Congress Shafts Second Amendment... Again

[Yahoshua]

Sry for posting the whole article but this needs to be seen and read by all:

<That isn´t a valid reason, if people are interested they can click the link - Gizzmoe>

http://www.jpfo.org/alert20070122.htm


Congress Shafts Second Amendment ... Again

Well, they certainly didn't wait long, did they?

Alan Korwin, author of "Gun Laws of America" ( www.gunlaws.com (http://www.gunlaws.com) ), recently alerted us to some ominous activity taking place in Congress. Less than three weeks after the 110th Congress convened, the Democrats have already proposed four -- yes, FOUR -- new gun laws!

...

[Enigma]

"The Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2007," H.R.256 ( http://tinyurl.com/3brx43 (http://tinyurl.com/3brx43) ) would raise the minimum age for the ownership of a semi-automatic rifle from 18 to 21. In addition, children under 18 attending a gun show must be accompanied by an adult at all times. Worse, it calls for fines and jailtime if a child gets a hold of your firearm and uses it to cause death or serious bodily injury, if you "recklessly disregarded the risk" that a child could access your firearm.


Whats wrong with this?


More ludricrous is H.R. 428 ( http://tinyurl.com/38k7mk (http://tinyurl.com/38k7mk) ), entitled "To require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban toys which in size, shape, or overall appearance resemble real handguns." Yes, you read that right. The Democrats are pushing the banning of _toy_ guns, if they resemble real guns in size, shape OR overall appearance.


Ehh, maybe a bit over the top. People have been killed over toy guns that look too realistic. Theres no reason a kid needs a toy gun that is a direct replica. Dont see the big deal.

As for the gun shows law, I dont feel i'm the guy to comment. Never been to one, never plan to. I think if people are that passionate about owning firearms designed with the specific purpose of taking lives, (assault rifles, some handguns...) they still have a way to have the show. Just requires a little effort. I know for a fact that in some places in the middle east, gun laws are very lax. You can buy an AK-47 off the street like you can buy a Diet Pepsi in any strip mall in the US.....Maybe thats a better alternative for those who have the express desire to own weapons designed for killing as many people as efficiantly as possible.

Again, a can of worms that devides alot of Americans. For my views on gun control, ive been called un-American, a traitor, etc, etc. All hog wash to me at the end of the day. It's true that it's a protected right, but the pro gun crowd seems to not be able to distinguish between why that amendmant was written when it was written, and its relevance today...

[bradclark1]

I really didn't see a thing that stops or impedes weapon ownership.
Sounds like bitching just to be bitching.

[Yahoshua]

The reason I am adamantly opposed to these measures are for these reasons:

http://www.jpfo.org/NaziLawEnglish.htm

http://www.jpfo.org/DbyGCp3.pdf

I have a problem with raising the age of firearm ownership to 21. If we can vote, enlist, fight and die in war, we can be trusted to buy a rifle and go home with it. I don't have a problem with the aprt about prosecuting people for negligence though.

As for gunshows, it is a restriction of the right to peacably assemble and restricts even the freedom of speech, right to privacy, and trade laws for those who attend.

Banning toy guns is just stupid, mandating that all "toy guns" are colored to distinctly mark them as fake (like the orange muzzle now seen on toys) makes more sense to me than to ban toy guns.

And you should take to heart and remember that a firearm is nothing more than a piece of machinery. It isn't the machine that kills people, it's the person who operates the machine that kills people. Saying that guns kill people is like saying that vehicles are the sole cause of traffic accidents. And that train of thought is blatantly false.

And I do know why it was written, what it means, and who it applies to. The militia, whether organized or unorganized, have the right to keep and bear arms as they choose. And it applies to all U.S. citizens, that is who the 2nd amendment was written for.

[Tchocky]

As for gunshows, it is a restriction of the right to peacably assemble and restricts even the freedom of speech, right to privacy, and trade laws for those who attend.

Isnt it about keeping dangerouw weapons out of the hands of minors? I would have thought so.

And you should take to heart and remember that a firearm is nothing more than a piece of machinery. It isn't the machine that kills people, it's the person who operates the machine that kills people. Saying that guns kill people is like saying that vehicles are the sole cause of traffic accidents. And that train of thought is blatantly false.

You're right there. Another, blatantly true train of thought is that gun violence is much more likely when more guns are available.

[moose1am]

[quote]
"The Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2007," H.R.256 ( http://tinyurl.com/3brx43 (http://tinyurl.com/3brx43) ) would raise the minimum age for the ownership of a semi-automatic rifle from 18 to 21. In addition, children under 18 attending a gun show must be accompanied by an adult at all times. Worse, it calls for fines and jailtime if a child gets a hold of your firearm and uses it to cause death or serious bodily injury, if you "recklessly disregarded the risk" that a child could access your firearm.


Whats wrong with this?

Nothing other than it's not in the Constitution and it's in opposition to what IS written in our constitution.

[FIREWALL]

The first 3 are BS but the last 1 on gun shows are regulated fairly
and as a gun buyer from CA. I BUY IN AZ. on occasion and everything
is fair and regulated fo saftey. I firmly beleive everyone has the right to own Rifles, Shotguns and handguns. But I'm against anyone owning
fully automatic weapons.

[Enigma]

I firmly beleive everyone has the right to own Rifles, Shotguns and handguns. But I'm against anyone owning
fully automatic weapons.


Amen.

[August]

But I'm against anyone owning fully automatic weapons.
Why? Since they were regulated in the 1930s only one crime has been committed by a privately owned and lawfully possessed machine gun. A Florida cop used his Uzi to kill his wife. Of course he could just have easily used his service revolver...

[waste gate]

The first 3 are BS but the last 1 on gun shows are regulated fairly
and as a gun buyer from CA. I BUY IN AZ. on occasion and everything
is fair and regulated fo saftey. I firmly beleive everyone has the right to own Rifles, Shotguns and handguns. But I'm against anyone owning
fully automatic weapons.

What, in your mind, is this the difference, btwn owning a semi-automatic weapon and a fully automatic weapon?

[Enigma]

What, in your mind, is this the difference, btwn owning a semi-automatic weapon and a fully automatic weapon?


Couple of hundred dollars, at least. ;)

[waste gate]

What, in your mind, is this the difference, btwn owning a semi-automatic weapon and a fully automatic weapon?


Couple of hundred dollars, at least. ;)

$250.00 tax stamp from BATFE, notification of and authorization from the local law enforcement official (chief of police, sheriff) before purchase. Is that what you mean?

[Enigma]

Actually, I was just being a smart arse and suggesting that it might cost extra to buy. :-?

[waste gate]

BTW, any fully-automatic fire arm which is eligable for purchase by private individuals under the National Fire Arms Act of 1938 (NFA) is going for $3000 and higher.

EDIT: That is for people who are interested in obeying the law.

[PeriscopeDepth]

If it is the opinion of the government you can't be trusted with alcohol until 21, makes sense to me you shouldn't be able to own a gun either. IIRC, it doesn't stop parents from taking their kids out to shoot?

PD

[waste gate]

If it is the opinion of the government you can't be trusted with alcohol until 21, makes sense to me you shouldn't be able to own a gun either. IIRC, it doesn't stop parents from taking their kids out to shoot?

PD

But you can be trusted to vote.? Which do you think effects more people?

[bookworm_020]

What are you complaning about? Try getting a gun licence in Australia, let alone a gun!!!;)

[waste gate]

What are you complaning about? Try getting a gun licence in Australia, let alone a gun!!!;)

Because we don't want to be like Australia, Britain, France, Germany, the former Soviet Union (known as Russia now), etc, etc, etc.

That is what we are complaining about.

[U-533]

There are at least 300 weapon owners that I know, including yours truly,
if they come to get our weapons the morgue and the local football stadium wont be big enough to hold the bodies.

Maybe after all us "Good ol Boys" are dead and gone they can play that sh**.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Yes, but they are very different kinds of effects. I believe guns should be 21 and over as alcohol is because of the immediate physical danger presented by both. 18-21 voting MAY have an effect on more people, but to do so requires that a signifigant portion of society already votes the way 18-21 year olds do. Drunk driving or gun violence committed by those under 21 doesn't require that a large portion of society already agrees with the 18-21 year old committing the act. I have no problem with people shooting guns for fun, I just believe that it can't possibly hurt for them to be 21 or doing it with the consent of their guardian.

PD

[waste gate]

Yes, but they are very different kinds of effects. I believe guns should be 21 and over as alcohol is because of the immediate physical danger presented by both. 18-21 voting MAY have an effect on more people, but to do so requires that a signifigant portion of society already votes the way 18-21 year olds do. Drunk driving or gun violence committed by those under 21 doesn't require that a large portion of society already agrees with the 18-21 year old committing the act. I have no problem with people shooting guns for fun, I just believe that it can't possibly hurt for them to be 21 or doing it with the consent of their guardian.

PD

I think you are mixing your apples and oranges by equating fire arm ownership with driving while intoxicated. One is a constitutionally guaranteed right and the other is a crime.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Yes, but they are very different kinds of effects. I believe guns should be 21 and over as alcohol is because of the immediate physical danger presented by both. 18-21 voting MAY have an effect on more people, but to do so requires that a signifigant portion of society already votes the way 18-21 year olds do. Drunk driving or gun violence committed by those under 21 doesn't require that a large portion of society already agrees with the 18-21 year old committing the act. I have no problem with people shooting guns for fun, I just believe that it can't possibly hurt for them to be 21 or doing it with the consent of their guardian.

PD
I think you are mixing your apples and oranges by equating fire arm ownership with driving while intoxicated. One is a constitutionally guaranteed right and the other is a crime.

But not to those under 21.

PD

[waste gate]

Yes, but they are very different kinds of effects. I believe guns should be 21 and over as alcohol is because of the immediate physical danger presented by both. 18-21 voting MAY have an effect on more people, but to do so requires that a signifigant portion of society already votes the way 18-21 year olds do. Drunk driving or gun violence committed by those under 21 doesn't require that a large portion of society already agrees with the 18-21 year old committing the act. I have no problem with people shooting guns for fun, I just believe that it can't possibly hurt for them to be 21 or doing it with the consent of their guardian.

PD
I think you are mixing your apples and oranges by equating fire arm ownership with driving while intoxicated. One is a constitutionally guaranteed right and the other is a crime.

But not to those under 21.

PD

What do you mean? Last I checked driving intoxicated is a crime no matter what age the individual. Constitutionally guaranteed rights apply to everyone.
Just because the laws say otherwise does not abrogate the right. Remember governments do not give a human being rights, governments are established to protect those rights.

[Bort]

As has been shown previously, I am in favor of very strict gun control, but several of these laws leave a bad taste in my mouth. The 21 year old purchase rule- this brings me to a gripe I have about the whole 18 or 21 thing, you can be drafted, fight and die in a war, smoke, go to prison and even be sentenced to death at 18, but you cannot drink, and now perhaps you cannot own a gun either. The government needs to make up its mind what the legal age is for everything not just cherrypicking some rights and liabilities to be active at age 18 while others do not come into force until 21, one or the other guys, make up your minds. As far as the toy guns go, this is absurd. I am a huge fan of airsoft and combat simulation and this rule is as dumb as they come. Fake weapons are mandated to have orange tips and if parents are too moronic to fail to teach their kids not to point fake guns at the police or passersby then good riddance- fools.:nope:

[PeriscopeDepth]

There are several constiutional rights with imposed limits. Just like those under 18 cannot vote, I think those under 21 should have to have a guardian if they want to go shooting. I don't think an 18 year old should be able to go out and buy a gun without a parent. You do. I think we've reached the end of usefullness of this debate. :)

FYI, I am not an anti gun type. My dad started taking me shooting when I was eight.

PD

[Enigma]

Because we don't want to be like Australia, Britain, France, Germany

How do American gun related homicides and crimes stack up to those up the countries listed?

[Enigma]

Alright! a long awaited Brothel Avatar! YESSSS! :rock:

EDIT*Damn! And in one post, it's gone. :(

[waste gate]

There are several constiutional rights with imposed limits. Just like those under 18 cannot vote, I think those under 21 should have to have a guardian if they want to go shooting. I don't think an 18 year old should be able to go out and buy a gun without a parent. You do. I think we've reached the end of usefullness of this debate. :)

FYI, I am not an anti gun type. My dad started taking me shooting when I was eight.

PD

Please, for my edification name one 'constitutionally guaranteed right' which imposes limits on individual freedom.

[August]

Because we don't want to be like Australia, Britain, France, Germany
How do American gun related homicides and crimes stack up to those up the countries listed?

Probably higher in the US but it's immaterial. Whether it's a gun, knife, baseball bat or handy open high rise window anyone intending to commit murder is going to find a way.

[Tchocky]

Because we don't want to be like Australia, Britain, France, Germany
How do American gun related homicides and crimes stack up to those up the countries listed?
Probably higher in the US but it's immaterial. Whether it's a gun, knife, baseball bat or handy open high rise window anyone intending to commit murder is going to find a way.
USA - 5.9
Australia - 1.28
Britain - 1.62
France - 1.64
Germany - 0.98

Thats the murder rate as a whole per 100,000 people, it doesnt discriminate by method. For the 2000's so far.

[MadMike]

Excerpts from NRA-ILA (bold added by me).

Yours, Mike


12 LEADING CAUSES OF DEATH IN U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (latest data)

ALL CAUSES 2,169,518

Heart Disease 720,862
Cancers 514,657
Strokes 143,481
ACCIDENTS 89,347
Motor Vehicle 43,536
Falls 12,662
Poisoning (solid, liquid, gas) 6,434
Drowning (incl. water transport drownings) 4,685
Suffocation (mechanical, ingestion) 4,195
Fires and flames 4,120
Surgical/Medical misadventures* 2,473
Other Transportation (excl. drownings) 2,086
Natural/Environmental factors 1,453
Firearms 1,441
Chronic pulmonary diseases 90,650
Pneumonia and influenza 77,860
Diabetes 48,951
Suicide** 30,810
HIV Infections (AIDS) 29,555
Homicide and legal intervention*** 26,513
Cirrhosis and other liver diseases 25,429

* A Harvard University study suggests 93,000 deaths annually related to medical negligence, excluding tens of thousands more deaths from non- hospital medical office/lab mistakes and thousands of hospital caused infections.

** Approximately 60% involve firearms.


*** Approximately 60% involve firearms. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck estimates 1,500-2,800 self-defense and justifiable homicides by civilians and 300-600 by police annually.

* In 1990, the Supreme Court observed in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, that the right to keep and bear arms, like rights protected by the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, is an individual right held by "the people," which the court defined as all "persons who are a part of a national community."

U.S. COMPARED WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES
* All criminologists studying the firearms issue reject simple comparisons of violent crime among foreign countries. (James D. Wright, et. al ., Under the Gun, 1983) "Gun control does not deserve credit for the low crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations.... Foreign style gun control is doomed to failure in America; not only does it depend on search and seizure too intrusive for American standards, it postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government fundamentally at odds with the individual, egalitarian . . . American ethos." (David Kopel, "Foreign Gun Control in American Eyes," 1987)


* Gun laws and firearms availability are unrelated to homicide or suicide rates. Most states bordering Canada have homicide rates similar to their northern neighbors, despite much higher rates of firearms availability. While the American homicide rate is higher than most European nations, and firearms are frequently involved in American homicides, America's violent crime rates are even higher for crimes where guns are less often (robbery) or infrequently (rape) involved. The difference is violence, not firearms, and America's system of revolving door justice.

* England now has twice as many homicides with firearms as it did before adopting its repressive laws, yet its politicians have responded to rising crime by further restricting rifles and shotguns. During the past dozen years, handgun-related robbery has risen 200% in Britain, five times as fast as the rise in the U.S.

* Japan's low homicide rate is accompanied by a suicide rate much higher than that of the United States, despite Japan's virtual gun ban. And Japan's low crime rate is attributable to police-state type law enforcement which would be opposed by Americans.

NRA Institute for Legislative Action
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, Virginia
22030

[Enigma]

Probably higher in the US but it's immaterial. Whether it's a gun, knife, baseball bat or handy open high rise window anyone intending to commit murder is going to find a way.

Soooo....people should be able to freely provide the easiest means? A nice M-60 or perhaps a shoulder launched missile? If your 21, of course...

It's true that people who want to kill, will kill. But I suspect murderers are somewhat a minority in this country, so I think i'd prefer to let those of us not interested in killing people regulate weapons that are designed simply for the purpose of killing, and not let the "Well, I'll find a way to kill anyway so please just make the weapon I wish to use legal and convenient" crowd write the law....no? :hmm:

[waste gate]

Perhaps what we should be looking at is how many lives are saved because of private ownership of fire arms.
* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. * Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America"—a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.* Concealed carry laws have reduced murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them. According to a comprehensive study which reviewed crime statistics in every county in the United States from 1977 to 1992, states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3%.* Anti-gun journal pronounces the failure of the Brady law. One of the nation’s leading anti-gun medical publications, the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that the Brady registration law has failed to reduce murder rates. In August 2000, JAMA reported that states implementing waiting periods and background checks did "not [experience] reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates." * Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns. That’s right. Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than guns. In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, etc. (45), as compared with students who were murdered by firearms (22) during that same time period. * More guns, less crime. In the decade of the 1990s, the number of guns in this country increased by roughly 40 million—even while the murder rate decreased by almost 40% percent.7 Accidental gun deaths in the home decreased by almost 40 percent as well.* CDC admits there is no evidence that gun control reduces crime. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has long been criticized for propagating questionable studies which gun control organizations have used in defense of their cause. But after analyzing 51 studies in 2003, the CDC concluded that the "evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these [firearms] laws." * Gun shows are NOT a primary source of illegal guns for criminals. According to two government studies, the National Institute of Justice reported in 1997 that "less than two percent [of criminals] reported obtaining [firearms] from a gun show."10 And the Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed in 2001 that less than one percent of firearm offenders acquired their weapons at gun shows. * Several polls show that Americans are very pro-gun. Several scientific polls indicate that the right to keep and bear arms is still revered—and gun control disdained—by a majority of Americans today. To mention just a few recent polls: * In 2002, an ABC News poll found that almost three-fourths of the American public believe that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of "individuals" to own guns. * Zogby pollsters found that by a more than 3 to 1 margin, Americans support punishing "criminals who use a gun in the commission of a crime" over legislation to "ban handguns." * A Research 2000 poll found that 85% of Americans would find it appropriate for a principal or teacher to use "a gun at school to defend the lives of students" to stop a school massacre. * A study claiming "guns are three times more likely to kill you than help you" is a total fraud. Even using the low figures from the Clinton Justice Department, firearms are used almost 50 times more often to save life than to take life.15 More importantly, however, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by one’s own gun is a total lie: * Researcher Don Kates reveals that all available data now indicates that the "home gun homicide victims were killed using guns [I]not kept in the victim's home."* In other words, the victims were NOT murdered with their own guns! They were killed "by intruders who brought their own guns to the victim's household."
* Gun-free England not such a utopia after all. According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.18 And according to a United Nations study, British citizens are more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States. The 2000 report shows that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.



http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

[Enigma]

Respectfully, Mike, you forgot this statistic about your source....

* The National Rifle Association is the largest gun rights lobbying organization in the United States.

You'll forgive me if I dont put too much stock in what they publish. that would be like me telling you to take this to heart.

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html#intl

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/miller-table.jpg

[Enigma]

And as I said in the 2nd post of this thread....

Again, a can of worms that devides alot of Americans.

:yep:

It's a to each his own issue. I'm pretty sure we know where I stand on it. I think we could paste each other silly with stastics all day. :lol:

[Tchocky]

Perhaps what we should be looking at is how many lives are saved because of private ownership of fire arms.* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

This carries the blatant assumption that the citizens life was in danger, and the gun saved them. Most criminals would not be prepared to kill. Warding off a mugger with a handgun is NOT saving your life.* Anti-gun journal pronounces the failure of the Brady law. One of the nation’s leading anti-gun medical publications, the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that the Brady registration law has failed to reduce murder rates. In August 2000, JAMA reported that states implementing waiting periods and background checks did "not [experience] reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates."
Of course. Registering guns and making people wait for them doesnt stop guns getting into their hands.* Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns. That’s right. Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than guns. In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, etc. (45), as compared with students who were murdered by firearms (22) during that same time period. I really dont mean to be pithy here, but how the hell is this relevant?* Zogby pollsters found that by a more than 3 to 1 margin, Americans support punishing "criminals who use a gun in the commission of a crime" over legislation to "ban handguns."
That's a ridiculous poll. It creates a false choice. Cant America have both?

* A study claiming "guns are three times more likely to kill you than help you" is a total fraud. Even using the low figures from the Clinton Justice Department, firearms are used almost 50 times more often to save life than to take life.15 More importantly, however, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by one’s own gun is a total lie:
Again, this postulates that the criminal was ready and willing to kill, and would have definitely done so. Thazt kind of asssumption is dangerous, because we dont know what would have happened.

[August]

Soooo....people should be able to freely provide the easiest means? A nice M-60 or perhaps a shoulder launched missile? If your 21, of course...

It's true that people who want to kill, will kill. But I suspect murderers are somewhat a minority in this country, so I think i'd prefer to let those of us not interested in killing people regulate weapons that are designed simply for the purpose of killing, and not let the "Well, I'll find a way to kill anyway so please just make the weapon I wish to use legal and convenient" crowd write the law....no? :hmm:

Well shucks dude, why not add tactical nukes and death stars to your reducto ad absurdum argument? First off missles aren't firearms. Secondly people that own M60s legally do not tend to use them to cap convenience store clerks.

As for the rest. I legally own several firearms. The last person I want regulating them is someone like you who implies that anyone who owns one is interested in killing people with it.

Finally, the basic flaw with any gun control legislation is that it ONLY affects those who abide by the law. Criminals by definition do not therefore the only people prevented from obtaining firearms by your constitution violating regulations are potential victims. So go ahead take that gun out of Grannys hands. That way its all the more easier to victimize her....no? :hmm:

[MadMike]

Enigma,
The facts come directly from the FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics and other government sources. :hmm:

Yours, Mike

[August]

Again, this postulates that the criminal was ready and willing to kill, and would have definitely done so. Thazt kind of asssumption is dangerous, because we dont know what would have happened.

Not any more dangerous than assuming a person who breaks into an occupied house will not attempt to hurt those inside. You're betting someone elses life on the harmless intentions of a criminal. Talk about dangerous assumptions.

[Tchocky]

Again, this postulates that the criminal was ready and willing to kill, and would have definitely done so. Thazt kind of asssumption is dangerous, because we dont know what would have happened.
Not any more dangerous than assuming a person who breaks into an occupied house will not attempt to hurt those inside. You're betting someone elses life on the harmless intentions of a criminal. Talk about dangerous assumptions.
No, you're missing my point. Saying that 2.5m firearms used in self-defense "saved lives", like waste_gate did, is misleading, because unless every single occurrence was an attempted murder, then thats simply not the case. It's a dangerous assumption that leads to bad use of statistics.
I'm talking about statistics, which obviously happen after the fact. I'm not betting anyones life :roll:

[nightdagger]

There are at least 300 weapon owners that I know, including yours truly,
if they come to get our weapons the morgue and the local football stadium wont be big enough to hold the bodies.

Maybe after all us "Good ol Boys" are dead and gone they can play that sh**.

I don't even think there will be anything in existence to hold the bodies.

In any case, I would love to see how many crimes are committed with firearms compared to how many are committed with other weapons. If someone wants to commit a crime, it's going to happen and the person you take a gun away from might've been there to stop the crime.

[Enigma]

As for the rest. I legally own several firearms. The last person I want regulating them is someone like you who implies that anyone who owns one is interested in killing people with it.

If you read carefully enough, you would have seen that I was referring to the fact that you implied that people will kill any damn way, (which is also disputable), so what, we shouldnt regulate weapons? this also explains why I picked the absurd weapons I mentioned. The argument that "people will kill anyway" for relaxed gun control in a country with an obvious problem with gun related murder simply isnt good enough. At least by my standards, apparently. And, I legally own 3 guns, for the record.

Crazy, ....huh?:hmm:

[waste gate]

Perhaps what we should be looking at is how many lives are saved because of private ownership of fire arms.* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

This carries the blatant assumption that the citizens life was in danger, and the gun saved them. Most criminals would not be prepared to kill. Warding off a mugger with a handgun is NOT saving your life.
* Anti-gun journal pronounces the failure of the Brady law. One of the nation’s leading anti-gun medical publications, the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that the Brady registration law has failed to reduce murder rates. In August 2000, JAMA reported that states implementing waiting periods and background checks did "not [experience] reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates."

Of course. Registering guns and making people wait for them doesnt stop guns getting into their hands.* Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns. That’s right. Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than guns. In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, etc. (45), as compared with students who were murdered by firearms (22) during that same time period. I really dont mean to be pithy here, but how the hell is this relevant?* Zogby pollsters found that by a more than 3 to 1 margin, Americans support punishing "criminals who use a gun in the commission of a crime" over legislation to "ban handguns." That's a ridiculous poll. It creates a false choice. Cant America have both?

* A study claiming "guns are three times more likely to kill you than help you" is a total fraud. Even using the low figures from the Clinton Justice Department, firearms are used almost 50 times more often to save life than to take life.15 More importantly, however, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by one’s own gun is a total lie:
Again, this postulates that the criminal was ready and willing to kill, and would have definitely done so. Thazt kind of asssumption is dangerous, because we dont know what would have happened.



The major problem I have with your argument is that you think all questioning is designed to favor a particular argument. You haven't met a statistict you didn't like, unless it supported your position.

Secondly, by your own logic, how is a reasonable indivilual to know if the mugger isn't out to do you serious or deadly bodily harm?
better to meet the mugger with undeniably greater force. The situation ends and the law abiding gun owner reports the occurance to the proper authoriy.

[Tchocky]

The major problem I have with your argument is that you think all questioning is designed to favor a particular argument. You haven't met a statistict you didn't like, unless it supported your position.

I'm pointing out flaws I see in the statistics that people post, I'm more or less blind as regards politics. Most statistics that we hear are slanted or skewed, thats an unfortunate given.

Secondly, by your own logic, how is a reasonable indivilual to know if the mugger isn't out to do you serious or deadly bodily harm?
better to meet the mugger with undeniably greater force. The situation ends and the law abiding gun owner reports the occurance to the proper authoriy.

Don't say "by your own logic" when you havent understood what I've said. I'm talking about the statistics, not the actual crimes. If a firearm is used in self-defence during a mugging, it dodn't save your life. Thats all I was pointing out. The Zogby poll is insane, it asks you to choose between punishing criminals, and gun laws. No citizen has to make this decision, and no policy-maker has to either.

[Yahoshua]

Isnt it about keeping dangerouw weapons out of the hands of minors? I would have thought so.


Criminals will find ways to get weapons, whether they kill someone, steal it from a car, or even a LEO, it is impossible to stop this in its' entirety.

(btw, I'm seeing more news reports of firearms being stolen from LEOs' than I hear of gunsops and gunshows being loopholes for criminals, an example is shown below)

http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20070118-103020-3000r.htm

http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?id=19938&siteSection=1

http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=1027458&nid=25

Congress can pass legislation saying that no minor will ever touch a gun for fear of them injuring themselves doesn't mean that a minor somehow, somewhere won't end up injuring or killing themselves. Preventing the deaths of minors is best done through education, not legislation.

[Enigma]

You have rejected NRA's statistic in favour of the UN's?

....I did? :hmm:

[waste gate]

The major problem I have with your argument is that you think all questioning is designed to favor a particular argument. You haven't met a statistict you didn't like, unless it supported your position.

I'm pointing out flaws I see in the statistics that people post, I'm more or less blind as regards politics. Most statistics that we hear are slanted or skewed, thats an unfortunate given.

Secondly, by your own logic, how is a reasonable indivilual to know if the mugger isn't out to do you serious or deadly bodily harm?
better to meet the mugger with undeniably greater force. The situation ends and the law abiding gun owner reports the occurance to the proper authoriy.

Don't say "by your own logic" when you havent understood what I've said. I'm talking about the statistics, not the actual crimes. If a firearm is used in self-defence during a mugging, it dodn't save your life. Thats all I was pointing out. The Zogby poll is insane, it asks you to choose between punishing criminals, and gun laws. No citizen has to make this decision, and no policy-maker has to either.

Please tell me what a mugger says to his victims which allows them to give up their property. The threat of life or limb is always implied if not said. At that point, as far as the victim and police will acknowledge the life of the victim is about to be taken.

If you don't agree please PM me your address because you are a victim in waiting. I'll call the police now.

[TteFAboB]

You have rejected NRA's statistic in favour of the UN's?

....I did? :hmm:

Sorry, that was an initial observation. The point is that you've made an impossible comparison. Tchocky is always on the alert for these, this time he let it slip.

You've compared the NRA numbers to the UN numbers. What the NRA was to Mike the UN was to you (something difficult to ask other people to take inside their hearts). The two do not compare.

There's also the lack of reciprocity but I can't tell if that was sarcastic. You say Mike forgot to mention that the NRA is the largest gun lobby group in the USA. But you didn't say that the UN is the largest anti-gun lobbying group in the world.

[Enigma]

You've compared the NRA numbers to the UN numbers. What the NRA was to Mike the UN was to you (something difficult to ask other people to take inside their hearts). The two do not compare.

There's also the lack of reciprocity but I can't tell if that was sarcastic. You say Mike forgot to mention that the NRA is the largest gun lobby group in the USA. But you didn't say that the UN is the largest anti-gun lobbying group in the world.

Sounds like you got my point, exactly.

[Tchocky]

Sorry, that was an initial observation. The point is that you've made an impossible comparison. Tchocky is always on the alert for these, this time he let it slip.
Nope, missed that one. Which numbers are these?

EDIT: missed this post too, must be getting old.
The threat of life or limb is always implied if not said. At that point, as far as the victim and police will acknowledge the life of the victim is about to be taken.

If you don't agree please PM me your address because you are a victim in waiting. I'll call the police now.

OK, my own personal safety aside :p, the problem witht your statistical allusions is right there. "Life OR limb" threatened. I would say that very few muggers are desperate enough to kill, as opposed to moving on and nabbing someone without a weapon. Definintely your health is indanger, but saying that the gun saved your life is misleading and innaccurate.

[Tchocky]

There are at least 300 weapon owners that I know, including yours truly,
if they come to get our weapons the morgue and the local football stadium wont be big enough to hold the bodies.

Maybe after all us "Good ol Boys" are dead and gone they can play that sh**.
I don't even think there will be anything in existence to hold the bodies.

In any case, I would love to see how many crimes are committed with firearms compared to how many are committed with other weapons. If someone wants to commit a crime, it's going to happen and the person you take a gun away from might've been there to stop the crime.

There's a difference between a stabbing and a shooting. I cant stab 5 people from the other side of a room. Saying that crimes will always happen regardless of what weapons are available just isnt true.
Does owning weapons increase the desire to use said weapons? Just going on the football stadium talk ^above^

[waste gate]

Sorry, that was an initial observation. The point is that you've made an impossible comparison. Tchocky is always on the alert for these, this time he let it slip.
Nope, missed that one. Which numbers are these?

EDIT: missed this post too, must be getting old.
The threat of life or limb is always implied if not said. At that point, as far as the victim and police will acknowledge the life of the victim is about to be taken.

If you don't agree please PM me your address because you are a victim in waiting. I'll call the police now.

OK, my own personal safety aside :p, the problem witht your statistical allusions is right there. "Life OR limb" threatened. I would say that very few muggers are desperate enough to kill, as opposed to moving on and nabbing someone without a weapon. Definintely your health is indanger, but saying that the gun saved your life is misleading and innaccurate.


But how does one know if thier life isn't at risk and by using the fire arm in self -defense is not saving thier life? Like I stated before the police consider all muggings life threatening. How many muggers do you know that wouldn't take a life?

[Tchocky]

But how does one know if thier life isn't at risk and by using the fire arm in self -defense is not saving thier life?

You don't, that's part of my point. You don't know if your life is in danger or if the guy is a coward, so basing statistics on every act of self-defense being a life saved is irresponsible and misleading.

[ASWnut101]

so you'd rather take the assumption that he is not there to hurt or kill you?

[waste gate]

I cant stab 5 people from the other side of a room

Not if I'm armed with a fire arm and you are more than 20 feet away.

Even if you are less than 20 feet away and you don't know I am armed with a fire arm the report of the weapon will through you off your mark.

A fire arm in an enclosed area is more than loud. It is not hollywood.

[Tchocky]

so you'd rather take the assumption that he is not there to hurt or kill you?

Like i've said before, I'm talking about statistics, not crimes.

[Yahoshua]

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/popcorn.gif

[ASWnut101]

gimmie some of that popcorn! *reaches for bag*:cool:

[waste gate]

so you'd rather take the assumption that he is not there to hurt or kill you?

Like i've said before, I'm talking about statistics, not crimes.


Give us a statistic which you think is good. The BBC poll concerning the US didn't take any fire from you. Are the BBC statistics better than any other? If so tell us how so.

While you are at it on what do you base your opinions?

[Tchocky]

Give us a statistic which you think is good. The BBC poll concerning the US didn't take any fire from you. Are the BBC statistics better than any other? If so tell us how so.
This thread is about guns, yes?

I take issue with the improper use of statistics, or leading questions. I'm sick of repeating myself so here we go.
Perhaps what we should be looking at is how many lives are saved because of private ownership of fire arms.
* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. False statement. Self-defense does not equate to life saved. If you have an issue with this please read over my previous posts, I won't be repeating them.
A minor point about a minor statistic, I'm amazed at the moss this has gathered.

* Zogby pollsters found that by a more than 3 to 1 margin, Americans support punishing "criminals who use a gun in the commission of a crime" over legislation to "ban handguns." This gives the impression that the two options are mutually exclusive and work against each other, which is patently not the case.

What BBC poll are you talking about? I don't read every thread that pops up on these boards.

[waste gate]

Give us a statistic which you think is good. The BBC poll concerning the US didn't take any fire from you. Are the BBC statistics better than any other? If so tell us how so.
This thread is about guns, yes?

I take issue with the improper use of statistics, or leading questions. I'm sick of repeating myself so here we go.
Perhaps what we should be looking at is how many lives are saved because of private ownership of fire arms.
* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. False statement. Self-defense does not equate to life saved. If you have an issue with this please read over my previous posts, I won't be repeating them.
A minor point about a minor statistic, I'm amazed at the moss this has gathered.

* Zogby pollsters found that by a more than 3 to 1 margin, Americans support punishing "criminals who use a gun in the commission of a crime" over legislation to "ban handguns." This gives the impression that the two options are mutually exclusive and work against each other, which is patently not the case.

What BBC poll are you talking about? I don't read every thread that pops up on these boards.

Here is the link, You will find yourself in the discussion. but not once challenging the statistics. Consistancy is a virtue.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=104220&page=2

[Tchocky]

Must have missed the post, hang on and I'll have a look

[August]

Self-defense does not equate to life saved.

So add the word "potential" before "life saved" or do you dispute that as well?

[waste gate]

Must have missed the post, hang on and I'll have a look

I see by looking at the other thread you have found your place. From now on your attacks on polls or statistiics will not be tolerated as anything other than the opinion of a partisan demagogue attempting to pass himself as an intellectual with knowledge of statistical analysis. I will not forget this and I will use every opportunity to impeach yor opinion with your own words.

[Tchocky]

Must have missed the post, hang on and I'll have a look
I see by looking at the other thread you have found your place. From now on your attacks on polls or statistiics will not be tolerated as anything other than the opinion of a partisan demagogue attempting to pass himself as an intellectual with knowledge of statistical analysis. I will not forget this and I will use every opportunity to impeach yor opinion with your own words.
It touches me that you care.

Edit:

Actually, go on. This interests me.

[waste gate]

Must have missed the post, hang on and I'll have a look
I see by looking at the other thread you have found your place. From now on your attacks on polls or statistiics will not be tolerated as anything other than the opinion of a partisan demagogue attempting to pass himself as an intellectual with knowledge of statistical analysis. I will not forget this and I will use every opportunity to impeach yor opinion with your own words.
It touches me that you care.

Edit:

Actually, go on. This interests me.


I would but since you don't even have the courage of your convictions, but, instead hide behind the facade of a statistical analyst and question others posts, I will not. You are a coward.

EDIT: All others on this board do not hide behind something they are not.

[Tchocky]

I would but since you don't even have the courage of your convictions, but, instead hide behind the facade of a statistical analyst and question others posts, I will not. You are a coward.

EDIT: All others on this board do not hide behind something they are not.
I can only assume that you havent got anything to go on bar that character description a few posts back. You've got to provide the evidence. Come on, set me right :)
I don't pretend to be a statistician, I'm not one. I can certainly recognise a leading question, and recognise a figure being manipulated to serve a cause.
And of course I'll point out problems with posts, it would be a dreary old world if we didnt argue!
I'm pointing out flaws I see in the statistics that people post, I'm more or less blind as regards politics

[Yahoshua]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/paFiguresThurs18Crimefiguresud2Substitute.html