Did you ever cross any Texas border?



Why? Do you figure that I'm just an ignorant redneck who has never been outside his own state?



You said that. I just asked a question.... Did you?
:P

dudeist skydiver # 3105

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>But they are the most effective tool of last resort against most
>criminal attacks.

They are _a_ tool. People who think they are the most effective tool tend to end up like the guy in that news story.



Now you've gone and made me trot out my scientific study.

Attack, Injury and Crime Completion Rates in Robbery and Assault
Incidents:

Rates of Crime Completion by Victim's Method of Protection:

Robbery
No self protection ........................ 89%
Tried to get help or frighten attacker .... 64%
Threatened or reasoned with attacker ...... 54%
Non-violent resistance/evasion ............ 51%
Physical force ............................ 50%
Other measures ............................ 49%
Knife ..................................... 35%
Gun ....................................... 31%
Other weapon .............................. 29%

Rates of Injury by Victim's Method of Protection:

Robbery Assault
Physical force ............................ 51% 52%
Tried to get help or frighten attacker .... 49% 40%
Knife ..................................... 40% 30%
Non-violent resistance/evasion ............ 35% 26%
Threatened or reasoned with attacker ...... 31% 25%
Other measures ............................ 27% 21%
No self protection ........................ 25% 27%
Other weapon .............................. 22% 25%
Gun ....................................... 17% 12%

From: Kleck G, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America",
Table 4.4.
Source: Analysis of incident files of 1979-1985 National Crime
Survey public use computer tapes (ICPSR,1987b).
Note: Percentages do not total to 100% since any single
criminal incident can involve several different types
of self-protection methods.
Do you see what the single most effective means of defense is?
A gun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Maybe some day they'll come for your hunting rifles, in order to "reduce exposure" to your agents of death. Would that be okay with you?



Yes. I do not need my (how I love them) weapons to survive in the German jungle. And if *IF* one day laws for hunters and licensed weapon owners will be intensified - so might it be! I do not need my (*lovely*) weapons to enjoy my life (wiping away tears)


Quote:


"In Germany, they first came for the communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
Then, they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics.
I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak up."


- Reverend Martin Niemoller, German Lutheran pastor arrested
by the Gestapo, 1937, a decorated U-Boat skipper during WWI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I fail to see any problem with that article. An apparent rise in legal firearm ownership and certification. The anti-gunners that you so despise complain... Where's the issue?



You said it yourself: The anti-gun folks think there is something wrong with law-abiding people, who have been vetted by police, owning guns for sport. That idea frightens them... They think that these law-abiding people will shoot their spouses in domestic disputes, and that their guns will be stolen by criminals. In order to eliminate those possibilities, they would prefer that even law-abiding people not be allowed to own guns. Do you agree with that?



No, I don't agree with that (though their concern seem reasonable), but I still don't see a problem. The IANSA (a group I'd not even heard of until this article) are not in a position to dictate policy while as your article points out, an apparently rising number of people stand to oppose them. With them stand other bodies like the National Rifle Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Countryside Alliance and a range of other shooting sport organisations.

Now, if the people seeking still tigher firearms legislation were, say, the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers, or the Labour Party, I would be concerned. From this particular article however, I see just a continuing debate between pros and antis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If everybody were armed, criminals may think twice before comitting crimes.



I doubt it, they'd just make sure they fire first.

Quote

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa — Watch your back in South Africa. They kill folks here. Murder them at a bewildering rate. Robbers kill their victims, bystanders kill criminals, family members kill each other.

Gunbattles erupt on streets and in shopping malls. Passers-by whip out pistols and join in firefights between criminals and police or security guards. A recent flurry in high profile bloodshed even has police suggesting they are losing the fight with violent crime....
South Africans, especially whites, are among the best armed private citizens on Earth.

There are approximately 4.5 million registered firearms in the country, including more than 2.8 million handguns. The government estimates there also are 500,000 to a million unregistered firearms. Tens of thousands of the weapons are reported stolen each year, feeding a flourishing underground market in illicit arms.

Gun Free South Africa, a private gun-control advocacy group, says more people are shot and killed in South Africa than die in car accidents.



http://www.crisscross.com/world/news/34341
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope if you ever have to, you actually get the chance to and it won't just be a shot in the back of your head as you get out of your car in your driveway.
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The IANSA are not in a position to dictate policy while as your article points out, an apparently rising number of people stand to oppose them. With them stand other bodies like the National Rifle Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Countryside Alliance and a range of other shooting sport organisations.

Now, if the people seeking still tigher firearms legislation were, say, the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers, or the Labour Party, I would be concerned.



Those same pro-gun ownership groups spoke out against the 1997 law which banned modern handguns and semi-auto centerfire long guns. The government didn't give a shit about their opinions then, and did it anyway. So I think any such movements, by anyone, should be met with concern, since the government has a track record of running roughshod over the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The government would reply that they have a track record of responding to legitimate concerns by the general population. Remember that the Dunblane massacre which prompted the 1997 Amendment was conducted with weapons that were legally held on a license that could not be easily revoked. Yes, the resulting legislation was an excessive knee-jerk reaction but was nonetheless not unjustified and met a real public concern. However flawed the legislation, in this case the democratic process quite simply came down on the 'anti' side.

Anyhow, the fact remains that at present there is no public clamour, nor government interest in further firearms legislation. Thus I do not find myself particularly concerned by this article or the views of IANSA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A teenage suspect in at least one slaying was killed Wednesday night and police were examining the possibility that his killing was retaliation.

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


A murderer has been murdered. So what's the problem?



I am sorry, have you become a judge too now? One post clearly states suspect, you immediately changed that to murderer.

Funny enough, that highlights why people shouldn't own guns. You yourself don't see any problem with people getting killed. You don't have a problem with it at all, for that reason alone you should be prohibited from owning guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Funny enough, that highlights why people shouldn't own guns.




So some guy blows another away and thats a reason for me not to be able to own a firearm?


Quote

You yourself don't see any problem with people getting killed.




Not when it's in self defense I have no problem with it at all.



Quote

You don't have a problem with it at all, for that reason alone you should be prohibited from owning guns.




You lost me on this one. I dont see your reasoning at all.:S
If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We should apply the same irrational logic to skydiving, after all, people will collide with you, either by inattention, or simply not paying attention. We should ban skydiving!!!!!
"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Maybe some day they'll come for your hunting rifles, in order to "reduce exposure" to your agents of death. Would that be okay with you?



Yes. I do not need my (how I love them) weapons to survive in the German jungle. And if *IF* one day laws for hunters and licensed weapon owners will be intensified - so might it be! I do not need my (*lovely*) weapons to enjoy my life (wiping away tears)


Quote:


"In Germany, they first came for the communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
Then, they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics.
I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak up."


- Reverend Martin Niemoller, German Lutheran pastor arrested
by the Gestapo, 1937, a decorated U-Boat skipper during WWI.



That FACT should have people re examining their stances on ALOT of issues.

Sadly they are willing to repeat the mistakes of others.[:/]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0