Recommended Posts
bch7773 0
gun nuts are not the only people who label opposers.
read the rest of SC and see how both liberals and conservatives use labels to de-humanize the opposition. Its not just gun nuts.
Don't like what a republican is saying? Label him a facist neo-con. Don't like what a democrat is saying? Label him a bleeding heart lib.
If someething is very important to someone, they tend to get angry and start labeling people. You think you would be happy and cheerful if a "Anti-Skydivers league" tried to outlaw the dangerous and grossly unnecessary sport of skydiving. a.k.a. drunk death leaping
MB 3528, RB 1182
read the rest of SC and see how both liberals and conservatives use labels to de-humanize the opposition. Its not just gun nuts.
Don't like what a republican is saying? Label him a facist neo-con. Don't like what a democrat is saying? Label him a bleeding heart lib.
If someething is very important to someone, they tend to get angry and start labeling people. You think you would be happy and cheerful if a "Anti-Skydivers league" tried to outlaw the dangerous and grossly unnecessary sport of skydiving. a.k.a. drunk death leaping
MB 3528, RB 1182
rushmc 18
QuoteYou know, I'm a gun owner, and I might actually support a gun ban amendment if it would actually work and do what gun control advocates claim. The evidence, however, all indicates that it would not. The below evidence indicates that banning guns here in the US would actually put private citizens in more danger, primarily because those kinds of gun bans simply disarm law-abiding citizens, and assure criminals that their victims will be unarmed. Violent crime in England has RISEN since the gun ban, and the statistics indicate that I am more than twice as likely to be assaulted in England than in the US. Criminals, by definition, are lawbreakers. What makes you think they're going to obey anti-gun laws but not anti-robbery laws? Just something to think about...
______________________Quote________________________
Since the late 1990s, [Great Britain] makes it practically impossible for a private citizen to possess a firearm. Few citizens own firearms. ... The number of gun crimes has continued to increase [in Britain], even since the most stringent laws were put in place. Criminals do not seem to have difficulty obtaining firearms....
Since 1995, the English rate for every type of violent crime, with the exception of murder and rape, has been far higher than in the U.S. For example, based on a U.S. Department of Justice study, in 1995 there were 8.8 assaults per 1,000 persons in the United States, compared with 20 assaults per 1,000 in England and Wales (their statistics are grouped). Robberies in England and Wales were 1.4 times higher, and burglary was nearly double the U.S. rate. Since then, British figures for violent crime have climbed, while ours have dropped. You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York.
In the five years after the 1997 handgun ban, handgun crime in Britain doubled. In 2002 alone, gun crime rose by 35 percent, and handgun crime rose by 46 percent. English efforts to reduce the number of privately owned guns have succeeded only in disarming law-abiding people, but they have failed to disarm those inclined to misuse weapons.
-www.secondamendmentcenter.org (Second Amendment Research Center, Ohio State University), emphasis added
Oh no, Now you've done it
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
QuoteMy recollection is that YOU didn't like the self-evident truth that ALL felons start out as law abiding folks.
But I'm old, so I may be forgetful.
Nope. I was quite unimpressed by your amazing declaration that people are born innocent.
Not terribly relevent to the conversation at hand, however. The issue really is - are criminals still law abiding when they come into posession of a gun.
We also talked about supply methods for acquiring guns. Your old age choose to gloss over the various means there.
It's not terribly telling to say that other countries have survived without the ability to overthrow their government. Sure some have. But few are as old as the US with their current form of government. And quite a few suffered without this ability. The Framers weren't willing to leave it up to chance.
QuoteThe onus is on the ones who are positing the idea that gun laws are bad/good not on the person who is undecided.
I dont have facts to present. Since I am reasonably undecided on the issue then why should I be the one to present the facts. If you are the one who supports an issue and are arguing about it in the Speakers corner then why dont you bring the fucking facts??
Have you not repeated mentioned thousands of people killed and how it would be better with less or no guns? Despite admitedly having not a clue on the subject?
That's why I feel no obligation to educate you - your mind is hardly open. And you keep pretending you aren't part of this debate. Take a stand - even a stupid one is better than this on again off again routine.
Gene03 0
Rainbo,
The Constitution????
"It's just a god damned piece of paper".
Devil's advocate, people. Relax.
The Constitution????
"It's just a god damned piece of paper".
Devil's advocate, people. Relax.
“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him.
Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966)
Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966)
billvon 2,427
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>are criminals still law abiding when they come into posession of a gun.
?? Criminals are, by definition, not law abiding. Also by axiom here in the US, they start out as law-abiding. Which means that they do something to make them a criminal. At some point most future criminals in the US have an opportunity to legally purchase a gun; laws like mandatory waiting periods attempt to reduce this opportunity.
?? Criminals are, by definition, not law abiding. Also by axiom here in the US, they start out as law-abiding. Which means that they do something to make them a criminal. At some point most future criminals in the US have an opportunity to legally purchase a gun; laws like mandatory waiting periods attempt to reduce this opportunity.
kallend 1,647
QuoteFor example, based on a U.S. Department of Justice study, in 1995 there were 8.8 assaults per 1,000 persons in the United States, compared with 20 assaults per 1,000 in England and Wales (their statistics are grouped). Robberies in England and Wales were 1.4 times higher, and burglary was nearly double the U.S. rate. Since then, British figures for violent crime have climbed, while ours have dropped. You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York.
Do you have links to the ACTUAL studies, as opposed to a pro-gun site reference?
We had this issue in another thread, that in the US they were measuring actual crime reports while the UK figures came from a survey rather than actual reports.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
DaVinci 0
QuoteWhen they call the poster names and question his intelligence, they indicate that they are irrational gun nuts who probably _should_ be regulated more heavily.
You mean like when the other side blindly calls everyone that supports the 2nd as a Heston wanabe?
DaVinci 0
QuoteThats what Im waiting for...
Then maybe your posts should not start with calling anyone that disagrees with you as a Heston wannabe.
Quote
Do you have links to the ACTUAL studies, as opposed to a pro-gun site reference?
The statistics came from here: Reducing Gun Violence Reprinted from Focus on Law Studies, SPRING 2003, Volume XVIII, Number 2, published by the Division for Public Education of the American Bar Association.
kallend 1,647
Quote
Quote
Do you have links to the ACTUAL studies, as opposed to a pro-gun site reference?
The statistics came from here: Reducing Gun Violence Reprinted from Focus on Law Studies, SPRING 2003, Volume XVIII, Number 2, published by the Division for Public Education of the American Bar Association.
You originally wrote that it came from US DoJ. Then you said it came from OSU. Now you say it comes from the ABA. WHICH IS IT?
Do you have a link to the actual DoJ or FBI data, and do you have a link to the source of the UK stats with which they are compared? The FBI and UK Home Office stats I have seen do NOT agree with your quoted rates.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuote
Quote
Do you have links to the ACTUAL studies, as opposed to a pro-gun site reference?
The statistics came from here: Reducing Gun Violence Reprinted from Focus on Law Studies, SPRING 2003, Volume XVIII, Number 2, published by the Division for Public Education of the American Bar Association.
You originally wrote that it came from US DoJ. Then you said it came from OSU. Now you say it comes from the ABA. WHICH IS IT?
The article on the OSU website (which is where I found it and quoted from it) is a reprint of the ABA article, which referenced the DOJ. I'm sure you can find the statistics if you want to disprove the ABA's interpretation of the data. You know I don't mind doing my research, but I really don't have time to go dig up all the DOJ reports right now. The bar exam is in six days, so I have time to take a study break now and then and post, but not to spend hours wading through the DOJ.
DaVinci 0
Bill, very well said.
A few notes:
We already have laws against doing harm.
A gun also allows someone smaller a chance against a larger attacker.
No gun ban will prevent a criminal from getting a weapon, bans will only prevent "honest" people from getting and using guns. Guns also make a great defense from attack.
Dumb people do dumb things. These same dumb people drive on the road, jump tiny canopies and pull low.
I could support mandatory gun safety courses to buy a gun. In the sixth grade my entire class went to a range and shot BB guns and bows. It was required to take the safety classes, but your parents could request that you not be allowed to shoot if they liked. I volunteered at that range for a few years after I came back from Military duty.
I would support mandatory gun safety classes in school...Right along with sex ed and a whole bunch of other things.
Flat out well said. But some people think that banning weapons will suddenly make them safe.
We already have laws that prohibit criminals from owning guns. We already have laws about storage of guns and sales of guns. We already have laws about reckless use of guns.
As any ban does.
Like I said...I agree with your thoughts.
A few notes:
QuoteThe problems we see from guns stem from three basic causes:
1. Intent to do harm. A gun allows someone to end someone's life in an instant, and during a momentary flash of rage a gun may enable someone to kill someone else in seconds
We already have laws against doing harm.
A gun also allows someone smaller a chance against a larger attacker.
Quote2. Use as a tool for crime. Guns make great tools to threaten people with, and are better than nearly anything else when it comes to forcing others to do what you want. You could shorten this one to "criminals."
No gun ban will prevent a criminal from getting a weapon, bans will only prevent "honest" people from getting and using guns. Guns also make a great defense from attack.
Quote3. Incompetence
Dumb people do dumb things. These same dumb people drive on the road, jump tiny canopies and pull low.
QuoteIncompetents can be dealt with through education. The NRA has a pretty good basic firearms course, and we could probably do a lot more to ensure more people take a course like that.
I could support mandatory gun safety courses to buy a gun. In the sixth grade my entire class went to a range and shot BB guns and bows. It was required to take the safety classes, but your parents could request that you not be allowed to shoot if they liked. I volunteered at that range for a few years after I came back from Military duty.
I would support mandatory gun safety classes in school...Right along with sex ed and a whole bunch of other things.
QuoteAbout the only people who would not be able to get them would be people determined to do things legally - and those typically aren't the people committing crimes.
Some bills, like the Brady Bill, attempt to limit the number of "bad" weapons sold, on the theory that only criminals use "bad" weapons and hunters use "good" weapons, ones intended for non-crime uses. Sounds good in theory, but there are some problems. The biggest problem is that any gun can be used for crime, and most guns can be used for target shooting and/or hunting. A secondary problem is how to define "bad" and "good." To most people an automatic weapon is more "bad" than a handgun. To some gun aficionados, a well-maintained automatic weapon is _safer_ than a Saturday Night Special.
Flat out well said. But some people think that banning weapons will suddenly make them safe.
QuoteIf someone proposed a law that would reduce gun ownership by criminals without affecting law-abiding gun owners, I'd probably be for it. Education is one way to do that; better care/storage of guns will both make them safer to use and help prevent criminals getting their hands on them to begin with.
We already have laws that prohibit criminals from owning guns. We already have laws about storage of guns and sales of guns. We already have laws about reckless use of guns.
QuoteTo me, though, the Brady campaign is targeting the wrong people, and affects people who use guns correctly/safely more than people who abuse them.
As any ban does.
Like I said...I agree with your thoughts.
jm951 0
Nightingale-
don't bother with Kallen, he wouldn't follow the links I provided because they were on an NRA and GOA site, even though the links were to .gov sites. He isn't interested in facts.
Put your time to better use, pass the bar. Good luck on the test!!
don't bother with Kallen, he wouldn't follow the links I provided because they were on an NRA and GOA site, even though the links were to .gov sites. He isn't interested in facts.
Put your time to better use, pass the bar. Good luck on the test!!
Quote>are criminals still law abiding when they come into posession of a gun.
?? Criminals are, by definition, not law abiding. Also by axiom here in the US, they start out as law-abiding. Which means that they do something to make them a criminal. At some point most future criminals in the US have an opportunity to legally purchase a gun; laws like mandatory waiting periods attempt to reduce this opportunity.
The notion presented was that criminals are legally obtaining their weapons. IE, they were law abiding citizens when they got it, and then turned evil.
You need to be 21 (at least in CA) to buy a handgun. At least 18 elsewhere. I venture that a pretty big chunk of criminals commited their first crime before that age. And if they have somone else do a straw purchase, that is also an illegal purchase.
jarrodh 0
QuoteQuoteWhen they call the poster names and question his intelligence, they indicate that they are irrational gun nuts who probably _should_ be regulated more heavily.
You mean like when the other side blindly calls everyone that supports the 2nd as a Heston wanabe?
I think I should be the last person to blanketly represent "the other side" of this argument
. Just so you know that comment was in response to warped skydiver referring to many prominent leaders of the democratic party as "libtards". I do not believe that all people who support the 2nd amendment are Heston wannabes. I do however think people who seem to care only about politics in terms of the 2nd amendment as Heston wannabes.
Dont think your side doesnt call names either buddy.
2 BITS....4 BITS....6 BITS....A DOLLAR!....ALL FOR THE GATORS....STAND UP AND HOLLER!!!!
Dont worry warped, after Hillary gets office, and she follows UN guidelines to have firearms for police and military only, Shell have her buddies the Chinese who paid for blillys campaign come over after relieving half our navy. 1 billion screaming chinamen will make sure you dont have any guns. No longer wil we have the Clinton legacy, we will have the Clinton Dynasty..then no longer will you have to worry about voting anymore.
Arguements? Why the hell would a democrat president vote in Chinafree trade? A party who was supported by unions fiancially. How many more americans lost jobs since that fateful day in July 2000? Tariffs are what kept jobs in america. The rich get richer. especially in outsourcing. To a dangerous communist country at that. Whens the last time you saw a made in USA label or stamp? Thank you, you "workingman loving" gun hating lib dems. Thank you for supporting another union hand like me, and to my working brothers.
Arguements? Why the hell would a democrat president vote in Chinafree trade? A party who was supported by unions fiancially. How many more americans lost jobs since that fateful day in July 2000? Tariffs are what kept jobs in america. The rich get richer. especially in outsourcing. To a dangerous communist country at that. Whens the last time you saw a made in USA label or stamp? Thank you, you "workingman loving" gun hating lib dems. Thank you for supporting another union hand like me, and to my working brothers.
______________________Quote________________________
Since the late 1990s, [Great Britain] makes it practically impossible for a private citizen to possess a firearm. Few citizens own firearms. ... The number of gun crimes has continued to increase [in Britain], even since the most stringent laws were put in place. Criminals do not seem to have difficulty obtaining firearms....
Since 1995, the English rate for every type of violent crime, with the exception of murder and rape, has been far higher than in the U.S. For example, based on a U.S. Department of Justice study, in 1995 there were 8.8 assaults per 1,000 persons in the United States, compared with 20 assaults per 1,000 in England and Wales (their statistics are grouped). Robberies in England and Wales were 1.4 times higher, and burglary was nearly double the U.S. rate. Since then, British figures for violent crime have climbed, while ours have dropped. You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York.
In the five years after the 1997 handgun ban, handgun crime in Britain doubled. In 2002 alone, gun crime rose by 35 percent, and handgun crime rose by 46 percent. English efforts to reduce the number of privately owned guns have succeeded only in disarming law-abiding people, but they have failed to disarm those inclined to misuse weapons.
-www.secondamendmentcenter.org (Second Amendment Research Center, Ohio State University), emphasis added
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites