Firearms yes or no

[August]

And having felt a growing feeling of alarm, I searched a bit for this judge Laurence Silberman (August's article) and found this, amongst others:

Laurence Silberman: the Right Man or the Right's Man?
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13902
You asked "COULD YOU BUSTER ANY OF THE MYTH BUSTING THAT THE MAN HAS CONDUCTED?".

In all capital letters no less. So I provided case law that answered your question. But now having been proven wrong you now fall back with an attempt to invalidate one of the two judges who made the ruling.

Y'know you're accuse Subman of zig zagging but you Sir are the king of the zig zag.

[Ostfriese]

Now your not making any logical sense again. Being a victim? Try again since that is the wrong answer.
You don't seem to WANT to understand. Owning a gun will NOT prevent you from facing the wrong end of a gun in some others persons hand. You'll be just as helpless as you would be without a gun. In fact, it does even increase your chance of becoming a victim - because someone who's after you won't come unprepared. And even if you are lucky and manage to shoot down the other guy you'll be knee deep in s**t. Laws are not only for the bad guys.

Also - your advancement in civilization is going the wrong direction. Try backwards. Try turning yourself into a sheep. You will feel more at home.

Read up on phycology. Maybe Skybird can clue you in. Frued has already gone through the victim theory.
For the rest of your words I answer with a question. Which man is smarter? The one who prepares for a bad situation in such a way that any outcome will be bad - or the one who knows how to prevent coming into such a situation?

[August]

Which man is smarter? The one who prepares for a bad situation in such a way that any outcome will be bad - or the one who knows how to prevent coming into such a situation?

The man who does both...

[SUBMAN1]

You don't seem to WANT to understand. Owning a gun will NOT prevent you from facing the wrong end of a gun in some others persons hand. You'll be just as helpless as you would be without a gun. In fact, it does even increase your chance of becoming a victim - because someone who's after you won't come unprepared. And even if you are lucky and manage to shoot down the other guy you'll be knee deep in s**t. Laws are not only for the bad guys.

For the rest of your words I answer with a question. Which man is smarter? The one who prepares for a bad situation in such a way that any outcome will be bad - or the one who knows how to prevent coming into such a situation?

I understand now. What I now understand is that 'you' do not understand the US law system is what you just told me. An example is the man in Seattle a couple months back, who for no reason beat on another man, in which that man pulled out his gun and shot the man that was trying to kill him. The man had a valid CPP, and no charges were ever filed. It didn't even make front page news. No one cared because the man killed was whacked, and the other was simply defending himself. So, you are saying this is not OK? Should the first man have rolled over and died because he should not take action? Maybe in your country, you have to roll over and die, but to me, that is a sick mans mentallity. One who is not even a man, but a child. Sheep.

Me, yes, maybe I won't have a chance to get to a firearm to defend myself, but at least I have an option. This is something you do not have. The mentallity you describe to me says its OK to let the man who would do you harm live, and the good man die. To do the opposite is just not OK. Why? Can you truely answer that question? I don't think you can, but that is what you describe as the right way to do things.

Iff the Seattle man had been on that campus armed, no one or only a few students would have died that day. Instead, we gave over 30 lives, and a ton more wounded simply because no other firearms were present. That just doesn't make sense to me.

-S

[Ostfriese]

The man who does both...

No. 'Both' only would be an option if there was a positive way out of way number one. But there isn't. Using a gun will never result in a positive outcome, especially if both persons involved are willing to use it (I guess that SUBMAN definitely is willing to use his gun. Correct me if I'm wrong).
It's simple as that: Once the shooting starts you have lost, no matter, what will happen.

[SUBMAN1]

Which man is smarter? The one who prepares for a bad situation in such a way that any outcome will be bad - or the one who knows how to prevent coming into such a situation?
The man who does both...
Man I love simple answers that just make the point in such a way as to be irrefuttable. Perfect answer August! :up: SHows much wisdom and I respect that.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

The man who does both...
No. 'Both' only would be an option if there was a positive way out of way number one. But there isn't. Using a gun will never result in a positive outcome, especially if both persons involved are willing to use it (I guess that SUBMAN definitely is willing to use his gun. Correct me if I'm wrong).
It's simple as that: Once the shooting starts you have lost, no matter, what will happen.
Incorrect. The man that defends oneself successfully has lost nothing, but possibly gained a new lease on life.

By the way, you missed the point that August made completely.

[August]

The man who does both...
No. 'Both' only would be an option if there was a positive way out of way number one. But there isn't. Using a gun will never result in a positive outcome, especially if both persons involved are willing to use it (I guess that SUBMAN definitely is willing to use his gun. Correct me if I'm wrong).
It's simple as that: Once the shooting starts you have lost, no matter, what will happen.

Sorry, but I disagree. A positive solution is gained whenever the criminal is prevented from committing his crime.

[Ostfriese]

I understand now. What I now understand is that 'you' do not understand the US law system is what you just told me.
It took you quite some time to figure that out. In my first posting here I wrote that I'm German. How am I supposed to understand the US law system if I haven't been to the USA before?

An example is the man in Seattle a couple months back, who for no reason beat on another man, in which that man pulled out his gun and shot the man that was trying to kill him. The man had a valid CPP, and no charges were ever filed. It didn't even make front page news. No one cared because the man killed was whacked, and the other was simply defending himself. So, you are saying this is not OK? Should the first man have rolled over and died because he should not take action? Maybe in your country, you have to roll over and die, but to me, that is a sick mans mentallity. One who is not even a man, but a child. Sheep.
I find it quite disturbing that you don't see any options between 'roll over and die' and 'shoot the bastard'. It happens over here too, there are certainly enough idiots around here, believe me.
You are certainly allowed to defend yourself in such a situation, over here, too - but that's not the situation you've been talking about before. If he really was trying to kill the other (as you wrote).
But to repeat myself: There ARE other ways out of such a situation.

Me, yes, maybe I won't have a chance to get to a firearm to defend myself, but at least I have an option. This is something you do not have. The mentallity you describe to me says its OK to let the man who would do you harm live, and the good man die. To do the opposite is just not OK. Why? Can you truely answer that question? I don't think you can, but that is what you describe as the right way to do things.
As I have said before - there always are other options. And before you even try to argue: Yes, I know you have to think about them quite quickly. And yes, you may not come up with a solution, just as you might forget your gun or forget how to handle it properly. Which would just worsen the situation.

If the Seattle man had been on that campus armed, no one or only a few students would have died that day. Instead, we gave over 30 lives, and a ton more wounded simply because no other firearms were present. That just doesn't make sense to me.
The thing is that this would only have happend if that Seattle man had been very lucky. Just think about the situation before you answer. Think about it. There are a couple of armed civilians running around a 2.600acre campus. There's a lot of shooting. You just run around with your gun, eager to help (which is OK). Now you come around a corner, and in front of you you see another person holding a gun. What next? Ask him whether he's the bad guy? If he is, you'll be dead before you finish the question, and that's too risky.

Let's just assume guns had been allowed on that campus. 100 people with guns running around plus one madman. 80 of the persons with guns are simply too scared (which is just a human reaction, so don't blame them). 20 of them draw their guns trying to find the madman. From my point of view I predict that at least half of them would have died - killed accidentally or mistakenly by some other 'law-abiding' person.

Again, think before you answer. It's not a shooting range. Real shots are fired, and they are fired at you. It's chaos. And there's something else. If you don't know who of the persons with a gun is the bad guy, how are the police going to find out? Again, it's chaos, it's not a peaceful shooting range where the worst enemy is a piece of wood/paper.

I understand your thoughts quite well, as well as I understand your wish to help others and to be a hero (who wouldn't like to be?). But it was an American who coined the term 'collateral damage', and you'd get an awful lot of that in such a chaotic situation.

Hope that makes my thoughts a little clearer. If you still insist on calling me a sheep, don't hesitate.

[Ostfriese]

Sorry, but I disagree. A positive solution is gained whenever the criminal is prevented from committing his crime.
This may be my lackingknowledge of American laws, so tell me: Does that go for every crime? Gun down a burglar, and you can pledge for self defense?

[SUBMAN1]

I understand now. What I now understand is that 'you' do not understand the US law system is what you just told me.
It took you quite some time to figure that out. In my first posting here I wrote that I'm German. How am I supposed to understand the US law system if I haven't been to the USA before?

As I have said before - there always are other options. And before you even try to argue: Yes, I know you have to think about them quite quickly. And yes, you may not come up with a solution, just as you might forget your gun or forget how to handle it properly. Which would just worsen the situation.

The thing is that this would only have happend if that Seattle man had been very lucky. Just think about the situation before you answer. Think about it. There are a couple of armed civilians running around a 2.600acre campus. There's a lot of shooting. You just run around with your gun, eager to help (which is OK). Now you come around a corner, and in front of you you see another person holding a gun. What next? Ask him whether he's the bad guy? If he is, you'll be dead before you finish the question, and that's too risky.

Let's just assume guns had been allowed on that campus. 100 people with guns running around plus one madman. 80 of the persons with guns are simply too scared (which is just a human reaction, so don't blame them). 20 of them draw their guns trying to find the madman. From my point of view I predict that at least half of them would have died - killed accidentally or mistakenly by some other 'law-abiding' person.

Again, think before you answer. It's not a shooting range. Real shots are fired, and they are fired at you. It's chaos. And there's something else. If you don't konw who of the persons with a gun is the bad guy, how are the police going to find out? Again, it's chaos, it's not a peaceful shoting range where the worst enemy is a piece of wood/paper.

I understand your thoughts quite well, as well as I understand your wish to help others and to be a hero (who wouldn't ike to be?). But it was an American who coined the term 'collateral damage', and you'd get an awful lot of that in such a chaotic situation.

Hope that makes my thoughts a little clearer. If you still insist on calling me a sheep, don't hesitate.
I understand where you are coming from a little better now. Progress! :D ANyway, I want you to know that if faced with 'any' other option to shooting someone, I'd take it. I have no problem running if I am able to!

Without getting into a long post (I'll save you till later since i have a ton of work that just swept in!), here are a couple examples where more school killings have been avoided simply because firearms were present:

· October 1, 1997, Pearl High School, Pearl, Ms. - 16 year old Luke Woodham carried a rifle onto the school campus, killed his ex-girlfriend and one of her friends and wounded seven other people. Assisstant Principal Joel Myrick retreived a handgun from his truck and held Woodham for police. It was later learned that the teeneager had beaten and stabbed his own mother to death before the attack at the school.
· January 9, 2002, Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va. - 43 year old Peter Odighizuwa, who had flunked out of the small law school earlier in the week killed three people and wounded three others. Two law students - Tracy Bridges and Ted Besen - retreived a handgun from Bridges' vehicle and held Odighizuwa at gun point for several minutes before police arrived.
So, sadley :cry:, we have more potential for school shootings at our present rate, but at least some have been stopped in progress by well minded citizens who were also armed.

I think our society is falling apart with stress as one of the major factors in making people snap. I doubt we can fix it either.

-S

[ASWnut101]

I understand what you are saying. It clearly grants us the right to keep the guns. It's not whether or not you shoot someone, but the right to actually have them.


You are correct about it not giving us the right to kill someone in self-defence, which is why we made laws for that. We use the 2nd amendment to keep our weapons, not use it as an excuse to kill another. :yep:
No one doubts that you have those laws - but you still have got quite a high homicide rate. About 6 cases for every 100.000 people. What's the reason that not one single western European nation comes anywhere close to this (average below 1 per 100.000 people)?


Saying any "western" European nation is nearly irrelevant. It would be like you saying that any "wester" state in the U.S.

As for any single European nation, here's a list from the top:

Russia: 19.80
Lithuania: 9.38
Latvia: 8.58
Belarus: 8.31
Ukraine: 7.42
Estonia: 6.82
Albania: 5.68
Bulgaria: 3.08
Switzerland: 2.94
Finland: 2.75


Now, lets tally up North America vs. Europe:

North America (Mexico, Canada, and The USA): 20.95
Europe (All of Europe): 123.9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate

Notice that the only country in North America with free gun laws is The United States of America. Mexico has some of the strictest in the world, and Canada is a given.

How many countries in Europe have "anti-gun" laws? A hell of alot.



Also, you need to "re-average."
-On average, all "Western" European Nations (UK, Ireland, Iceland, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Belgum, Denmark, Luxembourg, and Sweden) have a combined homocide rate of ~1.444166666666666-6-6-6--> (To anyone who noticed, I might have left out a country during the math). Sure, it's low compared to the U.S., but when you compare thirteen countries, all with anti gun laws to one country with pro-gun laws IN SELECT STATES, you simply cannot.


Also, consider population size:

Europe: ~728 Million People
North America: 514,600,000 People

[Ostfriese]

I understand where you are coming from a little better now. Progress! :D ANyway, I want you to know that if faced with 'any' other option to shooting someone, I'd take it. I have no problem running if I am able to!

Without getting into a long post (I'll save you till later since i have a ton of work that just swept in!), here are a couple examples where more school killings have been avoided simply because firearms were present:

Save it for tomorrow, it's 11pm over here, and there's a lot of work to be done tomorroe.

[Ostfriese]

Saying any "western" European nation is nearly irrelevant. It would be like you saying that any "wester" state in the U.S.
Sorry, but that's plain wrong. There's a HUGE difference. Western Europe consists of independent nations, not just states within a federation.

Russia: 19.80
Lithuania: 9.38
Latvia: 8.58
Belarus: 8.31
Ukraine: 7.42
Estonia: 6.82
I know why I wrote western Europe - because these nations all are parts of the former Soviet Union and parts of eastern Europe, suffering from high corruption, loads of illegal weapons and lax gun control (if enforced at all). I don't take Mexico into account (whose homicide rate is way beyond that of any European country)when talking about the USA, why are you doing it with European nations?

North America (Mexico, Canada, and The USA): 20.95
Europe (All of Europe): 123.9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate
You're adding up percentages (OK, not per hundred but per hundredthousand)? :D Don't let any maths teacher see this :D ;) You'll of course have to calculate the average value to get a comparison ;)

Also, you need to "re-average."

-On average, all "Western" European Nations (UK, Ireland, Iceland, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Belgum, Denmark, Luxembourg, and Sweden)

You forgot some nations, strangely enough those with low values ;) Like Norway, Austria and Italy...

Europe: ~728 Million People
North America: 514,600,000 People
Telling me what?

Sorry, but that was guite a bad analysis of statistics :)

[ASWnut101]

Saying any "western" European nation is nearly irrelevant. It would be like you saying that any "wester" state in the U.S.
Sorry, but that's plain wrong. There's a HUGE difference. Western Europe consists of independent nations, not just states within a federation.

Ah, it does indeed. But when we add up North America (A total of three countries [excluding the Carribean and Greenland]), the whole "thing" changes.

Russia: 19.80
Lithuania: 9.38
Latvia: 8.58
Belarus: 8.31
Ukraine: 7.42
Estonia: 6.82
I know why I wrote western Europe - because these nations all are parts of the former Soviet Union and parts of eastern Europe, suffering from high corruption, loads of illegal weapons and lax gun control (if enforced at all). I don't take Mexico into account (whose homicide rate is way beyond that of any European country)when talking about the USA, why are you doing it with European nations?

Touche`. Why are you comparing us with "Western Europe" when you leave out the rest of our countries?

North America (Mexico, Canada, and The USA): 20.95
Europe (All of Europe): 123.9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate
You're adding up percentages (OK, not per hundred but per hundredthousand)? :D Don't let any maths teacher see this :D ;) You'll of course have to calculate the average value to get a comparison ;)

Here's where you made me laugh. You do not need an "average" to see what I'm talking about. Sure, North America may have a higher rate, but way over half of that is from Mexico, which has one of the stictest gun control laws in the world.

Oh, and don't let any grammar/English teacher see your post.;)

Also, you need to "re-average."

-On average, all "Western" European Nations (UK, Ireland, Iceland, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Belgum, Denmark, Luxembourg, and Sweden)

You forgot some nations, strangely enough those with low values ;) Like Norway, Austria and Italy...

Ah, using the amazing list of countries in "Western Europe" that you provided earlier. :roll:

*sarcasm

Europe: ~728 Million People
North America: 514,600,000 People
Telling me what?

Sorry, but that was guite a bad analysis of statistics :)

Telling you the population distribution comparison of our two continents.

Sorry, but that was quite a bad analysis of someone's post. :)

[August]

Sorry, but I disagree. A positive solution is gained whenever the criminal is prevented from committing his crime.
This may be my lackingknowledge of American laws, so tell me: Does that go for every crime? Gun down a burglar, and you can pledge for self defense?

The details vary some from state to state but broadly applied for it to be considered self defense the homeowner has to be in reasonable fear of his or his families lives.

In other words it would not be self defense to shoot a burglar in the back as he was leaving your property but it certainly would apply if he breaks in while you're at home.

[Heibges]

Below is the entry for Vermont from www.packing.org (http://www.packing.org)

As I said before, we have the best gunlaws in the country.

As the Vermont Constitution reiterates, the 2nd Amd. is to protect the people from an oppressive government, not so much foreign invaders or criminals.

The sad state of affairs in America currently means we need to hang onto our weapons more than ever.

We have:
1. A Government launching wars for dubious reasons.
2. A Government setting up secret prisons where torture is conducted.
3. American Citizens Constitutional Rights being violated with dubious oversight.
4. Military Officers forced to violate the Code of Miliary Ethics to which all of them have sworn.

These are precisely the kinds of things our Founding Fathers had in mind when the added the 2nd Amd. Vermonters back in 1789, George Washington, and Ike all knew the dangers of a standing military. We may need to fight a second American Revolution presently.

Vermont is unique in that permits are not required for carry concealed or unconcealed for resident and non-resident alike. Local ordinances vary, though. VT has no statutes concerning concealed carry, nor is there a specific statute that allows it. In the absence of a statute that prohibits it, then it is taken that there is no law against it.
It is lawful to carry a firearm openly or concealed provided the firearm is not carried with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man. It is unlawful to carry a firearm within any state institution or upon the grounds or lands owned or leased by such institution.
It is unlawful for a student to carry or possess a firearm "upon a school". The board of school directors may authorize the use of firearms for instructional purposes when facilities for such instruction are available.
It is unlawful to carry or possess a loaded rifle or shotgun in or on a motor vehicle within the right of way of a public highway. Exempt are law enforcement officers and hunters who are paraplegic or have a "severe physical disability" and have been issued a permit by the fish and game commissioner.
Vermont State Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up;and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

[TteFAboB]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17435568.htm

He wasn't even American. This is the same as blaming Europeans for the crimes committed by Turks & the like. Maghrebians set Paris on fire? Oh there's too much stress in the French society, it's not even their fault, forget about it, besides, they have way too many matchsticks around.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17424561.htm

Apparently he already displayed sociopathic behavior before his rampage. Medication for depression, not answering those who say hello, playing basketball alone all day long and exemption from responsibility. It wasn't his fault, the rich kids, debauchers and deceitful charlatans caused him to do it. Nobody knew him. He also set a dorm room on fire in the past. Who allowed the psychopath to remain on campus after that? He even had a green-card, something millions of people dream with but that didn't seem to have much value to him.

If he suicided in the end that must mean killing other people didn't really made him feel any better. They weren't the cause of his problems. Now if only he had had a saner mind he could've skipped the killing and jumped straight to the suicide part. This idiot must've missed childhood. I learned from a very early age that the problems that are mine can't be solved by discharging on other people. Not only that, but these other people can be there to help me!

[Tchocky]

This thread has become rather horrid.

[ASWnut101]

How long `till you think it will be closed, Tchocky? (In pages)

My be is on two more.

[Tchocky]

Depends on how many more Nazi/Redneck posts fly around, and if the discussion actually goes anywhere. I can't see any progression over the last five pages, it's just thinly-veiled ad hominem, dressed up as sea-green incorruptible.
I read through it, and was tempted to jump in. Then I remembered the last three or four gun threads I was in. Not worth it.
You know where I stand, and I you. Can we leave it at that :)

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I'm sorry if this interrupts your skirmishes, but here is my view on firearms.


Criminals have easy access to weapons. In a fight between mace and a Glock, who's going to win?
I've yet to see alternative home defense methods being proposed by those who say 'all who posess guns are scum'
Its my perogative as a person to protect my family
Guns dont equal psychos. Look at shootings in history. Many have had motives rooted in society. Psychos dont act based on society.
"I keep a gun in a gun locker, for home defense" - is that irresponsible?
Two dead children, or a smoking gun and a dead paedophile?Anyway, I know I'm going to get flak from someone, so might aswell get my opinions out.

[Yahoshua]

GODAMMIT, STOP WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS ALREADY!!!!

Have I got your attention yet? I sure as hell hope I do.

Debate this civilly or there will be no point in debating at all. I don't give a good goddamn who you are, what you think, or where you came from but the personal attacks will stop NOW.

If you want to continue debating this in a civil manner then we'll keep going with it.

For starters, we'll go with the "Mythbusting" that Skybird posted and move on from there (please post a link and not a book, some peoples' connections can only handle so much at one time).

Would you like me to go down the list and rebut them individually or do you want to pick your argument Skybird?




*Edit:

One point I'd also like to make is that gun laws don't stop criminals from acquiring firearms:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070417/wl_asia_afp/japancrimepolitics;_ylt=AqUGKH8zGCpx6PSpfmX7f8MBxg 8F (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070417/wl_asia_afp/japancrimepolitics;_ylt=AqUGKH8zGCpx6PSpfmX7f8MBxg 8F)

[gnirtS]

[quote]Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Unintentional

USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)

Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)

Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -

Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -

England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)

Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (1997)
Source Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center

so 34 times more likely to get shot and murdered in the USA than the UK, 42 times more likely to get shot and killed by accident in the USA than the UK.

Yes the UK has a rising gun crime problem (21000 incidents of all categories last year, just over 50% of those involving air gun and 15% more imitation firearms) however its still a hell of a lot safer than the USA.
The way to tackle this rise? Far stricter penalties and punishment for anyone caught buying/selling or having a firearm in their possession for starters. 10-15 years mandatory for owning should help.

I cant see why any law abiding citizen would have any need to own a device whose sole purpose for existing is to kill other humans. Further to that, i cant see why any citizen SHOULD be allowed to own such a device.

[Tchocky]

One point I'd also like to make is that gun laws don't stop criminals from acquiring firearms:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070417/wl_asia_afp/japancrimepolitics;_ylt=AqUGKH8zGCpx6PSpfmX7f8MBxg 8F (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070417/wl_asia_afp/japancrimepolitics;_ylt=AqUGKH8zGCpx6PSpfmX7f8MBxg 8F) Very true, but there are certainly fewer gun murders in Japan.
Let's see what the gap was in 2000
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=726110

I'm not bothered looking up more

[Tchocky]

double post

[SUBMAN1]

I'm sorry if this interrupts your skirmishes, but here is my view on firearms.

Criminals have easy access to weapons. In a fight between mace and a Glock, who's going to win?
I've yet to see alternative home defense methods being proposed by those who say 'all who posess guns are scum'
Its my perogative as a person to protect my family
Guns dont equal psychos. Look at shootings in history. Many have had motives rooted in society. Psychos dont act based on society.
"I keep a gun in a gun locker, for home defense" - is that irresponsible?
Two dead children, or a smoking gun and a dead paedophile?Anyway, I know I'm going to get flak from someone, so might aswell get my opinions out.

Good post!

[JetSnake]

I'm sorry if this interrupts your skirmishes, but here is my view on firearms.

Criminals have easy access to weapons. In a fight between mace and a Glock, who's going to win?
I've yet to see alternative home defense methods being proposed by those who say 'all who posess guns are scum'
Its my perogative as a person to protect my family
Guns dont equal psychos. Look at shootings in history. Many have had motives rooted in society. Psychos dont act based on society.
"I keep a gun in a gun locker, for home defense" - is that irresponsible?
Two dead children, or a smoking gun and a dead paedophile?Anyway, I know I'm going to get flak from someone, so might aswell get my opinions out.

You get nothing but accolades for your thinking. I'm glad to see someone from that side of the world has acheived some clarity.:up:

[Ostfriese]

Oh, and don't let any grammar/English teacher see your post.;)

*sigh* English is not my native language, sonny. If that's the best you can do there's only one thing left to say:

GODAMMIT, STOP WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS ALREADY!!!!

[Skybird]

And having felt a growing feeling of alarm, I searched a bit for this judge Laurence Silberman (August's article) and found this, amongst others:

Laurence Silberman: the Right Man or the Right's Man?
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13902
You asked "COULD YOU BUSTER ANY OF THE MYTH BUSTING THAT THE MAN HAS CONDUCTED?".

In all capital letters no less. So I provided case law that answered your question. But now having been proven wrong you now fall back with an attempt to invalidate one of the two judges who made the ruling.

Y'know you're accuse Subman of zig zagging but you Sir are the king of the zig zag.

Posting #234. I assume in your favour that of course you just have overseen it.

You may see that lawcase as a clear thing. I do not, for reasons indiocated by the passages I quoted from your reference. By that I pointed out my concerns, without writing another novel about it.

The judge is a bit controverse a figure indeed. Don't try to give the public an impression that by showing his background I replaced lacking arguments. I gave both.

I have adressed your request. I also said I am done in this thread. and btw, at that time I was engaged with Subman - not with you. ;) As a matter of fact you may have spoken in his place, but fact remains that Subman made several claims the author of the texts I linked to and quoted has put into doubt by argument and refernces, and subman was completely unwilling or unable to put up counter-arguments. And except your attempt nothing of the material was adressed. Not even concerning those points that had been made statements about before by him. Instead he started playing games to avoid the authors arguments.

If an author's well-founded and illustrated different arguments simply get ignored instead of pointing out where he is wrong, the deicussion already is dead anyway and all people only hold monologues. and I see no reason in just reformulating the many arguments that author I quoted has given. It would still be the same content anyway.

This reply only because of your indirect attack on me. As I said - I am done in this threat.

[micky1up]

GODAMMIT, STOP WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS ALREADY!!!!

Have I got your attention yet? I sure as hell hope I do.

Debate this civilly or there will be no point in debating at all. I don't give a good goddamn who you are, what you think, or where you came from but the personal attacks will stop NOW.

If you want to continue debating this in a civil manner then we'll keep going with it.

For starters, we'll go with the "Mythbusting" that Skybird posted and move on from there (please post a link and not a book, some peoples' connections can only handle so much at one time).

Would you like me to go down the list and rebut them individually or do you want to pick your argument Skybird?




*Edit:

One point I'd also like to make is that gun laws don't stop criminals from acquiring firearms:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070417/wl_asia_afp/japancrimepolitics;_ylt=AqUGKH8zGCpx6PSpfmX7f8MBxg 8F (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070417/wl_asia_afp/japancrimepolitics;_ylt=AqUGKH8zGCpx6PSpfmX7f8MBxg 8F)


and i would like to point out this man wasnt a criminal prior to the event its not hardened criminals doing this

[August]

Posting #234. I assume in your favour that of course you just have overseen it.

You may see that lawcase as a clear thing. I do not, for reasons indiocated by the passages I quoted from your reference. By that I pointed out my concerns, without writing another novel about it.

The judge is a bit controverse a figure indeed. Don't try to give the public an impression that by showing his background I replaced lacking arguments. I gave both.

zig

I have adressed your request. I also said I am done in this thread. and btw, at that time I was engaged with Subman - not with you. ;) As a matter of fact you may have spoken in his place, but fact remains that Subman made several claims the author of the texts I linked to and quoted has put into doubt by argument and refernces, and subman was completely unwilling or unable to put up counter-arguments. And except your attempt nothing of the material was adressed. Not even concerning those points that had been made statements about before by him. Instead he started playing games to avoid the authors arguments.

If an author's well-founded and illustrated different arguments simply get ignored instead of pointing out where he is wrong, the deicussion already is dead anyway and all people only hold monologues. and I see no reason in just reformulating the many arguments that author I quoted has given. It would still be the same content anyway.

This reply only because of your indirect attack on me. As I said - I am done in this threat.

zag

[SkvyWvr]

The thing is that this would only have happend if that Seattle man had been very lucky. Just think about the situation before you answer. Think about it. There are a couple of armed civilians running around a 2.600acre campus. There's a lot of shooting. You just run around with your gun, eager to help (which is OK). Now you come around a corner, and in front of you you see another person holding a gun. What next? Ask him whether he's the bad guy? If he is, you'll be dead before you finish the question, and that's too risky.

Let's just assume guns had been allowed on that campus. 100 people with guns running around plus one madman. 80 of the persons with guns are simply too scared (which is just a human reaction, so don't blame them). 20 of them draw their guns trying to find the madman. From my point of view I predict that at least half of them would have died - killed accidentally or mistakenly by some other 'law-abiding' person.

Again, think before you answer. It's not a shooting range. Real shots are fired, and they are fired at you. It's chaos. And there's something else. If you don't know who of the persons with a gun is the bad guy, how are the police going to find out? Again, it's chaos, it's not a peaceful shooting range where the worst enemy is a piece of wood/paper.

I understand your thoughts quite well, as well as I understand your wish to help others and to be a hero (who wouldn't like to be?). But it was an American who coined the term 'collateral damage', and you'd get an awful lot of that in such a chaotic situation.

Hope that makes my thoughts a little clearer. If you still insist on calling me a sheep, don't hesitate.

This is almost too simplistic to warrant a reply, but here goes. I have a carry permit and carry my 45 all the time. It is lame to think everyone on that campus knew what was happening in the lone building so I can't understand how everyone with a weapon would be running around ready to kill. If I heard shots in the distance I wouldn't "run around" with my weapon drawn looking for someone to shoot. That is up to the police, however if I was in one of those rooms and saw the madman pointing the gun in my direction or the direction of another I would not hesitate in sending him to hell. Gun ownership demands responsibility. Anyone who disregards will find himself sharing a cell with the very fools he would protect himself from.

[tycho102]

I have a carry permit and carry my 45 all the time.

If I heard shots in the distance I wouldn't "run around" with my weapon drawn looking for someone to shoot. That is up to the police, however if I was in one of those rooms and saw the madman pointing the gun in my direction or the direction of another I would not hesitate in sending him to hell.

Gun ownership demands responsibility. Anyone who disregards will find himself sharing a cell with the very fools he would protect himself from.


Agreed.

[Ostfriese]

I have a carry permit and carry my 45 all the time. It is lame to think everyone on that campus knew what was happening in the lone building so I can't understand how everyone with a weapon would be running around ready to kill. If I heard shots in the distance I wouldn't "run around" with my weapon drawn looking for someone to shoot. That is up to the police, however if I was in one of those rooms and saw the madman pointing the gun in my direction or the direction of another I would not hesitate in sending him to hell. Gun ownership demands responsibility. Anyone who disregards will find himself sharing a cell with the very fools he would protect himself from.

I can agree to that, and I have no doubt that you would act as you described. But even though it might be an annoying question: would you guarantee that all those people would do the same thing in that situation? Sure, there'll be a lot of people who wouldn't lose their heads, I know, but all of them? No John Wayne jr., who wants to be a hero? You can even find such folks on the subsim.com forums, so why not in reality? (Yes, I know about armchair heroes, no need to tell me ;) )

You talk about responsibility. Agreed. And there's nothing wrong with owning and carrying a weapon if the owner knows about the responsibility and doesn't forget it even in tense situations. But if everybody remembered this responsibility no one would be killed by guns. Unfortunately, about 30,000 people are being killed by guns in the USA every year. I don't think my opinion was too simplistic. Pessimistic, maybe.

[SUBMAN1]

I can agree to that, and I have no doubt that you would act as you described. But even though it might be an annoying question: would you guarantee that all those people would do the same thing in that situation? Sure, there'll be a lot of people who wouldn't lose their heads, I know, but all of them? No John Wayne jr., who wants to be a hero? You can even find such folks on the subsim.com forums, so why not in reality? (Yes, I know about armchair heroes, no need to tell me ;) )

You talk about responsibility. Agreed. And there's nothing wrong with owning and carrying a weapon if the owner knows about the responsibility and doesn't forget it even in tense situations. But if everybody remembered this responsibility no one would be killed by guns. Unfortunately, about 30,000 people are being killed by guns in the USA every year. I don't think my opinion was too simplistic. Pessimistic, maybe.

I think I'd have to say yes. The reason? These people would never do anything to jeapordize their ability to have a permit. Plain and simple. The permit alone makes you think twice in any situation.

-S

[Ostfriese]

I think I'd have to say yes. The reason? These people would never do anything to jeapordize their ability to have a permit. Plain and simple. The permit alone makes you think twice in any situation.

-S

As long as we talk about people whose brains work normally I totally agree with you. As long as you still think before you shoot, no problem.
But still: What about those thirty something thousand people killed by guns every year? All killed by illegal weapons?

[SUBMAN1]

As long as we talk about people whose brains work normally I totally agree with you. As long as you still think before you shoot, no problem.
But still: What about those thirty something thousand people killed by guns every year? All killed by illegal weapons?
I wonder where these 30,000 people are? You never hear about them and I live here. This makes me suspicious that it is the drug trade doing it in the hud, just like in the UK. THe UK gov however covers up this fact for them (even though they are having a hard time covering up their shootings lately), we don't I guess.

So I would be inclined to guess most are illegal weapons based on the fact that 'normal' people are not the people being shot.

-S

[Ostfriese]

I wonder where these 30,000 people are? You never hear about them and I live here. This makes me suspicious that it is the drug trade doing it in the hud, just like in the UK. THe UK gov however covers up this fact for them (even though they are having a hard time covering up their shootings lately), we don't I guess.

So I would be inclined to guess most are illegal weapons based on the fact that 'normal' people are not the people being shot.

-S

That's not the point I was talking about, but OK, let's assume that most of them are killed with illegal weapons. This still leaves the question why there are far less killings by guns in Europe, even though it's quite easy to get illegal guns from eastern Europe, mainly former Red Army weapons.

Oh, and btw., I'm no friend of conspiracy theories at all. So I'd ask you not to tell me such stories, no matter how interesting they may sound ;)

[SUBMAN1]

That's not the point I was talking about, but OK, let's assume that most of them are killed with illegal weapons. This still leaves the question why there are far less killings by guns in Europe, even though it's quite easy to get illegal guns from eastern Europe, mainly former Red Army weapons.

Oh, and btw., I'm no friend of conspiracy theories at all. So I'd ask you not to tell me such stories, no matter how interesting they may sound ;)

Stories? Haven't you been reading any of my posts? I sent you links to shooting in the UK all over the place. Also, I gave you even street prices for guns in downtown London! So don't give me stories please - sounds like you are burying your head in the sand! Your gun crime is way up, and you are ignoring it.

-S

[Ostfriese]

This is pointless and getting nowhere. Just one final piece of advice: There's a lot of rubbish written on the internet, and it's fatal to believe everything at the first glance just because it fits into one's opinion.

[SUBMAN1]

This is pointless and getting nowhere. Just one final piece of advice: There's a lot of rubbish written on the internet, and it's fatal to believe everything at the first glance just because it fits into one's opinion.

So I guess your news sources are rubbish and pointless? Interesting. So where do you get your news then? Your fantasy land? BBC - even these guys point to it as a major problem. Your Guardian does too. Guess they are all wrong and you are right. Nice.

-S

[Takeda Shingen]

As promised, this thread has re-opened. However, if the conversation does not retain civility, it will close again, and permanently.