View Full Version : Gun Violence and the outlawing of firearms in America
GoldenRivet
06-28-10, 08:07 PM
I ran a test some years ago, with a couple of my personal firearms. One was an AR-15, the other an SKS. I loaded both and put them on the back porch of my rural home under the watchful eye of a DVR video camera. For one week, the firearms sat there on the back porch, fully loaded... seven days.
During those seven days, neither gun ever attempted to kill anyone.
they both lay there, behaving in a peaceful manner, never acting in aggression or making any movement whatsoever.
however...
in that same seven day period, 18 people were arrested for DUI, 3 for reckless driving, 1 for endangerment of a child, 4 for methamphetamine possession, 15 for shoplifting and 1 for domestic abuse.
personally, it makes more sense to outlaw idiots than it does guns.
Takeda Shingen
06-28-10, 08:09 PM
in that same seven day period, 18 people were arrested for DUI, 3 for reckless driving, 1 for endangerment of a child, 4 for methamphetamine possession, 15 for shoplifting and 1 for domestic abuse.
Yeah, that was quite a busy week. In seriousness, I agree with you. I am not a gun owner, and I probably never will be one, but I support your right to own one or more.
Zachstar
06-28-10, 08:15 PM
Glad you live in a safe neighborhood where nobody will dare steal those weapons to use them for robberies and such. BTW I dont know of the legality of what you did. Some states have laws requiring safe storage when large weapons are not in use.
I dont get the crying anyway. The supreme court has ruled TIME after TIME against gun laws.
breadcatcher101
06-28-10, 08:18 PM
What kind of SKS? I have a Yugo. Nice carbines, fun to shoot.
Stealth Hunter
06-28-10, 08:36 PM
Gov'ment 'gonn take our religion and our guns...
Ducimus
06-28-10, 08:52 PM
I've always sat on the fence where gun control is concerned.
On one hand their just a tool like any another. A skill saw, table saw, hammer drill, powder actuated, whatever. Like any tool it's designed to do a specific job. And Tools typically don't go off by themselves, someone has to use them.
On the other hand, some tools are designed to do a job that you probably aren't going to be doing as a civilian, at least not lawfully (exception here being castle laws).
To waffle again, id love to own an M16-A1 or an A2, it would be nice to hold one in my hands again and squeeze off some rounds, and to waffle again, it's not a tool id like to see in the hands of some gang banger in Pomona , south central LA, or whatever.
So yeah, here i sit on the fence. :88)
krashkart
06-28-10, 09:33 PM
I'm kind of on the fence about gun control, but also an avid shooter and gun lover. I really don't think that blanket laws keep dangerous weapons out of the wrong hands, but I'd be interested to see a solution that actually works for everyone.
Snestorm
06-28-10, 09:33 PM
Isn't this a repeat of "How graciouse of them"?
gimpy117
06-28-10, 09:39 PM
oh what a comprehensive test you've done!!! that really proves a lot!! how silly we all are! :doh:
yeah well how about you give a fully loaded SKS to a mentally unstable kid, or a gang member in the inner city and see if it's used to kill people.
I agree with ducimis though...I like shooting My K-98 and it can also be a fine hunting rifle when properly equipped (or in military configuration) but an Ak, M-16 or ANY type of pistol have one job: killing people. I think these guns should be harder to get.
The US has 65% of its murders with firearms.Only Colombia and Uruguay have a higher ratio of guns murders/murders with about 80% and 75% of it's murders by guns
SteamWake
06-28-10, 09:42 PM
Isn't this a repeat of "How graciouse of them"?
No it is not. That thread is about how nearly half the judges disagree with the constitution.
Oh and GR I'm not sure I would have made this experiment public in as much you put the public in reckless endangerment by not having direct supervision of the un attended firearms....
:03:
gimpy117
06-29-10, 12:32 AM
Oh and GR I'm not sure I would have made this experiment public in as much you put the public in reckless endangerment by not having direct supervision of the un attended firearms....
:03:
totally agree...I shoot often and the first rule is gun safety, 100% of the time. and leaving a loaded gun unattended is something that should never be done.
cheese123
06-29-10, 12:53 AM
Here is the run down for all the anti-gun people out there. Sure you can ban guns. As a matter of fact I hope you never even touch one. When some one breaks into your home or steals your car with you kids inside. I want you to think after that and wonder. If you had been properly trained and armed you might have been able to save your family. The next time you see them is in the morgue. Criminals love anti-guns laws. That means they have the guns and you don't. They don't care if they break the law. They are criminals. Thats what they do.
Aramike
06-29-10, 01:01 AM
To waffle again, id love to own an M16-A1 or an A2, it would be nice to hold one in my hands again and squeeze off some rounds, and to waffle again, it's not a tool id like to see in the hands of some gang banger in Pomona , south central LA, or whatever.
So yeah, here i sit on the fence. :88)You're not waffliing ... you're ignoring your instinct.
Do you really think that a law banning a murderous gangbanger from owning a gun is going to stop him?
I doubt you do.
It's just like telling the burglar that invading people's homes is illegal. Hmmm...
FIREWALL
06-29-10, 02:38 AM
Are some of you that stoopid to think GR really left two loaded weapons on his back porch.
I think he was giving an example. I know he's not that stoopid.
Tribesman
06-29-10, 04:00 AM
When some one breaks into your home or steals your car with you kids inside. I want you to think after that and wonder. If you had been properly trained and armed you might have been able to save your family
I never thought of that, good point. If someone ever steals my car with my kids inside I can shoot at the car with my kids inside it.:doh:
I wonder if you think?
FIREWALL
06-29-10, 04:35 AM
I never thought of that, good point. If someone ever steals my car with my kids inside I can shoot at the car with my kids inside it.:doh:
I wonder if you think?
Don't expect to much Tribesman :DL I often wonder too sometimes.:haha:
GoldenRivet
06-29-10, 05:04 AM
First, why don't we try looking at this for the slightly humorous... Fictional situation it is and see the point.
Besides, even if I had left those somewhat expensive firearms out in the elements locked and loaded... At the time, my nearest neighber was about a mile away.
For the duration of my ownership of such things, they have only been in two places, either on the shooting range or locked in a gun safe where they belong.
The point of the exercise- illustrate that guns are a tool just like a car. When owned by a responsible law abiding citizen, they are used responsibly within the confines of law.
Secondly, the supreme court decision is not what this thread is entirely about, but since it was mentioned... It is NOT the big gun owner victory it's painted to be.
OneToughHerring
06-29-10, 05:11 AM
At least here guns have to be stored in specific cabinets when they're not used. Bit of a hassle to own, really.
GoldenRivet
06-29-10, 06:20 AM
At least here guns have to be stored in specific cabinets when they're not used. Bit of a hassle to own, really.
I guess in some cases the government has to show people how to be responsible when they are incapable of being responsible on their own. ;)
NeonSamurai
06-29-10, 07:52 AM
The problem a lot of you are over looking is that the more guns there are available, the easier it is for the wrong people to get them. Further, the more guns are readily available, the more likely people are to use them to settle a problem.
Here in Canada, guns are fairly uncommon, and not found very often in the hands of criminals. The biggest source of weapons for criminals is the US as they get smuggled up illegally from states with loose gun laws. To own a gun here you need a gun license, criminal check, etc. Handguns and semi/auto weapons are restricted. Our gun violence levels are very low (so are our murder rates, but I would attribute that more to societal & demographic differences), with gun violence being highest in cities which boarder close to the US.
Lets face it, the biggest source of guns for criminals are stolen weapons (or illegally sold & reported stolen guns), and gun fairs / states with lax gun laws.
Also about the US Constitution. Why do you guys consider it to be some holy writ that is unalterable (and thus must be perfect)? It's been amended and altered many times since its initial drafting. As for the right to bear arms, well that was written at a time when the US was fighting for its independence, feared possible re-invasion from Britain, and when the difference between military and civilian firearms was non existent (unlike today where there is a huge difference between your typical bolt action hunting rifle, and a mil spec assault rifle). I don't think the founding fathers of the US considered the possibility of civilians running around with assault rifles with 100 round cmags; back then the weapons were all single shot with a lengthy reload period.
As for me, I support gun ownership to a point; but I don't see why civilians should have access to military grade firearms, concealed or open carry, or be allowed to have massive stockpiles of guns and ammunition. I also think laws need to be seriously tightened up, and administered at the federal level (I know you all are gonna love that idea) to ensure equal enforcement across the country.
GoldenRivet
06-29-10, 08:17 AM
Neon...
the 2nd amendment is essential because history tends to repeat itself.
what are the free men of the world to do when their government becomes so oppressive that they must - yet again - fight for independence from the state?
sharp sticks?
harsh language?
Swiss army knives?
I know it sounds like some conspiracy theory nut job pipe dream... and i know a lot of people look at it that way, but despite opinions, governments do go into tyrant mode sometimes... and it can happen to any government, anywhere, any time.
do i think the federal government will become a tyranny in the way NAZI Germany did not so long ago? probably not any time soon... if ever.
is it possible that the federal government in the united states could go into tyrant mode?
hell yes it is. and it is more so likely these days than at probably any point in our history as a nation. Under Bush and Barry we have given up more liberties and freedoms than ever before. and the very groups that go out of their way to convince everyone that we dont need guns because the state can take care of everything are the same people likely to send us into a totalitarian regime status.
the United States as a nation was born into a distrust of authority. I think with many people, that mentality is still in the public psyche to some extent.
SteamWake
06-29-10, 08:21 AM
Are some of you that stoopid to think GR really left two loaded weapons on his back porch.
I think he was giving an example. I know he's not that stoopid.
I was trying to be humorous. :doh:
NeonSamurai
06-29-10, 08:22 AM
Has that ever stopped revolutions in the past? Revolutions happen because the majority wills it to happen. Besides you can bet there will be some foreign power involved nudging on the revolution and supplying everyone with all the guns they need :03:
Schroeder
06-29-10, 08:26 AM
So you need arms to defend yourself from the government?
How would the tyrannous government try to defend itself, ah right they'll use the military. So you will be standing there with your Ar15 and shoot....that M1A2....that AH64 Apache.....that M2 Bradley etc.
Your only chance would be that the military won't shoot at it's own people...and then even a 38 revolver will do the trick with your government. No use for full auto guns at all.;)
NeonSamurai
06-29-10, 08:30 AM
So you need arms to defend yourself from the government?
How would the tyrannous government try to defend itself, ah right they'll use the military. So you will be standing there with your Ar15 and shoot....that M1A2....that AH64 Apache.....that M2 Bradley etc.
Your only chance would be that the military won't shoot at it's own people...and then even a 38 revolver will do the trick with your government. No use for full auto guns at all.;)
Shhh you will only encourage them to think they need anti tank missiles and stingers as civilian weapons, and that armed tanks should be legal road vehicles, and jet fighters civilian aircraft :woot:
GoldenRivet
06-29-10, 08:32 AM
Has that ever stopped revolutions in the past? Revolutions happen because the majority wills it to happen. Besides you can bet there will be some foreign power involved nudging on the revolution and supplying everyone with all the guns they need :03:
Maybe.
Am I willing to gamble mine and my families freedoms on that?
No... not really.
NeonSamurai
06-29-10, 08:35 AM
Maybe.
Am I willing to gamble mine and my families freedoms on that?
No... not really.
Schroeder is right though, if the military stays on the government side, having a bunch of assault weapons ain't gona do much good against tanks and aircraft. It's usually the military in the end that decides such revolutions. If the military fully backs one side, that side will usually win.
nikimcbee
06-29-10, 08:40 AM
What kind of SKS? I have a Yugo. Nice carbines, fun to shoot.
I have a chinese one I bought when I was in high-school. I used to target shoot a lot, but not so much anymore.
GoldenRivet
06-29-10, 08:49 AM
So you need arms to defend yourself from the government? How would the tyrannous government try to defend itself, ah right they'll use the military. So you will be standing there with your Ar15 and shoot....that M1A2....that AH64 Apache.....that M2 Bradley etc.
Your only chance would be that the military won't shoot at it's own people...and then even a 38 revolver will do the trick with your government. No use for full auto guns at all.;)
as with most civil war scenarios - certain segments of the military tend to align with the plight of the citizens. Though this is not guaranteed.
I highly doubt you would see many "minute men" with a hunting rifle or a pistol and some Molotov cocktails standing off against a tank.
God knows im not that stupid.
what you would likely see in most modern insurrection / civil war / rebellion scenarios would be guerrilla style tactics and warfare of small forces organized against a much larger force. and sometimes, these small forces are organized by... you guessed it... ex military officers. (See United States Civil War circa 1861.)
this is part of the reason i have always viewed the oath of military personnel with a raised eye brow. The military is supposed to protect the United States from foreign and domestic enemies. They vow allegiance to the president of the United States - when IMHO they should be vowing that allegiance to the people. Why? what happens when a president and his party controlled congress decides we need to be a dictatorship and the military has sworn loyalty to the POTUS? Does that not make this hypothetical president and his congress a domestic enemy?
though i dont view such actions as an armed insurrection as necessary at the moment... there may come a day when such actions are necessary. (however unlikely) - but it wouldnt take many more Bush's and Barry's and congressional power grabs for such an action to become necessary in the minds of some people.
if that paints me as a "nut job" thats just unfortunate. I have been called worse. like i said... i dont condone or encourage insurrection... but im sure there was a time when Geroge Washington, or any of the founding fathers did not condone rebellion against the crown either.
trust me, there are people out there with much more liberal views on taking up arms against the feds... - I'm just not one of them... i just happen to know thats one reason the 2nd amendment exists in the first place.
Schroeder is right though, if the military stays on the government side, having a bunch of assault weapons ain't gona do much good against tanks and aircraft. It's usually the military in the end that decides such revolutions. If the military fully backs one side, that side will usually win.
My 2 cents:
This "advantage" can be negated, and quite easily so.
For once, military garrisons, bases etc are known, which puts them at an disadvantage right there. Secondly, while the support structure is there, it is dependent on the citizens to maintain it, ie food, gas, base maintenance, administration, production etc.
And then there are the cities.. every soldiers nightmare to fight in. While it may be easier to bring down a ,relative new, house or skyscraper on top of a bunch of insurgents, it will be a nasty business try to get hold of the older four or five story buildings packed with determent citizens or insurgents.
These furthermore tend to eliminate most if not any advantage a military might may field when it comes to firepower, range, airplanes, etc.
On the short run, the military might have an advantage, but the longer the conflict drags on, the less chance they will stand to ultimately win, especially if they fight within their own country and dependent on their own people for supply and support measures.
Sure, you can "depopulate" whole areas, but I am having a hard time to believe that they would destroy the infrastructure they have to rely on.
Schroeder
06-29-10, 08:57 AM
God knows im not that stupid.
if that paints me as a "nut job" thats just unfortunate.
I've never said I regard you as any of the above mentioned.;)
I still don't see you win this with rifles.
I still don't see you win this with rifles.
It is not just rifles.. never mind improvised weapons and explosives made out of stuff that is available in every supermarket. ;)
CaptainHaplo
06-29-10, 09:00 AM
but im sure there was a time when Geroge Washington, or any of the founding fathers did not condone rebellion against the crown either.
If you read the Declaration of Arms - it makes it clear that in 1775 the hope was to reconcile differences between the governed and the government. So yes, GR is right, insurrection was the last resort.
Also - Thomen - well thought out point there. Every army goes on its belly, and when an army relies on the civilian population to allow that, it cannot turn against that same population without having its supplies strangled.
GoldenRivet
06-29-10, 09:02 AM
I've never said I regard you as any of the above mentioned.;)
I still don't see you win this with rifles.
oh i know you werent calling anyone stupid.
Im just sayin' :salute:
nope... not going to win with just rifles.
its like i told some guys once when we were debating this very same scenario.
the question was "What happens when you run out of ammo, or you run short of equipment?"
my comment was "If your running your fight correctly, there should be plenty if military grade equipment you can pick up off the ground."
I hate to say it but it would take a real fool to think that al quada for example - doesnt have a sh*t ton of US Military equipment in their caves.
Tchocky
06-29-10, 09:12 AM
Is it normal to have this kind of detailed discussion about civil warfare?
Seems a little weird from where I sit.
On a related note, the Irish Civil War started 88 years ago yesterday. Maybe in another 88 we'll have heard the end if it :O:
GoldenRivet
06-29-10, 09:20 AM
Is it normal to have this kind of detailed discussion about civil warfare?
loose interpretations of the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution as it was originally framed by a society emerging from post-revolution kind of steered the conversation in that direction i think.
personally, i think the right to defend one's self with lethal force - when justified - is a right that cannot be infringed upon by the state, firearms just happen to be the tool for such defense... thats more or less the point of the topic.
that and the classic oldie "guns dont kill people... people kill people."
our society is facing a lot of more pressing issues i think than anything relating to guns. and those more pressing issues should be dealt with.
in the mean time there are those who would demonize or criminalize gun owners... lumping gun owners and Christians into a basket of "weirdos" nut jobs and criminals or domestic terrorists... which is pretty far from the case
CaptainHaplo
06-29-10, 09:26 AM
Tchocky - is it normal?
Hmmm - I think that there has always been a discussion like this somewhere..... after all - there are always those who disagree with the direction the country is going. Doesn't matter which side your one politically, your not always going to be happy. Insurrection, revolution, whatever you want to call it, is a integral part of our national identity, its ingrained in who we are as a society to question our government and consider ways to make it conform to the wishes of the governed.
However, its important to note that we are talking not about actually doing anything - and in fact I think all of those who state that such action is legitimate ONLY under certain circumstances have made it clear that the criteria for such action has NOT been met - THANK GOD!
However, just as the founders had to consider the reality that their government would fail to address or resolve their grievances and what that would mean, patriots today must consider what the repercussions would be IF the government goes outside its legally defined role and turns on its society.
Sailor Steve
06-29-10, 10:34 AM
If you read the Declaration of Arms - it makes it clear that in 1775 the hope was to reconcile differences between the governed and the government. So yes, GR is right, insurrection was the last resort.
And don't forget the fact that they maintained that hope right up to the point where the British tried to confiscate one of their armories (complete with cannons) and also shot first.
And don't forget the fact that they maintained that hope right up to the point where the British tried to confiscate one of their armories (complete with cannons) and also shot first.
Just our of curiosity..
I was under the impression that nobody can say for sure who shot first? :hmmm:
GoldenRivet
06-29-10, 11:15 AM
Just our of curiosity..
I was under the impression that nobody can say for sure who shot first? :hmmm:
Doesnt really matter at this point.
I'm just glad the differences were settled and the two nations had grown to enjoy a lasting peace with one another. :up:
Tribesman
06-29-10, 11:34 AM
do i think the federal government will become a tyranny in the way NAZI Germany did not so long ago?
The irony there being that Nazi Germany eased the restrictive gun laws of the Republic which had already eased the severe gun laws from after WWI and Germany had an increase in firearm ownership under both changes of law yet still it was a murderous dictatorship.
Maybe in another 88 we'll have heard the end if it
Don't be silly, every year its "no more civil war politics"...then every election the muppets trot out ther same old tired crap and numbskulls lap it up like they always will.
FIREWALL
06-29-10, 12:25 PM
To put something else on the plate. A new Supreme Court Judge is being looked at.
Which could change how the Court looks at things.
Food for thought.
Sailor Steve
06-29-10, 12:27 PM
Just our of curiosity..
I was under the impression that nobody can say for sure who shot first? :hmmm:
True, but the troops were sent to confiscate the armory and Concorde. The minutemen refused to let them pass. The shooting started.
The preceding twelve years had resulted in some violence, but this was the first time the army was actually called out to forcefully violate the citizen's rights. My point is that it didn't start with the people going and attacking the troops.
Zachstar
06-29-10, 12:49 PM
Here is the run down for all the anti-gun people out there. Sure you can ban guns. As a matter of fact I hope you never even touch one. When some one breaks into your home or steals your car with you kids inside. I want you to think after that and wonder. If you had been properly trained and armed you might have been able to save your family. The next time you see them is in the morgue. Criminals love anti-guns laws. That means they have the guns and you don't. They don't care if they break the law. They are criminals. Thats what they do.
Oh save the drama! The courts have TIME and TIME again ruled against the Anti-Gun crowd. Yet ANY mention of ANY ruling or law has gun nuts coming out of the woodwork.
Rabid Anti-Gun was an 80s thing. Move on. Every nut has guns these days.
Zachstar
06-29-10, 12:50 PM
To put something else on the plate. A new Supreme Court Judge is being looked at.
Which could change how the Court looks at things.
Food for thought.
A centralist that might rule even MORE activist right wing than the one she replaces. I think there is little to worry about on the gun front.
I know it sounds like some conspiracy theory nut job pipe dream... .
It not only sounds like that...... :03:
GoldenRivet
06-29-10, 02:17 PM
opinions are like A-holes pal.
are you so naive that you think the US Government is an infallible entity perfect in all ways and incapable of turning into a tyrannical organization under the right set of geopolitical circumstances?
:06:
im not saying it WILL happen 100% fact put your money on it.
I'm leaning toward - it will never happen.
however...
I'm saying that even if it were a 1% possibility... its a possibility none the less.
CaptainHaplo
06-29-10, 03:21 PM
If Kagen is confirmed - it will not drastically changed the makeup of the court. You will basically continue to see 5-4 decisions coming down from the court, the majority remains "on the right".
FIREWALL
06-29-10, 03:29 PM
If Kagen is confirmed - it will not drastically changed the makeup of the court. You will basically continue to see 5-4 decisions coming down from the court, the majority remains "on the right".
What facts bring you to that conclusion ?
Ducimus
06-29-10, 03:42 PM
Just have to say, that civil insurrection talk i find hilarious. I mean seriously, first of all, public opinion is that they are fringe whackjobs running around in fatigues, talking to god on a two way radio. So if they expect to inspire a national uprising, i dare say they'll be disappointed.
Secondly do these people REALLY think they have a chance against the modern US military? Reality is Not "Red Dawn". It doesn't matter what small or long arms your shooting, your going to get pasted pretty damn quick and probably not even see the person shooting at you.
Platapus
06-29-10, 04:41 PM
I am a firm believer in strict gun control
1. Modified Weaver Stance
2. Good sight picture
3. Breath control
4. Smooth trigger action
:D
GoldenRivet
06-29-10, 04:58 PM
Just have to say, that civil insurrection talk i find hilarious. I mean seriously, first of all, public opinion is that they are fringe whackjobs running around in fatigues, talking to god on a two way radio. So if they expect to inspire a national uprising, i dare say they'll be disappointed.
yes... those guys are a tad out there :haha:
Secondly do these people REALLY think they have a chance against the modern US military? Reality is Not "Red Dawn". It doesn't matter what small or long arms your shooting, your going to get pasted pretty damn quick and probably not even see the person shooting at you.
that is a fact.
the US Government has all the hardware it needs to control the people... now some nut job president just needs the justification for usurping all of the power for himself.
there will probably come a day that the US Constitution is just an antique document on display in a building... no longer applying to our system of government in any official capacity.
personally i fear that day may be coming sooner rather than later
FIREWALL
06-29-10, 05:07 PM
I doubt anyone here young or old will see that happen in their lifetime.
CaptainHaplo
06-29-10, 06:12 PM
What facts bring you to that conclusion ?
Well Firewall, simply put she is replacing Justice Stevens, who pretty much was a liberal vote on the court as it was. Replacing one liberal vote with another doesn't alter the balance of the court as it stands.
Now if she were replacing someone else, say Chief Justice Roberts, then the balance would change.
This is one reason why the nomination of Sotomayer and Kagen, while important and historical in their own ways, don't change the makeup of the court and thus have nowhere near the bearing that the talking heads would like to make you think.
raymond6751
06-29-10, 06:21 PM
Here is the run down for all the anti-gun people out there. Sure you can ban guns. As a matter of fact I hope you never even touch one. When some one breaks into your home or steals your car with you kids inside. I want you to think after that and wonder. If you had been properly trained and armed you might have been able to save your family. The next time you see them is in the morgue. Criminals love anti-guns laws. That means they have the guns and you don't. They don't care if they break the law. They are criminals. Thats what they do.
Up in the North country we have mandatory extra years added to the sentence when a crime is committed using a firearm. We also have life for killing a police officer, any way you do it.
Maybe coming down extra hard on the guys and gals who do shoot someone might help. You just have to be very very sure that you shoot the right person and don't miss. A bullet goes a long way.
Stats don't show how many people are killed or maimed by stray shots intended for someone else. That happens a lot, even in Canada.
Sailor Steve
06-30-10, 01:00 AM
Stats don't show how many people are killed or maimed by stray shots intended for someone else. That happens a lot, even in Canada.
Very true, but that also holds true for shots fired by police. With several dozen rounds fired for every bad guy police shoot, they have to go somewhere (statistically speaking, of course).
On the other hand, US stats never show how many attempted home robberies are foiled by gun-wielding homeowners. I am personally familiar with three separate cases in which that happened. The police were called, and did file reports, but nobody ever includes those. How many each year? I have no clue.
OneToughHerring
06-30-10, 02:28 AM
Very true, but that also holds true for shots fired by police. With several dozen rounds fired for every bad guy police shoot, they have to go somewhere (statistically speaking, of course).
On the other hand, US stats never show how many attempted home robberies are foiled by gun-wielding homeowners. I am personally familiar with three separate cases in which that happened. The police were called, and did file reports, but nobody ever includes those. How many each year? I have no clue.
Do the US stats show how many times weapons are stolen and used for criminal means? Or even to shoot their legal owners?
GoldenRivet
06-30-10, 04:23 AM
its impossible to know how many lives have been saved legally, or taken illegally with guns.
In my family we learned about gun safety early on, and by the time i was 7 years old i had a firearm that belonged to me. It was used for hunting.
but i'll just add this for all you fathers out there...
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs096.snc1/5162_94955952276_660192276_1845352_3219383_n.jpg
now i dont have a daughter... but i can guarantee you this; she would not only know where the pistol spends its dormant hours, but she would be well versed in its use by the age of 10
OneToughHerring
06-30-10, 05:46 AM
I wonder what looney site that picture comes from?
Zachstar
06-30-10, 05:56 AM
If that image is not a joke its a stupid political image at best.
Tell me is your daughter going to go outside to ride the bike packing a loaded glock? How about a automatic shotgun? How about a Stinger missile?
The sheer idiocy of the rabid anti-gun law group vastly ruins the image of the average hunter or homeowner wanting to have a gun on hand for self defense. And of course preying on the fears of parents isnt outside their views and justification because a city dares ban bazookas.
UnderseaLcpl
06-30-10, 06:03 AM
I wonder what looney site that picture comes from?
I don't know but with about 100,000 rapes committed every year in the US it's safe to say you could find a similar picture in many places. But hey, why worry about women being able to defend themselves when there's an agenda to push, right? They'll get over it. Unless they're dead. Then their families will get over it. In the meantime we can protest for the rights of convicted criminals if there's time before the womens' rigths rally.
OneToughHerring
06-30-10, 06:15 AM
I don't know but with about 100,000 rapes committed every year in the US it's safe to say you could find a similar picture in many places. But hey, why worry about women being able to defend themselves when there's an agenda to push, right? They'll get over it. Unless they're dead. Then their families will get over it. In the meantime we can protest for the rights of convicted criminals if there's time before the womens' rigths rally.
Yea, dont' try to solve the reasons behind crimes, just give everyone guns and 'let god sort them out', right?
GoldenRivet
06-30-10, 06:16 AM
At Zach and OTH
you guys have obviously never had to deal closely with victims of violent crimes. It really is sad when a 14 year old girl is HIV positive because she was raped.
of course its her fault right? at least in your eyes?
she isnt the victim is she? really its the AIDS infected pedophile who is the victim here right?
of course the kids are not going to pack a stinger missile while they ride bikes around the yard.
they aren't going to ride bikes around in the yard without adult supervision either :doh:
what happens when this rapist breaks into your home with one thought in his mind?
what are you going to do to protect your wife and daughter guys?
i pose that question to you seriously. What are you going to do?
call the cops and hope they show up before this guy can reach orgasm?
where i live they would be hauling his ass out of here in a body bag. he would be hamburger.
crime is part of the human phsyche OTH... you wont solve it. its as primal as the urge to eat in some people... you have a Utopian pipe dream going there.
OneToughHerring
06-30-10, 06:23 AM
At Zach and OTH
you guys have obviously never had to deal closely with victims of violent crimes. It really is sad when a 14 year old girl is HIV positive because she was raped.
of course its her fault right? at least in your eyes?
she isnt the victim is she? really its the AIDS infected pedophile who is the victim here right?
of course the kids are not going to pack a stinger missile while they ride bikes around the yard.
they aren't going to ride bikes around in the yard without adult supervision either :doh:
what happens when this rapist breaks into your home with one thought in his mind?
what are you going to do to protect your wife and daughter guys?
i pose that question to you seriously. What are you going to do?
call the cops and hope they show up before this guy can reach orgasm?
where i live they would be hauling his ass out of here in a body bag. he would be hamburger.
crime is part of the human phsyche OTH... you wont solve it. its as primal as the urge to eat in some people... you have a Utopian pipe dream going there.
How about stop fantasizing about rapes and guns for starters?
UnderseaLcpl
06-30-10, 06:27 AM
Yea, dont' try to solve the reasons behind crimes, just give everyone guns and 'let god sort them out', right?
We spend more per capita than any country in the world on criminal rehabilitation and anti-crime initiatives, it just doesn't work all the time. It's a big country, and not everyone here is well-established and wealthy enough to stay away from violent crimes. Some commit crime out of passion. Some are just psychos. We do what we can to prevent violent crime, but when it does occur it makes sense that one should be able to defend oneself.
GoldenRivet
06-30-10, 06:43 AM
How about stop fantasizing about rapes and guns for starters?
I'm sure this 10 year old girl (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354529,00.html) wishes rape were just some R rated movie fantasy.
its not a fantasy OTH... crap like this happens, even in your perfect and infallible utopia, Finland.
OneToughHerring
06-30-10, 06:50 AM
We spend more per capita than any country in the world on criminal rehabilitation and anti-crime initiatives, it just doesn't work all the time. It's a big country, and not everyone here is well-established and wealthy enough to stay away from violent crimes. Some commit crime out of passion. Some are just psychos. We do what we can to prevent violent crime, but when it does occur it makes sense that one should be able to defend oneself.
Well not all nations necessarily work out. Some countries are flawed from the start.
GR,
I think you're just fixated on that issue, might be healthy to think about other things for a change.
GoldenRivet
06-30-10, 06:56 AM
Well not all nations necessarily work out. Some countries are flawed from the start.
GR,
I think you're just fixated on that issue, might be healthy to think about other things for a change.
i'll do my best. Just for you OTH
however, i maintain that a man has the right to defend his home from intrusion and his family from harm - with lethal force.
Yea, dont' try to solve the reasons behind crimes, just give everyone guns and 'let god sort them out', right?
Yeah leave a potential victim without the means to defend herself while you debate unsolvable human tendancies toward evil. I'm sure rape victims everywhere will appreciate your basement pontifications.
NeonSamurai
06-30-10, 07:48 AM
Is anyone really debating self defense?
As for this whole rape stuff, most rapes are not committed by random predators. Most are committed by people you know (69% according to the DoJ), such as date rape (the most common form) and spousal rape. It is also suspected by researchers that date/spousal rape are heavily under-reported due to the victim blaming themselves or believing they initiated it.
Guns are not going to help a whole lot in a lot of those cases.
UnderseaLcpl
06-30-10, 08:23 AM
Is anyone really debating self defense?
As for this whole rape stuff, most rapes are not committed by random predators. Most are committed by people you know (69% according to the DoJ), such as date rape (the most common form) and spousal rape. It is also suspected by researchers that date/spousal rape are heavily under-reported due to the victim blaming themselves or believing they initiated it.
Guns are not going to help a whole lot in a lot of those cases.
I already figured in that only half of all reported rape cases where they actually identify the assailant involves a stranger or a former partner, hence 100,000 instead of the over 200,000 that the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports. Even if we cut that number in half again, to more accurately reflect the 26% of rapes committed by strangers we still have 50,000 a year, more than enough to warrant me purchasing a weapon for my daughter if I had one and training her in its usage. It would also provide protection from murder, along with the millions of assaults and robberies that take place every year, should circumstances warrant.
Sailor Steve
06-30-10, 11:38 AM
i'll do my best. Just for you OTH
Don't bother. He doesn't have an answer to your argument here so he falls back on bashing America (as always) and intimating that your argument stems from some perverse obsession. Nothing has changed.
NeonSamurai
06-30-10, 12:11 PM
I already figured in that only half of all reported rape cases where they actually identify the assailant involves a stranger or a former partner, hence 100,000 instead of the over 200,000 that the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports. Even if we cut that number in half again, to more accurately reflect the 26% of rapes committed by strangers we still have 50,000 a year, more than enough to warrant me purchasing a weapon for my daughter if I had one and training her in its usage. It would also provide protection from murder, along with the millions of assaults and robberies that take place every year, should circumstances warrant.
I would quibble with your figures, most unreported rape cases are where the person is known (people have more reasons to not report that their boyfriend raped them then being ambushed in a park). So the actual percentage of rapes commuted by strangers is likely much lower.
Also the number is ~31% reported rape cases are committed by strangers, not half.
OneToughHerring
06-30-10, 12:24 PM
Don't bother. He doesn't have an answer to your argument here so he falls back on bashing America (as always) and intimating that your argument stems from some perverse obsession. Nothing has changed.
What argument? That women should have handguns in the States because of the threat of rapes? And that arming all women would be the end-all solution to the societal reasons behind rapes and maybe other criminality? Was that the 'argument'? Or that GR should have guns for the same reason although he's not a woman?
I suppose the US is and has been in a kind of state of civil war, 10 000 + dead from firearms every year is war - figures. But will arming everyone a solution or a problem? Personally I don't really know, it might be that US is in a situation where everyone has to get a gun to feel safe. Even in, say, Vermont or some rich area people just have to have guns. Dunno. Not a good situation IMO.
GoldenRivet
06-30-10, 12:31 PM
OTH... putting a hand gun in a woman's hand is not going to solve all rapes, putting a gun in the hand of every human being is not going to solve all crimes... thats a ridiculous notion.
nobody is saying that.
the simple point - and concentrate really hard here man because i know you can do it.
the simple point is - every human being has a right to defend themselves with lethal force when required by their situation.
its simple.
and you either agree with it or you dont.
clearly you dont.
firearms are not the end all be all solution for all crimes... it is simply an outlet for personal protection, and here in America - like it or not - its your right to utilize that outlet in your self defense.
i really dont know what else to say to you that can make it any easier.
its like trying to explain basic math to an insect.
OneToughHerring
06-30-10, 01:16 PM
I think globally there are bigger problems even in relation to freedom of speech or act then having hand guns. In Finland they force majority of men to the military where they all shoot with this weapon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rk_62) so it's almost like the opposite situation, the society forcing people to shoot with full auto weapons/different machineguns/RPG's/cannons etc. After that at least I wasn't overly concerned about the society denying guns.
GoldenRivet
06-30-10, 01:23 PM
I think globally there are bigger problems even in relation to freedom of speech or act then having hand guns.
So you agree with me then?
our society is facing a lot of more pressing issues i think than anything relating to guns. and those more pressing issues should be dealt with.
onelifecrisis
06-30-10, 02:21 PM
I see a few people commented that they like to own/hold/fire their own guns. I don't see how that is relevant. Some people like to rape people - is that reason enough to make it legal for them to do so? Maybe I would "like" to shoot my own nukes at asteroids or big empty deserts or the south pole - so should I be able to buy nukes in Walmart? All I'm saying is that the case should be argued on more practical grounds. Argue for self-defense or pest control or whatever; "because I want one" doesn't really cut it.
OneToughHerring
06-30-10, 02:25 PM
So you agree with me then?
Well you probably think that the government should just forget about guns and that this equals "guns not being important". You know, guns everywhere, cops being all confused about who the bad guys are.
Jimbuna
06-30-10, 03:01 PM
So you agree with me then?
Have you been drinking John or are you simply feeding scraps to a troll? :DL
GoldenRivet
06-30-10, 04:38 PM
Have you been drinking John or are you simply feeding scraps to a troll? :DL
He is surely starving?
wasnt there a lengthy stay in the brig involved? :hmmm:
CaptainHaplo
06-30-10, 04:59 PM
I see a few people commented that they like to own/hold/fire their own guns. I don't see how that is relevant. Some people like to rape people - is that reason enough to make it legal for them to do so? Maybe I would "like" to shoot my own nukes at asteroids or big empty deserts or the south pole - so should I be able to buy nukes in Walmart? All I'm saying is that the case should be argued on more practical grounds. Argue for self-defense or pest control or whatever; "because I want one" doesn't really cut it.
I have to agree that the "because I want one" arguement doesn't cut it. I want a few million dollars, so maybe bank robbery should be legalized? I thought not. The right to bear arms is specifically protected for the right of self defence - against an overeaching government, as well as personal defence of life and property (though the property part has over time weakened).
Sailor Steve
06-30-10, 05:18 PM
Actually it's the "rape" argument that doesn't really cut it. Some people like to hurt other people. That doesn't make it right or legal. But if someone wants to own a gun just because they like to go to the range and shoot, that "doesn't cut it"? Who are you to tell me what hobbies I can enjoy? Owning and shooting a gun in and of itself doesn't hurt anyone or deny any of their basic rights. Misuse of a weapon is already as illegal as misuse of superior body strength to hurt someone.
In this particular example the one has nothing to do with the other.
I think if they want to take guns, they should do it legally and repeal the 2d Amendment. Until they do that, they should stop messing with gun rights since it is explicitly protected. "The People" means just that. The 2d is the final check in the checks and balances.
GoldenRivet
06-30-10, 07:08 PM
I think if they want to take guns, they should do it legally and repeal the 2d Amendment. Until they do that, they should stop messing with gun rights since it is explicitly protected. "The People" means just that. The 2d is the final check in the checks and balances.
If they repeal the second amendment you will probably have a civil war in America, even if they do it through legal channels.
too many people support it.
FIREWALL
06-30-10, 07:19 PM
If they repeal the second amendment you will probably have a civil war in America, even if they do it through legal channels.
too many people support it.
If such a thing as a repeal were even tried a less drastic solution such as recalls and impeachment would be a likely result.
TLAM Strike
06-30-10, 07:42 PM
yes... those guys are a tad out there :haha:
that is a fact.
the US Government has all the hardware it needs to control the people...
Yea cuz we are doing a great job using that hardware to control Afghanistan and Iraq.
Maybe it could force martial law on a state or two but but the US has some massive urban areas. Manhattan, Dallas-Fort Worth, LA. Think about it, the NYPD has the manpower and budget equal to that of some nation's armies- and still crime is a problem in NYC.
On the other side we have some truly massive rural areas- some with difficult terrain. Just think if some "Freedom Fighters" demoed the tunnel though Donnor Pass in Cali. You could nearly cut off half of California from the rest of the nation. Any "Government Occupation Force" would need to fly in everything. Think about the Rocky Mountains- that's eastern Afghanistan x20.
Also I can't help but think of one of the early Rainbow Six games where some crazy militia storms a Minuteman silo and threatens to launch on Washington.
I am a firm believer in strict gun control
1. Modified Weaver Stance
2. Good sight picture
3. Breath control
4. Smooth trigger action
:D
I too am a firm believer in strict gun control... I believe I should control the World with a really big gun. :03:
http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0910/model-citizen-guns-second-amendment-neighbors-respect-house-demotivational-poster-1256648463.jpg (http://www.motifake.com/model-citizen-guns-second-amendment-neighbors-respect-house-demotivational-poster-75615.html)
gimpy117
06-30-10, 08:14 PM
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs096.snc1/5162_94955952276_660192276_1845352_3219383_n.jpg
now i dont have a daughter... but i can guarantee you this; she would not only know where the pistol spends its dormant hours, but she would be well versed in its use by the age of 10
any why would your 10 year old daughter be alone in a city? screw the rapist part...if you need to arm your kids because your afraid they'll be off in random places getting into trouble, that's not a dangerous world...that's just bad parenting!
This whole what if some mad crazy psyco comes in and tries to harm me thing is a load of crap. Having good parenting skills, using locks, living in a safe neighborhood, and not showing off expensive goods to the street can go a long way...besides you're more likely to get shot with your own gun anyways.
Zachstar
06-30-10, 08:33 PM
Other than a posters here sick description and in my opinion fantasy of saving the day with a gun. The image is of course bullcrap as said before.
You cant have a bunch of people just going to their friends house armed with a Glock. If it became well known that they were carrying guns attacks against them would skyrocket. Why? Because one of the main ways criminals acquire guns is robbing people with them.
I am for the 2nd amendment and I do believe in safe home defense with firearms but the nutjobs want guns everywhere with as little control as possible.
BTW that image with the sign that points to an anti-gun home is reckless endangerment and likely the law has already stepped in. Announcing a home is potentially ripe for attack is unlawful in any state. Oh and may they go to hell for their bullcrap.
Sailor Steve
06-30-10, 10:14 PM
...besides you're more likely to get shot with your own gun anyways.
Yep. "If you have a gun the bad guys will just take it away and shoot you with it." That happened here in Utah quite a few years back. Young husky burglar broke into the house of an elderly couple in the middle of the night. He coldcocked the old man in his bed and then proceeded to dig into the old lady's jewelry box. When she started screaming he decided to strangle her. As he was doing so she was scratching at his chest and stomach. When she felt the gun in his wasteband she yanked it out and shot him with it.
If that poor burglar hadn't had a gun the bad guy wouldn't have used it on him.
Any more platitudes?
OneToughHerring
06-30-10, 10:31 PM
Yep. "If you have a gun the bad guys will just take it away and shoot you with it." That happened here in Utah quite a few years back. Young husky burglar broke into the house of an elderly couple in the middle of the night. He coldcocked the old man in his bed and then proceeded to dig into the old lady's jewelry box. When she started screaming he decided to strangle her. As he was doing so she was scratching at his chest and stomach. When she felt the gun in his wasteband she yanked it out and shot him with it.
If that poor burglar hadn't had a gun the bad guy wouldn't have used it on him.
Any more platitudes?
Got any actual stats to back up your quaint little stories?
Got any actual stats to back up your quaint little stories?
Go away sonny. Grown ups are having a discussion using a lot of big words and ideas you wouldn't understand. :roll:
Sailor Steve
06-30-10, 10:50 PM
Thanks a lot, August! Having him on my Ignore list doesn't help when you broadcast his inanities.
But I'll bite. Here's a stat for you: Last year alone several million privately owned American guns didn't shoot anybody.
Guns being turned on their owners is a rare thing. They far more often prevent crimes without ever being discharged. This is of course irrelevant to discussions involving the US since to take away guns you'd need to repeal the 2d, period.
BTW, the vast majority of victims of gun violence, AND accidents... convicted felons, or their immediate families.
Gun crime in the US is very narrowly defined demographically. For "european" demographics the rates are similar to those in Europe. The US only appears violent because a small subset of the population is HUGELY more violent. An order of magnitude more, in fact.
OneToughHerring
06-30-10, 11:10 PM
Thanks a lot, August! Having him on my Ignore list doesn't help when you broadcast his inanities.
But I'll bite. Here's a stat for you: Last year alone several million privately owned American guns didn't shoot anybody.
http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm
Statistics: Gun Violence in Our Communities School Safety (http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm#school)
Less than 1% of all homicides among school-aged children (5-19 years of age) occur in or around school grounds or on the way to and from school. (Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/schoolvi.htm), 1997)
Children and Gun Violence (http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm#children)
In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States, according to the latest national data released in 2002. That is one child every three hours; eight children every day; and more than 50 children every week. And every year, at least 4 to 5 times as many kids and teens suffer from non-fatal firearm injuries. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)
America and Gun Violence (http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm#america)
American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)
Guns in the Wrong Hands (http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm#guns)
Faulty records enable terrorists, illegal aliens and criminals to purchase guns. Over a two and a half-year period, at least 9,976 convicted felons and other illegal buyers in 46 states obtained guns because of inadequate records. (Broken Records, Americans for Gun Safety Foundation (http://www.agsfoundation.com/))
School Safety
Between 1994 and 1999, there were 220 school associated violent events resulting in 253 deaths - - 74.5% of these involved firearms. Handguns caused almost 60% of these deaths. (Journal of American Medical Association, December 2001)
In 1998-99 academic year, 3,523 students were expelled for bringing a firearm to school. This is a decrease from the 5,724 students expelled in 1996-97 for bringing a firearm to school. (U.S. Department of Education, October 2000)
Nearly 8% of adolescents in urban junior and senior high schools miss at least one day of school each month because they are afraid to attend. (National Mental Health & Education Center for Children & Families, National Association of School Psychologists 1998)
The National School Boards Association estimates that more than 135,000 guns are brought into U.S. schools each day. (NSBA, 1993)
Children and Gun Violence
America is losing too many children to gun violence. Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)
In one year, more children and teens died from gunfire than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined. (Children's Defense Fund)
The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
America and Gun Violence
Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)
The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)
Guns in the Wrong Hands
Americans for Gun Safety produced a 2003 report that reveals that 20 of the nation’s 22 national gun laws are not enforced. According to U.S. Department of Justice data (FY 2000-2002), only 2% of federal gun crimes were actually prosecuted. Eighty-five percent of cases prosecuted relate to street criminals in possession of firearms. Ignored are laws intended to punish illegal gun trafficking, firearm theft, corrupt gun dealers, lying on a criminal background check form, obliterating firearm serial numbers, selling guns to minors and possessing a gun in a school zone. To access The Enforcement Gap: Federal Gun Laws Ignored, visit http://w3.agsfoundation.com/. For a state-by-state chart of gun crimes (FY 2000-2002), click here (http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/Gun%20Safety%20PDF%20Files/StateGunCrimesChart.pdf).
Studies show that 1 percent of gun stores sell the weapons traced to 57 percent of gun crimes. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the dealer that armed the DC area sniper is among this small group of problem gun dealers that "supply the suppliers" who funnel guns to the nation's criminals. (Between 1997 and 2001, guns sold by this dealer were involved in 52 crimes, including homicides, kidnappings and assaults. Still open today, it also can't account for 238 guns or say whether they were stolen, lost or sold, or if their buyers underwent felony-background checks.) As a result, these few gun dealers have a vastly disproportionate impact on public safety. The ATF can recognize such dealers based on: (1) guns stolen from inventory; (2) missing federal sales records, needed by police to solve crimes; (3) having 10 weapons a year traced to crimes; (4) frequently selling multiple guns to individual buyers; and (5) short times between gun sales and their involvement in crimes. Yet ATF enforcement is weak due to a lack of Congressional support and resources. For more details, click here (http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/stbullseye.htm).
Terrorists have purchased firearms at gun shows, where unlicensed sellers are not currently required to conduct background checks or to ask for identification. According to the Middle East Intelligence Report, for example, a Hezbollah member was arrested in November 2000, after a nine-month investigation by the FBI's counter-terrorism unit. Ali Boumelhem was later convicted on seven counts of weapons charges and conspiracy to ship weapons and ammunition to Lebanon. Federal agents had observed Boumelhem, a resident of Detroit and Beirut, travel to Michigan gun shows and buy gun parts and ammunition for shipment overseas. Boumelhem was prohibited from legally purchasing guns as gun stores because he was a convicted felon. Additional cases involve a Pakistani national with an expired (1988) student visa; a Lebanese native and Hamas member with numerous felony convictions; and a supporter of the Irish Republican Army. (USA Today, Wednesday, November 28, 2001 Americans for Gun Safety (http://www.americansforgunsafety.com/))
According to Americans for Gun Safety (December 2002), gun theft is most likely in states without laws requiring safe storage of firearms in the home and where there are large numbers of gun owners and relatively high crime rates. Based on FBI data, nearly 1.7 million guns have been reported stolen in the past ten years, and only 40% of those were recovered. The missing guns, over 80% of which are taken from homes or cars, most likely fuel the black market for criminals. NEA, AGS and the National Rifle Association advocate for safe storage. To access "Stolen Guns: Arming the Enemy" visit www.agsfoundation.com (http://www.agsfoundation.com/).
The American Medical Association reports that between 36% and 50% of male eleventh graders believe that they could easily get a gun if they wanted one.
In 1998-99 academic year, 3,523 students were expelled for bringing a firearm to school. This is a decrease from the 5,724 students expelled in 1996-97 for bringing a firearm to school. (U.S. Department of Education, October 2000)
According to a report by the Joshephson Institute of Ethics (2000 Report Card: Report #1), 60% of high school and 31% of middle school boys said they could get a gun if they wanted to (April, 2001).
GoldenRivet
06-30-10, 11:25 PM
here is some stats:
There are over five hundred and fifty million firearms in world wide circulation.
Thats one firearm for every twelve people on the planet.
the only question is...
... how do we arm the other eleven?
:up:
onelifecrisis
07-01-10, 01:12 AM
Owning and shooting a gun in and of itself doesn't hurt anyone.
Neither does shooting nukes at asteroids. Should I be allowed to buy nukes and missiles for that purpose, if I have the money?
Tribesman
07-01-10, 02:02 AM
If there are to be no restrictions on owning a firearm doesn't that mean convicts and lunatics must be allowed to buy them.
onelifecrisis
07-01-10, 02:39 AM
If there are to be no restrictions on owning a firearm doesn't that mean convicts and lunatics must be allowed to buy them.
Lunatics are already allowed to buy them in the US. Insane is okay, but they draw the line at criminally insane. ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxbRm2dS1F8&feature=related (go to 1:30)
Tribesman
07-01-10, 03:02 AM
Lunatics are already allowed to buy them in the US
You mean Michael Moore is actually allowed a gun??????
OneToughHerring
07-01-10, 03:35 AM
You mean Michael Moore is actually allowed a gun??????
Michael Moore is even a member of the NRA.
Platapus
07-01-10, 05:32 AM
Go away sonny. Grown ups are having a discussion using a lot of big words and ideas you wouldn't understand. :roll:
Now now August, it is a legitimate request. Name calling does not further this discussion.
If this case is known to Steve, it should be easy for him to produce a news link or a criminal record link.
If there is no citation, it is just an opinion on a video game website.
I ran a test some years ago, with a couple of my personal firearms. One was an AR-15, the other an SKS. I loaded both and put them on the back porch of my rural home under the watchful eye of a DVR video camera. For one week, the firearms sat there on the back porch, fully loaded... seven days.
During those seven days, neither gun ever attempted to kill anyone.
they both lay there, behaving in a peaceful manner, never acting in aggression or making any movement whatsoever.
however...
in that same seven day period, 18 people were arrested for DUI, 3 for reckless driving, 1 for endangerment of a child, 4 for methamphetamine possession, 15 for shoplifting and 1 for domestic abuse.
personally, it makes more sense to outlaw idiots than it does guns.
This is what the Republican party has been trying to tell the idiot democrats for decades. Its either entirely to simple for them, or entirely to complicated because they still haven't figured it out. But I think its because they do not want to listen.
The stats posted by OTH are of course very misleading.
"Children" means minors. The vast majority of those firearms deaths of children are closer to 18 years old. Gangbangers, etc. Regardless of age, the vast majority of children who are hurt or killed as a result of fire arms are criminals, or children of criminals (or living in a home with a criminal).
That relates to the CDC claim that far higher US deaths occur under age 15.
Criminal kids at home with other kids that may, or may not be criminals. Older, criminal kid (or criminal parent) leaves loaded gun around (if they were responsible they'd not have had kids in the first place in their economic situation), kid gets killed playing with it.
When you look at a suburban demographic, US stats look like Europe—though slightly higher. When you look at a 3d world demographic in the US, the rate looks 3d world.
Ban having kids without a dad married to the mom, and you'll see a better reduction, frankly (since the bulk of US firearms deaths come from firearms that are illegally owned, anyway (kids of any age, felons, etc, may not purchase firearms in the US).
Sailor Steve
07-01-10, 10:51 AM
Now now August, it is a legitimate request. Name calling does not further this discussion.
If this case is known to Steve, it should be easy for him to produce a news link or a criminal record link.
If there is no citation, it is just an opinion on a video game website.
Haven't found that one yet, as our online newspaper archives only go back to 1991 and this was much earlier.
Found this though.
http://www.khou.com/news/local/Testimony-Naked-woman-shot-burglary-suspect-with-his-own-gun-in-Texas-City-90862929.html
And this.
http://www.wnem.com/news/23784391/detail.html
And this.
http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_161775.asp
And this.
http://www.ocregister.com/news/shot-113996-home-neighbor.html
Is that enough?
Is that enough?
Maybe for Platapus or any other non troll but OTH? I doubt it.
Sorry for quoting him BTW! :salute:
OneToughHerring
07-01-10, 12:57 PM
Shooting a robber or a shoplifter or similar can very well lead to manslaughter or similar charges being raised against the shooter.
Besides, wasn't your whole point about guns that they are really effective etc., not that they can be taken away easily and used against the owner. There are plenty more cases where a burglar found a gun and used it against the owner or someone else later.
When cops arrive at a crime scene and everyone is armed, how are they supposed to know who the bad guys are? Btw this question was asked by a US cop.
UnderseaLcpl
07-01-10, 01:05 PM
When cops arrive at a crime scene and everyone is armed, how are they supposed to know who the bad guys are? Btw this question was asked by a US cop.
I don't believe a US cop asked that question. They have a system for telling who's who: The bad guys are always the ones with the darkest skin.
It's true, I heard it from Chris Rock.:DL
OneToughHerring
07-02-10, 01:00 AM
I don't believe a US cop asked that question. They have a system for telling who's who: The bad guys are always the ones with the darkest skin.
It's true, I heard it from Chris Rock.:DL
Doesn't surprise me that you would have a problem with Chris Rock. :DL
Snestorm
07-02-10, 01:12 AM
Doesn't surprise me that you would have a problem with Chris Rock. :DL
What's a Chris Rock?
OneToughHerring
07-02-10, 01:23 AM
What's a Chris Rock?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQilqOveh2s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4DnNKKIfrM&feature=related
Snestorm
07-02-10, 01:33 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQilqOveh2s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4DnNKKIfrM&feature=related
Thanks for the info.
Couldn't find anything worth a chuckle but, that is the norm for me concerning stand up "comedy".
I see the cursing continues to rise, as the talent declines.
Jimbuna
07-02-10, 06:51 AM
I don't believe a US cop asked that question. They have a system for telling who's who: The bad guys are always the ones with the darkest skin.
It's true, I heard it from Chris Rock.:DL
LMAO :haha:
Nice one :DL
Wasn't he in The Nutty Professor movie? :hmmm:
UnderseaLcpl
07-02-10, 07:08 AM
That was Eddie Murphy. What are you saying, Jim? They all look alike to you? :stare:
OneToughHerring
07-02-10, 08:31 AM
That was Eddie Murphy. What are you saying, Jim? They all look alike to you? :stare:
...monkeys...
What?
...monkeys...
Huh?
Fixed. :DL
OneToughHerring
07-02-10, 11:34 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/latin_america/10485228.stm
Not really US related but Mexico is close enough and gun violence is there too.
"Nearly 23,000 people are thought to have been killed since President Calderon launched his crackdown on the cartels in December 2006."
That's a lot of victims.
Jimbuna
07-02-10, 04:34 PM
That was Eddie Murphy. What are you saying, Jim? They all look alike to you? :stare:
Yeah :DL
http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/2159/animatedblindmanhgclrzo1.gif
I'm thinking of the night club scene when EM has a virtual joke/duel with the cabaret act and ends up throwing him inside a piano after outdoing him jokewise in front of the audience.
Wasn't that Chris Rock?
Jimbuna
07-02-10, 04:36 PM
Fixed. :DL
Huh? :har:
OneToughHerring
07-02-10, 06:50 PM
To go back on that link about Mexico that I posted, I find it strange that such as thing can happen right across the border and it's not really something the Americans should think about. If something similar happened in, say, Sweden or Russia and Finland had the means to help, I'm pretty sure we would.
gimpy117
07-02-10, 07:51 PM
If there are to be no restrictions on owning a firearm doesn't that mean convicts and lunatics must be allowed to buy them.
Cho...the Virginia tech shooter actually was in a mental health institution yet LEGALLY obtained his guns via a technicality in the law. And the rest, is history.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/gun.laws/index.html
OneToughHerring
07-04-10, 11:29 AM
To go back on that link about Mexico that I posted, I find it strange that such as thing can happen right across the border and it's not really something the Americans should think about. If something similar happened in, say, Sweden or Russia and Finland had the means to help, I'm pretty sure we would.
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/04/14/world/1194747029246/american-guns-in-ju-rez.html?ref=gun_control
"American guns in Juarez"
To go back on that link about Mexico that I posted, I find it strange that such as thing can happen right across the border and it's not really something the Americans should think about. If something similar happened in, say, Sweden or Russia and Finland had the means to help, I'm pretty sure we would.
Most of us are vastly concerned about it. I live in Texas so I am right there.
Unfortunately our idiot government doesn't have the balls to do anything about it.
If Mexico had pointed fire arms at Federal Agents while I had been in control of anything at all, there would have been alot of dead Mexicans.
You point a gun at someone and don't shoot, you are asking to get your ass kicked into the next dimension.
OneToughHerring
07-04-10, 05:07 PM
Most of us are vastly concerned about it. I live in Texas so I am right there.
Unfortunately our idiot government doesn't have the balls to do anything about it.
If Mexico had pointed fire arms at Federal Agents while I had been in control of anything at all, there would have been alot of dead Mexicans.
You point a gun at someone and don't shoot, you are asking to get your ass kicked into the next dimension.
The way I see it this is just a part of the war on drugs that according to many is a failed 'war'. The Mexican law enforcement is doing the heavy lifting and bleeding and dying along with Mexican bystanders just so some fat American might be spared an addiction to cocaine or whatever.
"Zachstar (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=214355)" If it became well known that they were carrying guns attacks against them would skyrocket. Why? Because one of the main ways criminals acquire guns is robbing people with them"
is that why every military patrol in iraq is getting mugged?
OneToughHerring
07-04-10, 05:34 PM
"Zachstar (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=214355)" If it became well known that they were carrying guns attacks against them would skyrocket. Why? Because one of the main ways criminals acquire guns is robbing people with them"
is that why every military patrol in iraq is getting mugged?
Hasn't US basically handed the patrolling of the streets to the Iraqis some time ago? Before that the US military patrols took a lot of hits, and a lot of attacks from small weapons, IED's, VBIED's, etc. So, err, what was your point?
The way I see it this is just a part of the war on drugs that according to many is a failed 'war'. The Mexican law enforcement is doing the heavy lifting and bleeding and dying along with Mexican bystanders just so some fat American might be spared an addiction to cocaine or whatever.
I'ts hard for both U.S and Mexico to handle this situation,as you now so are many people involved to find right way for act,Money is, power and this is one of the reason to the situation,the drug dealer don't care.
I'm well aware of your "skewed" view and idea of what America is, please do not try and uneducated me in culture. We are not all fat, we do not all do drugs ( I consider drugs everything hard, like coke, crack, meth, that crap, not marijuana or K2 or stuff like that.) And we all are certainly not evil.
It is not a failed "Drug War". If Mexico can't/won't find a way to solve the problem themselves (obviously they can't, they are to corrupt) then I imagine we will get involved in a more not so subtle way. We have absolutely every right to defend our citizens and we will do it as we see fit. Right now its is rightfully so that the Mexican Police (the bastards who pointed fire arms at us.) be the ones to do the heavy lifting after all it is their country they are trying to clean up Of course the Mexicans show their true ignorance when they rant about the Arizona law (Hell Yea Arizona!) saying that it isn't fair. Funny the last time I checked it is more fair and lenient than the Federal Law which the idiot administration doesn't want to invoke because the want Hispanic votes for the up coming November Elections. That is way they are "making" such a big deal about it. I say "making" because one way or the other come November there will be no way it will pass a Republican Congress, and if the Republicans don't win (which I doubt) then the Democratic will not careless about it anymore and nothing more will come of it.
The way I see it, it is a joint effort on both parts (and Canada don't forget) to try and close out our borders to unwanted scum, like drug traffickers. This also logically bleeds into Immigration since some if not most of the illegals that come through the borders are trafficking drugs.
You just live the in Twilight Zone, no not the kiddy vampire movie, the other reality one. Actually no, I think the vampire one is more terrifying lol.:|\\
OneToughHerring
07-04-10, 05:47 PM
I'ts hard for both U.S and Mexico to handle this situation,as you now so are many people involved to find right way for act,Money is, power and this is one of the reason to the situation,the drug dealer don't care.
One question: Does the US say no to drug money? Look at Miami, that city was basically built with cocaine and drug money.
Hasn't US basically handed the patrolling of the streets to the Iraqis some time ago? Before that the US military patrols took a lot of hits, and a lot of attacks from small weapons, IED's, VBIED's, etc. So, err, what was your point?
my point was no patrol i have heard of has ever had all they're guns stolen out of they're hands like it sounds like Zachstar (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=214355) is saying would happen to a group of armed people.
OneToughHerring
07-04-10, 06:15 PM
my point was no patrol i have heard of has ever had all they're guns stolen out of they're hands like it sounds like Zachstar (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=214355) is saying would happen to a group of armed people.
I remember seeing footage of a VBIED - attack against a US armored carrier and then the aftermath of the attackers dragging the US soldiers bodies around. If they wanted their guns they could've gotten them but I think they have their own guns and they don't attack the Americans in order to get their weapons.
valid point, but i don't think the risk of VBIED's are quite as high here in the US, so my point of it being unlikely for a group of armed people to be mugged for they're guns is still on the table.
OneToughHerring
07-04-10, 06:48 PM
valid point, but i don't think the risk of VBIED's are quite as high here in the US, so my point of it being unlikely for a group of armed people to be mugged for they're guns is still on the table.
Well what the US does is kind of like what goes on in Mars to me, really far away. However with the recent school shootings here in Finland we had some debate about handguns. As a result of this the US organisation NRA set up 'corner office' here. Seems to me their purpose is to promote US gun lobby intrests...in Finland. Weird.
Now I don't really care what they do in US, that's your business. But for the NRA to come here and set up office here is the equivalent of political meddling in the affairs of another nation and I don't really look favourably on that kind of stuff especially after the tragedies we had recently.
"recent school shootings here in Finland"
i had not heard of that i'm sorry.:cry:
OneToughHerring
07-04-10, 07:05 PM
"recent school shootings here in Finland"
i had not heard of that i'm sorry.:cry:
Well the shootings took place in -07 and -08, then a shopping mall shooting in late -09 so there is this unpleasant trend of 'one big shooting per year' going on now. I hope it doesn't continue though, there hasn't yet been one for this year. The school shooters idolized the Columbine school shooters and there was a connection to a US kid with the first shooter. So, really unwanted phenomena overall.
But you know, I've had relatives who've lived in the States, one of them still does I think, I used to worry about their safety. Like I said it's a pretty far away place for me to comprehend politically even though we see US shows on television and have seen for a long time. The Americans seem to be into their guns, especially hand guns which so far haven't been that popular here, we are more hunting rifle/shotgun nation.
krashkart
07-04-10, 07:17 PM
Well the shootings took place in -07 and -08, then a shopping mall shooting in late -09 so there is this unpleasant trend of 'one big shooting per year' going on now. I hope it doesn't continue though, there hasn't yet been one for this year. The school shooters idolized the Columbine school shooters and there was a connection to a US kid with the first shooter. So, really unwanted phenomena overall.
But you know, I've had relatives who've lived in the States, one of them still does I think, I used to worry about their safety. Like I said it's a pretty far away place for me to comprehend.
That explains a lot. If your relatives lived in my neighborhood they'd be under my wing without knowing it. The history here may be streaked with blood here and there, OTH. But... like any other country/tribe/culture we have those who stand at the outskirts and keep watch.
Columbine. That was the big one - it took us all off guard, Herring. Comparisons can be drawn between the US and Finland's sudden increase in those types of incidents, and perhaps to some degree it did start here. I do not know for certain. But it tears people up no matter where it happens. That much I do know. Kids here in some schools must pass through metal detectors as they enter those buildings each morning. Do I want my kids to live under that kind of fearful mindset? No. It pisses me off to the utmost when I think about it -- no kid should have to know that fear. If I had the power, it would never happen. Period.
Anyway, there you have it. Sorry to disrupt the thread like that.
EDIT
Don't worry too much about your family, they're in good hands.
"OneToughHerring" especially hand guns which so far haven't been that popular here, we are more hunting rifle/shotgun nation"
well the main point of a hand gun is to get to you're rifle.:DL
krashkart
07-04-10, 07:40 PM
It kind of depends on what side of the line we're on, but for the most part I'd have to agree. Personally, I'm more of a plinking marksman. :DL
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.