Gun Control

[Jintor]

Is it arguable that criminals armed with more easily obtainable weaponry would be enough of a deterrant to prevent our more law-abiding citizens from interfering with illegal activities? :/

For the record, I'm totally fine with Australian Firearms restrictions atm.

Gun Politics seems to be very much a product of America's perculiar culture.

 

[No Limit]

This is a good thing. That a wheelchair bound old lady living in a bad neighborhood has the means to defend herself against one or more armed robbers is precisely why I am for accessible, affordable, fuctional firearms being widely available to the public.

Even if it's arguable that a wheelchair bound old lady could be seriously expected to make much of a defense, the fact that the criminals could be facing bullets instead of weak cries for help would be enough of a deterant to dissuade most criminals from entering.

Yes, because that never goes wrong:

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=135699&ran=144612

Do you have any examples of when someone was actually saved during a home invasion because of a gun?

 

[CptStern]

This is a good thing. That a wheelchair bound old lady living in a bad neighborhood has the means to defend herself against one or more armed robbers is precisely why I am for accessible, affordable, fuctional firearms being widely available to the public.

or it could lead to grandma shooting the mail man who she thinks is part of a global conspiracy to abduct senior citizens to be used as labourers in diamond mines

Even if it's arguable that a wheelchair bound old lady could be seriously expected to make much of a defense, the fact that the criminals could be facing bullets instead of weak cries for help would be enough of a deterant to dissuade most criminals from entering.

again she is far more likely to be killed by someone she knows rather than a complete stranger ..your argument is comparable to wearing a helmet in the off chance you may be hit by a meteorite

 

[CptStern]

No you are in favour of banning all guns, I think that's ridiculous. Regulation is not the same as prohibition. How many people are normally killed in domestic murders...1. So they could have easily used a knife to kill 1 person. Finland has a high number of guns, yet only 14% of murders use guns.

finland has strict gun control laws and even stricter handgun laws, not a valid comparison to the US ..and yes I am for banning all guns, only law enforcement should be allowed to carry guns ..what's wrong with that? why does your right to own a gun supercede my right to live? please answer this point, dont ignore it as so many others have

and the argument that a knife could be used is illogical at best ..if a knife could be used more effectively than a gun it would be used more often, which is not the case as more homicides involve death by firearm than knives or any other weapon/method by 2 to 1

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_06.html

I put it in italics, your argument is that reduce guns reduces crime, now either your saying guns cause crime, or that without guns, criminals can't be bothered to commit crimes.

look this is getting frustrating that you cant understand basic english ..it means exactly what it means: take away guns and the number of GUN RELATED murders decreases ..how are you not understanding this? if I put 6 knives, 6 forks and 6 spoons on a table for 6 place setting ..if I then take away 6 sppons how many people will be using spoons to eat? zero! does it mean they wont eat without a spoon? ...no. look you're just trying to twist my words to mean something else while at the same time avoiding my points

I someone is sufficiently angry at someone, angry enough to kill them, do you honestly think they wouldn't be able to stabs someone, but could shoot them from a few feet away. Multiple stab wounds show that the perpetrator was angry.

2 to 1 Mr Stabby, the stats do not lie ..gun is a weapon of opportunity ..not everyone is capable of stabbing someone but anyone from a 2 year old to a senior citizen in a wheelchair can pull a tigger

Well again your blaming the gun, there is no laissez-faire murders, they require the intent of someone to kill another person, do you honestly believe that if someone has the sufficient intent to kill another person, that no access to a gun is the only thing stopping them.

yes, why did Cho wait to buy a handgun before going on a shooting spree ..surely there were knives readily available that he could have gone on a knifing spree ..why did he wait?

So if the experience of anther country, contradicts your argument you'll discard it. We aren't just using America, other countries have guns too.

yes that's exactly what I'm saying :upstare: you're starting to annoy me with the words you're putting in my mouth ..I've used the US because THAT's WHAT THE TOPIC IS ABOUT: he specifically mentions the US so I ran from their

whereas a large majority of gun owners use their gun for killing things

yes I did say however you said this:

Are you saying the majority of gun owners murder people?

I said "killing things" not murdering people, that can mean everthing for killing your neighbour to shooting chippy the woodland squirrel ..at least you could have double checked before attempting to put words in my mouth as I've just proven you do

So, actually there are a number of ex-soviet weapons that were produced for dubious reasons, hardly the point. There is a huge international illegal arms trade, there are dozens of sources for them to get guns. Many guns aren't made for markets at all, but they end up on the black market, the AK-47 is the most obvious example of this. The point is, that guns get on the black market that came from sources that have nothing to do with the legal trade in arms.

so what? they still started off as legal ..that's the ****ing point ..if I buy an AK-47 in Canada I can guarentee it was smuggled into canada because we dont allow sales of AK-47s ..I fail to see your point besides the fact that "well criminals could obtain guns on the blackmarket" well no shit sherlock, they could pretty much buy anythig on the black market, that's why it's called the black market

The borders are heavily cracked down on, in the war on drugs as well, it's next to impossible to stop due to the volume of traffic. Your idealistic view of no guns = no gun crime, is very unrealistic.

only because you completely oversimplified what I was saying to suit your own agenda ..I never said "no guns = no gun crime" I said it would reduce gun crime there is no disputing this ...limited access to guns = less gun related crime ..even if just shore up gun theft (amounting to 300,000 a year in the US) you'd stop that avenue by which criminals obtain guns

imho far too many gun advocates rely on emotion rather than common sense when arguing gun control ..mostly because deep down they realise that gun control would at some level reduce gun related crime, the vehemence they show when arguing their point is in direct relation to the amount of inner guilt they must inevitably feel for supporting something that leads to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people every year

 

[Mr Stabby]

finland has strict gun control laws and even stricter handgun laws, not a valid comparison to the US ..and yes I am for banning all guns, only law enforcement should be allowed to carry guns ..what's wrong with that? why does your right to own a gun supercede my right to live? please answer this point, dont ignore it as so many others have

Finland still has a high number of privately owned guns, so it's valid. If you think my owning a gun affects your life, then you're are extremely paranoid, I say it again, murder requires intent, if I don't intend on killing you, my ownership of a gun won't change that.

and the argument that a knife could be used is illogical at best ..if a knife could be used more effectively than a gun it would be used more often, which is not the case as more homicides involve death by firearm than knives or any other weapon/method by 2 to 1

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_06.html

I never said a knife was more effective, don't put words in my mouth... Some one with the intent to commit murder would be capable of using a knife, statistics show us that likely murderers are male between 20-40.

look this is getting frustrating that you cant understand basic english ..it means exactly what it means: take away guns and the number of GUN RELATED murders decreases ..how are you not understanding this? if I put 6 knives, 6 forks and 6 spoons on a table for 6 place setting ..if I then take away 6 sppons how many people will be using spoons to eat? zero! does it mean they wont eat without a spoon? ...no. look you're just trying to twist my words to mean something else while at the same time avoiding my points

Clearly you were implying guns had an affect on crime rate, if you took away guns, knife related murders would just increase, to fill the crime deficit.

2 to 1 Mr Stabby, the stats do not lie ..gun is a weapon of opportunity ..not everyone is capable of stabbing someone but anyone from a 2 year old to a senior citizen in a wheelchair can pull a tigger

How likely is a 2 year old to murder people.

yes, why did Cho wait to buy a handgun before going on a shooting spree ..surely there were knives readily available that he could have gone on a knifing spree ..why did he wait?

Stop putting words in my mouth...When it comes to mass murder a gun is better, but we are talking about domestic murder. Speaking of school shootings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

yes that's exactly what I'm saying :upstare: you're starting to annoy me with the words you're putting in my mouth ..I've used the US because THAT's WHAT THE TOPIC IS ABOUT: he specifically mentions the US so I ran from their

Sigh, but you still ignore the issue, other countries do have these problems, you dismissed it because America doesn't, the issue still exists, try addressing it.

I said "killing things" not murdering people, that can mean everthing for killing your neighbour to shooting chippy the woodland squirrel ..at least you could have double checked before attempting to put words in my mouth as I've just proven you do

So, guns serve a purpose other than murder, so guns have a legal use.

so what? they still started off as legal ..that's the ****ing point ..if I buy an AK-47 in Canada I can guarentee it was smuggled into canada because we dont allow sales of AK-47s ..I fail to see your point besides the fact that "well criminals could obtain guns on the blackmarket" well no shit sherlock, they could pretty much buy anythig on the black market, that's why it's called the black market

So you agree the black market is a source of foreign guns for criminals, good. However not all black markets weapons are bought legally in Mexico and shipped in, some come from properly illegal sources, no gun shop in the world will sell you an RPG but it can be bought on the internatioanl black market.

only because you completely oversimplified what I was saying to suit your own agenda ..I never said "no guns = no gun crime" I said it would reduce gun crime there is no disputing this ...limited access to guns = less gun related crime ..even if just shore up gun theft (amounting to 300,000 a year in the US) you'd stop that avenue by which criminals obtain guns

It's very disputable, even the black market is open to market forces, if illegal imports are the only source of guns, then they will increase.

imho far too many gun advocates rely on emotion rather than common sense when arguing gun control ..mostly because deep down they realise that gun control would at some level reduce gun related crime, the vehemence they show when arguing their point is in direct relation to the amount of inner guilt they must inevitably feel for supporting something that leads to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people every year

I used to be in favour of getting rid of guns, but the idea of no guns means no gun crime is complete fantasy, therefore those who own a gun in a legal law abiding manner should not be prevented from owning a gun. IMHO anti-gun sentiment is more emotion than fact.

 

[CptStern]

Clearly you were implying guns had an affect on crime rate, if you took away guns, knife related murders would just increase, to fill the crime deficit.

yes guns have an effect on crime rate, specifically homicide wirh firearms

Stop putting words in my mouth...When it comes to mass murder a gun is better, but we are talking about domestic murder. Speaking of school shootings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalac...f_Law_shooting

yes well you probably should have your read your own link ..the two armed men who confronted the shooter were off duty police officers:

Sigh, but you still ignore the issue, other countries do have these problems, you dismissed it because America doesn't, the issue still exists, try addressing it.

what problems? what are you talking about? be specific

So, guns serve a purpose other than murder, so guns have a legal use.

what is that use? putting holes in tin cans? I fail to see your point or how you're countering what I'm saying

So you agree the black market is a source of foreign guns for criminals, good.

it's also a source of domestic guns ..what's your point?

However not all black markets weapons are bought legally in Mexico and shipped in, some come from properly illegal sources, no gun shop in the world will sell you an RPG but it can be bought on the internatioanl black market.

the very fact that they're banned makes it illegal to buy sell own one ..I fail to see your point

It's very disputable, even the black market is open to market forces, if illegal imports are the only source of guns, then they will increase.

relative to what? and in comparison to what? either way you slice it simply banning the item makes it far more difficult to obtain? why and how are you disputing this self evident point?

I used to be in favour of getting rid of guns, but the idea of no guns means no gun crime is complete fantasy, therefore those who own a gun in a legal law abiding manner should not be prevented from owning a gun.

look bottom line is I dont know you wont do something stupid, I wouldnt trust a stranger to not do something stupid in every day non-lethal activities why should I blindly trust that they wont do something stupid with something that is lethal? ..why should you be allowed to carry something that was created with the sole purpose of taking my life?

IMHO anti-gun sentiment is more emotion than fact.

please, there is nothing to support the ownership of guns except some misinterpreted bit of paper and the selfish and selfrighteousness of a handful of people more concerned with their hobby than the safety and welfare of others ..it's purely a selfish act

 

[Hondo]

or it could lead to grandma shooting the mail man who she thinks is part of a global conspiracy to abduct senior citizens to be used as labourers in diamond mines

The hell? Wherever you got that, it's a load of nonsense and a generalization of aging women that I think makes you look like a complete asshole.

again she is far more likely to be killed by someone she knows rather than a complete stranger ..your argument is comparable to wearing a helmet in the off chance you may be hit by a meteorite

Then she can defend herself against people she knows too, which is just as important. And I'm pretty sure home robberies occur in bad neighborhoods a lot more frequently than meteors. This is more like owning a fire extinguisher in a house full of dry Christmas trees.

 

[Mr Stabby]

the simple fact that someone carrying a weapons has the ability to take away my life or those I care about is an infringement on my rights ..you still havent answered the question ..how does your right to own a gun take my precedent to right to life? please explain, dont dance around the question by giving a non answer

What gives you the right to own a car, that could kill. My right to own a gun has no relevance to your right to life, in the same way my right to use a car doesn't. Therefore you have no right to dictate what I can own.

murder does most certainly not require intent ..that's why there's manslaughter and homicide with intent, which are a world apart when it comes to sentencing

You've over simplified those terms. Murder indicates premeditated homicide, manslaughter means spur of the moment intent, both have intent just different degrees of it. Homicide by negligence isn't really possible with a gun.

what?

You've confused right to own a gun, and right to cause harm with it.

i never said you did

Yes you did.

and? could this person take on this person with a knife? again if it were easier it would be the weapon of choice instead it's barely 10% of the amount of murders where firearms were used ...why is this?

Why do you assume a knife would mean a fight? Again I never said a knife was more effective, but it is certainly usable in a deadly manner, take away guns, knives replace them. That's why the UK has such a knife crime problem.

yes guns have an effect on crime rate, specifically homicide wirh firearms

No they don't, they are only the tools used. obviously they affect firearm crime, but that's just being pedantic. Without guns the homicides are still possible.

far more likely with a gun than any other weapon

Still so unlikely that it's irrelevant.

yes well you probably should have your read your own link ..the two armed men who confronted the shooter were off duty police officers:

I read it, that doesn't matter, the shooter was stopped, by a privately owned gun, guns you'd like to ban.

what problems? what are you talking about? be specific

Go back and read it:

I also think it's an overreaction to ban all guns, because of a minority of individuals. It's like banning fertilizer because of terrorists. Obviously both should be regulated but not banned.

what is that use? putting holes in tin cans? I fail to see your point or how you're countering what I'm saying

If people want to shoot tin cans why should they be stopped. The vast majority of gun owners do not use their guns in a aggressive manner towards other people, why should they be forbidden from owning guns.

it's also a source of domestic guns ..what's your point?

Criminals can never be stopped from getting guns, and banning law abiding people from buying guns, isn't productive.

the very fact that they're banned makes it illegal to buy sell own one ..I fail to see your point

But they can be bought and sold, regardless of laws, so gun laws aren't solving this problem. You implied all guns started legally, it's an example of why that is not true.

relative to what? and in comparison to what? either way you slice it simply banning the item makes it far more difficult to obtain? why and how are you disputing this self evident point?

Difficulty isn't relative, do you honestly believe if you make it slightly harder, that that criminals will just give up looking, becasue that simply isn't true.

look bottom line is I dont know you wont do something stupid, I wouldnt trust a stranger to not do something stupid in every day non-lethal activities why should I blindly trust that they wont do something stupid with something that is lethal? ..why should you be allowed to carry something that was created with the sole purpose of taking my life?

Then your too paranoid, compare the number of gun owners in the USA, to the number of gun crimes.

please, there is nothing to support the ownership of guns except some misinterpreted bit of paper and the selfish and selfrighteousness of a handful of people more concerned with their hobby than the safety and welfare of others ..it's purely a selfish act

Then again your wish to ban things that you think are dangerous is somewhat selfish. You may not like hunting, you may not like shooting tin cans, you may not need a gun for self defence, but other people aren't the same as you. People should be allowed to do what they like as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. A gun can be used maliciously, but so can a car. Most owners of both do not use them maliciously, if you take the worst car drivers as a representation of car drivers, that could be grounds to ban the car

 

[Hondo]

Yes, because that never goes wrong:

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=135699&ran=144612

Do you have any examples of when someone was actually saved during a home invasion because of a gun?

Try here: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/opsd/

Check their little list on the right and the link to their archive just below. They have more than a few.

And in your link, that was the drunk guy's own retarded fault, not the home owner's, or the gun's.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Mr Stabby, isn't manslaughter accidently murdering someone - so it wouldn't involve intent at all?

 

[CptStern]

The hell? Wherever you got that, it's a load of nonsense and a generalization of aging women that I think makes you look like a complete asshole.

I'm not generalising anything, I'm giving a possible scenario, just like you are ...to say any of them are probable with any degree of certainty is ridiculous at best at worst another example of avoiding the issue by attacking the meesenger rather than the message

if you can dream up a scenario where a wheelchair senior citizen successfully defends herself against assailants why isnt there room for my scenario? seriously how often does your scenario play out?

Then she can defend herself against people she knows too, which is just as important.

15,000 people are killed every year by firearms ..some of those people must have been armed or has access to firearms ...seems to me that a percentage of those 15,000 murdered people every year who own firearms having a gun did nothing to save their lives ..saying she will be able to defend herself with any degree of certainity is just wishful thinking

And I'm pretty sure home robberies occur in bad neighborhoods a lot more frequently than meteors. This is more like owning a fire extinguisher in a house full of dry Christmas trees.

no, it's not at all ..a house full of dry christmas trees is very likely (the dry trees increases the fire hazard as does being in a house) to go up in flames given enough time with human intervention ...breaking into your house and then being killed by a handgun weilding maniac is not an eventuality, therefore your analogy doesnt pan out

 

[CptStern]

What gives you the right to own a car, that could kill.

so can my pen ..there's always the threat of accidentily impaling myself ..the difference is that they are not designed to kill (those are called "tanks")

My right to own a gun has no relevance to your right to life, in the same way my right to use a car doesn't. Therefore you have no right to dictate what I can own.

stop seeing everything as black and white ..in this instance I mean "you" as in a gun advocate/owner and "me" as in pretty much everyone else ..gun owners kill people ..this is fact, in the case of the US to the tune of 15,000 a year ..the right to own guns infringe on the right to life for 15,000 people a year

You've over simplified those terms. Murder indicates premeditated homicide, manslaughter means spur of the moment intent, both have intent just different degrees of it. Homicide by negligence isn't really possible with a gun.

yes it is, and manslaughter doesnt neccesitate intent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter#Involuntary_manslaughter

You've confused right to own a gun, and right to cause harm with it.

no

Yes you did.

no, I did not, point out were I said this

Why do you assume a knife would mean a fight?

you've been playing too much splinter cell ..how often do people sneak up and stab someone? why is there such a thing as defensive wounds? you need to watch more Law and Order

Again I never said a knife was more effective, but it is certainly usable in a deadly manner

so is a table leg, claw hammer, pencil, pencil sharpener

take away guns, knives replace them.

prove it, you cannot with any accuracy predict anything, your point is moot

That's why the UK has such a knife crime problem.

15,000 deaths a year? how many homicides in the UK where a knife is used, how many with a gun, please provide these stats if you're going to come to such an absolute conclusion

No they don't, they are only the tools used.

yes they do, that's why there's a stat that lists the number of people killed with firearms

obviously they affect firearm crime, but that's just being pedantic. Without guns the homicides are still possible.

anything is possible it doesnt make it probable ..when Washington DC enacted a no gun rule in downtown washington there was a measured decrease in gun related firearms DESPITE the fact that there was no way of stopping the flow of guns into the banned area which literally meant crossing the street

from an earlier debate on gun control pertaining to the gun ban in the district of Columbia (suburb of washington DC)

there was a significant drop in the murder rate from 1975 to 1976 the year the ban was enacted: 32.8 vs 26.8 ..whether it was the same as 1972 is telling in that it the trend was reversing itself ..up until that point the murder rate was steadily climbing ..the murder rate and number of murders continued to decline in subsequent years after the law was enacted with a brief spike that corrected itself. the fact that the rate was rising up until the point where the ban was enacted and subsequently either declined or remain the same ..obviously the gun ban had some effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.

Still so unlikely that it's irrelevant.

not so unlikely;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1492280.stm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE0DB1531F93AA2575AC0A961948260
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DEFD8133FF931A35752C1A96E958260
http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/stories/kmsb-20070924-khoujc-toddlershot.106cd060f.html
http://forums.firehouse.com/archive/index.php/t-79342.html
http://www.kvue.com/news/state/stories/092407kvuetoddlershot-eh.105a3d994.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article363171.ece
http://www.topix.com/city/modesto-ca/2007/09/ceres-toddler-finds-gun-shoots-self-to-death

and that's just toddlers

knives? now that's unlikely ...funny but in the first page of a google search there are no incidents where a toddler stabs someone:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=toddler+stabs&meta=

see? even kiddies weapon of choice is a firearm ..the gun: the great equaliser, so simple even a child could use, much simpler than stabbing somone to death

I read it, that doesn't matter, the shooter was stopped, by a privately owned gun, guns you'd like to ban.

by people in law enforcement who have far more training than the common criminal/angry co-worker ..your point is moot

Go back and read it

we cant stop the production of fertiliser (unless we do away with domestic livestock or find some way of stopping them from shitting) ..any fool can see this is not by any means a valid argument because unlike guns cows dont specifically make poo so that terrorists can blow stuff up

If people want to shoot tin cans why should they be stopped. The vast majority of gun owners do not use their guns in a aggressive manner towards other people, why should they be forbidden from owning guns.

the overwhelming majority of nuclear capable countries do not use their nukes in an aggressive manner ..werent you all for invading Iran on the potential that they might be a threat? ok, so by extension all gun owners should be rounded up because there's the potential that they may use their guns in an aggressive manner ..I'm happy we agree on something

Criminals can never be stopped from getting guns

yes they can but first define criminals ..serial murderers? how many of those are lurking about? money laundering? tax evasion? all criminal acts ..however night and day differences between the 3 and to say that they're all equally capable of finding handguns after they've been banned is one heck of a leap of faith

and banning law abiding people from buying guns, isn't productive.

the majority of domestic violence leading to murder involves people without a criminal record ..at the very least it would cut down on these deaths, not too mention toddlers accidentily shooting themselves, crimes of opportunity etc ..to say it will have no affect is just being single minded and ignoring the only logical outcome

But they can be bought and sold, regardless of laws, so gun laws aren't solving this problem. You implied all guns started legally, it's an example of why that is not true.

nope all guns start off as legal, despite where it comes from it started off as legal

Difficulty isn't relative, do you honestly believe if you make it slightly harder, that that criminals will just give up looking, becasue that simply isn't true.

it will have some afect as I've proven above in the district of columbia ..this is indisputable and makes perfect logical sense: limit supply and you limit the amount of crime commited with a gun ..it's really as simple as that

Then your too paranoid, compare the number of gun owners in the USA, to the number of gun crimes.

again try to look at the bigger picture, somewhere a gun owners right to own a gun is interfering with someone's right to live

Then again your wish to ban things that you think are dangerous is somewhat selfish. You may not like hunting, you may not like shooting tin cans, you may not need a gun for self defence, but other people aren't the same as you. People should be allowed to do what they like as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

but it does, in the US alone to the tune of 15,000 a year

A gun can be used maliciously, but so can a car.

apples and oranges cars were not created to do harm, those are called "tanks"

Most owners of both do not use them maliciously, if you take the worst car drivers as a representation of car drivers, that could be grounds to ban the car

a driving infraction is hardly equal with murder ..one's intent is to drive (they dont intend to be bad drivers, they just are) while the other's intent is to kill ....apples and oranges

 

[K e r b e r o s]

How many people here realize how pointless gun control is? I mean really, the the term outlaw means outside the law. Outlaws are already breaking the law. What makes people think that they are suddenly going to say, "Gee, we can't own any guns anymore? I guess we are out of luck." They will still have their guns. Meanwhile, the poor honest man is at the mercy of corrupt state officials, unable to defend their families from other gun wielding maniacs.D'oh! When the U.S. Constitution was written, the founding fathers wanted the people to be at equal power to the armies, meaning equal firepower, just in case the current establishment was to fall out of line to the constitution, the people can set them straight. Yes, the U.S. is a passive dictatorship and officials secretly want total control. That's the only reason why there's such a thing as illegal arms. That was the only reason for the incident at Wako Texas.Oh, and Janet Reno is gay. Let the hate posts commence.

First things first:

Waco - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege
Ruby Ridge - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

Both raids were executed by the same ATF and FBI Marshal. Both raids were sparked by the ATF and FBI for either firing first or killing for instance at Ruby Ridge, the family dog to intentionally provoke the Weavers into violence.

Both however were in response to mass occultic suicides, murders, or an extreme growth in terrorist white supremacist movements up to and including, the violation of National Gun laws.

The poor execution of both caused the FBI and ATF to go virtually dormant, having failed both operations critically. Nethire of them had anything to do with suppressing gun ownership but illegal weapons trafficking, modification, ownership, or handling.

In the weavers case, the FBI illegally caused a form of entrapment by causing Randy Weaver to saw down the legal length of a shotgun, where later, it was proven that an FBI agent did it to provoke a legal case and search warrant against them. That also, has nothing to do with Gun Ownership, but illegal practises and corruption on both sides. There's a lot more to these cases besides, "Guns".

Meanwhile, the poor honest man is at the mercy of corrupt state officials, unable to defend their families from other gun wielding maniacs.

We don't need gun control -- just idiot control, unfortunately. And sometimes, people abuse they're rights intentionally and manage to get away with them -- such as the Ku Klux Klan, that is until the CIA thwarted much of they're political progress during the 70's after determining them to be a terrorist organization to be fought.

 

[Mr Stabby]

so can my pen ..there's always the threat of accidentily impaling myself ..the difference is that they are not designed to kill (those are called "tanks")

That point is moot, it can still be used maliciously. Dynamite is designed for quarrying, but can cause far more harm than a gun.

stop seeing everything as black and white ..in this instance I mean "you" as in a gun advocate/owner and "me" as in pretty much everyone else ..gun owners kill people ..this is fact, in the case of the US to the tune of 15,000 a year ..the right to own guns infringe on the right to life for 15,000 people a year

How many of those are killed with legal registered firearms. The right of the majority of gun owners to own guns peacefully, does not infringe on the rights of the majority of the public.

yes it is, and manslaughter doesnt neccesitate intent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter#Involuntary_manslaughter

Re-read my post.

no

You clearly believe that owning a gun is in itself dangerous, it isn't, using a gun against someone is.

no, I did not, point out were I said this

When you started the knives are more dangerous than guns issue, a point I never made.

you've been playing too much splinter cell ..how often do people sneak up and stab someone? why is there such a thing as defensive wounds? you need to watch more Law and Order

What baseless crap. Do all knifing victims have defensive wounds...no. In Law and order the people with defensive wounds are generally dead.

so is a table leg, claw hammer, pencil, pencil sharpener

so is a gun. You neglect that a knife is much more deadlier than these, a knife is much closer to a gun in terms of lethality.

prove it, you cannot with any accuracy predict anything, your point is moot

Well think about it, if someone can not get there number one choice of weapon, what will they do, get the next best thing.

15,000 deaths a year? how many homicides in the UK where a knife is used, how many with a gun, please provide these stats if you're going to come to such an absolute conclusion

Guns are harder to get in the UK, so knives a more prevalent, what have statistics got to do with it.

yes they do, that's why there's a stat that lists the number of people killed with firearms

But it's still only the tool used, if guns didn't exist there would be tables of Crossbows or swords.

anything is possible it doesnt make it probable ..when Washington DC enacted a no gun rule in downtown washington there was a measured decrease in gun related firearms DESPITE the fact that there was no way of stopping the flow of guns into the banned area which literally meant crossing the street

from an earlier debate on gun control pertaining to the gun ban in the district of Columbia (suburb of washington DC)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.

* The study's claimed apparent, temporary and miniscule homicide drop occurred two years before the DC gun ban law took effect.

* The study used raw numbers rather than population-corrected rates exaggerating the authors' misinterpretations.

* The study conveniently stopped as Washington DC's overall homicide rate skyrocketed to eight times the national average and the black, male, teen homicide rate skyrocketed to 22 times the national average.

source

not so unlikely;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1492280.stm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE0DB1531F93AA2575AC0A961948260
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DEFD8133FF931A35752C1A96E958260
http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/stories/kmsb-20070924-khoujc-toddlershot.106cd060f.html
http://forums.firehouse.com/archive/index.php/t-79342.html
http://www.kvue.com/news/state/stories/092407kvuetoddlershot-eh.105a3d994.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article363171.ece
http://www.topix.com/city/modesto-ca/2007/09/ceres-toddler-finds-gun-shoots-self-to-death

and that's just toddlers

knives? now that's unlikely ...funny but in the first page of a google search there are no incidents where a toddler stabs someone:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=toddler+stabs&meta=

see? even kiddies weapon of choice is a firearm ..the gun: the great equaliser, so simple even a child could use, much simpler than stabbing somone to death

You've confused murder, with accidents caused by very careless people.

by people in law enforcement who have far more training than the common criminal/angry co-worker ..your point is moot

So, I think gun training should be part of requirements pertain to a license. A member of the public is quite capable of telling whether someone is holding a gun, ie who the shooter is.

we cant stop the production of fertiliser (unless we do away with domestic livestock or find some way of stopping them from shitting) ..any fool can see this is not by any means a valid argument because unlike guns cows dont specifically make poo so that terrorists can blow stuff up

But when fertilizer use becomes a serious issue, for example in Northern Ireland with the IRA, fertilizer was heavily restricted and banned in some areas, it doesn't have anything to do with Cow shit (Cow shit is a fertilizer) it affects crop yields.

the overwhelming majority of nuclear capable countries do not use their nukes in an aggressive manner ..werent you all for invading Iran on the potential that they might be a threat? ok, so by extension all gun owners should be rounded up because there's the potential that they may use their guns in an aggressive manner ..I'm happy we agree on something

I'm in favour of peaceful nations to possess nuclear deterrents, I'm not in favour of an aggressive regime run by a luntic possessing nuclear weapons, in the same way I'm not in favour of lunatics getting guns.

yes they can but first define criminals ..serial murderers? how many of those are lurking about? money laundering? tax evasion? all criminal acts ..however night and day differences between the 3 and to say that they're all equally capable of finding handguns after they've been banned is one heck of a leap of faith

Anyone that brakes the law, I didn't say they are all capable of getting guns, or want them. I thought it was fairly obvious only criminals likely to use an illegal firearm would try and get one.

the majority of domestic violence leading to murder involves people without a criminal record ..at the very least it would cut down on these deaths, not too mention toddlers accidentily shooting themselves, crimes of opportunity etc ..to say it will have no affect is just being single minded and ignoring the only logical outcome

The majority of domestic murderers could use a knife! The accidental shootings come under the category of reckless stupidity, guns a not the only things affected by this.
When someone kills a burglar or fends them away with a gun, it's not recorded in the crime statistics.

nope all guns start off as legal, despite where it comes from it started off as legal

No they don't, not every gun manufacturer, especially third world licensees sticks to the law. This isn't really relevant anyway, an illegally smuggled gun, is a black market gun, and has the potential to be used by a criminal.

it will have some afect as I've proven above in the district of columbia ..this is indisputable and makes perfect logical sense: limit supply and you limit the amount of crime commited with a gun ..it's really as simple as that

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ

That's apparently not true.

again try to look at the bigger picture, somewhere a gun owners right to own a gun is interfering with someone's right to live

That's not true in the majority of cases, in a minority of cases car ownership is a problem.

but it does, in the US alone to the tune of 15,000 a year

How many of those guns are legal.

apples and oranges cars were not created to do harm, those are called "tanks"

Moot point, guns were not intended to murder.

a driving infraction is hardly equal with murder ..one's intent is to drive (they dont intend to be bad drivers, they just are) while the other's intent is to kill ....apples and oranges

You can murder with a car, even on purpose.

 

[Tyguy]

this thread has gone from respectable to tolerated to down right yucky

 

[Jintor]

Moot point, guns were not intended to murder.

Uh... yeah.

Guns were not intended to murder.

Yeah.

 

[golden_fang]

Uh... yeah.

Guns were not intended to murder.

Yeah.

hunt


and the foreigners in here just gotta accept that guns won't be banned anytime soon,most likely never at least in the U.S:cheers:

 

[Jintor]

No, they weren't.

And hunting... you know, isn't that killing?

And then doesn't the idea naturally extend to, you know, humans?

Guns are only made to hurt others.

 

[Qonfused]

What's 15,000 people when we have 300 million in the US? Pff.

 

[Jintor]

I still don't understand why people insist that Guns weren't made to kill. What else can they do? Hammer nails into place? Slice bread?

What else can you do besides put a bullet through living tissue of some kind or description?

 

[Mr Stabby]

No, they weren't.

And hunting... you know, isn't that killing?

And then doesn't the idea naturally extend to, you know, humans?

Guns are only made to hurt others.

Murder and killing are not the same thing. If someone breaks into your house and attacks you and puts your life in danger and you shoot them causing them to die, is that murder, I don't think it is. Moral issues aside with hunting animals it's still not murder.

 

[CptStern]

What's 15,000 people when we have 300 million in the US? Pff.

your gun murder rate is up there with 3rd world countries, countries in the midst of social upheaval, and semi lawless states ..in fact the only other nations that are above you are either in the midst of a war or there is a break down in law and order ..not the best countries to be keeping company with

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/gra..._rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop&b_map=1

in fact in the majority of states the gun is the weapon of choice for homicide:

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_gun-crime-gun-violence

funny thing is that even though you rank #8 in the world for firearm related murders you rank #24 in overall murder rate

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

the US doesnt have the highest murder rate but does have one of the highest firearm related murder rates in the world ..the highest of all 1st world countries ..the next nearest 1st world country has a fraction of what the US has

obviously there's something to the notion that easy access to guns leads to higher gun related murder rates



MrStabby I'll get to your post when I get a chance

 

[Mr Stabby]

Doesn't the US have the worst poverty problems in the first world. There is a stronger correlation between poverty and crime, than guns and crime.

 

[CptStern]

nope the US is in the top 10 for highest standards of living:

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

in fact mexico is ranked #53 despite having similiar firearm related murder rates to the US which is ranked #8 in HDI

 

[Ennui]

I still think guns are evil and that people shouldn't be allowed to own them but I'm not so sure on how I feel about gun control policy anymore, because being realistic I don't know if disarmament is the proper way to reduce gun violence.

 

[Mr Stabby]

nope the US is in the top 10 for highest standards of living:

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

in fact mexico is ranked #53 despite having similiar firearm related murder rates to the US which is ranked #8 in HDI

America still has a huge disparity between the classes, the poor in America are worse off than in western Europe of Canada which have more extensive social programmes. In the UK, crime mainly takes place in poor inner-city areas.

 

[CptStern]

crime is always higher in poorer areas ..regardless of which country it is ..in fact if you look at the top murder rates in the world they also happen to be in the poorest nations in the world ..except Iraq ..strangely Iraq isnt included in any of these lists ..ever ..even the HDI

 

[Mr Stabby]

you could argue that crime is less likely in an affluent suburb in America, than in a poor inner city area of the UK.

 

[CptStern]

you could argue that crime is less likely in an affluent suburb in America, than in a poor inner city area of the UK.

you're stating the obvious, I could argue that the average small town in canada is as safe as a small town in australia ....but what would that have to do with anything?

of course affluent neighbourhoods have less crimes ..probably because they're affluent ...wonder what the rate of white collar crimes in comparison to inner cities/ghettos ..bet that would be disporportionaly high probably due to less white collar workers in poor neighbourhoods

 

[Mr Stabby]

But the Gun laws in the UK and USA are different, the UK has much stricter laws, so poverty is more of a factor in crime than guns.

 

[CptStern]

man you'll point at anything to blame except the most obvious: easy access to guns

anyways, i have no clue as to what it's like in the UK, and I'm not really that interested because in this particular line of conversation we were talking about the US, not the UK

 

[Mr Stabby]

man you'll point at anything to blame except the most obvious: easy access to guns

anyways, i have no clue as to what it's like in the UK, and I'm not really that interested because in this particular line of conversation we were talking about the US, not the UK

The UK is used as a comparison to show how a factor other than guns affects crimes.

Easy access to guns, isn't what causes the crime, even where regulation is in place it doesn't always help.

 

[CptStern]

The UK is used as a comparison to show how a factor other than guns affects crimes.

regardless you brought up US povertyy and when I proved you wrong you attempted to prove your point by using the UK as an example, even though it has nothing to do with gun crime in the US

Easy access to guns, isn't what causes the crime, even where regulation is in place it doesn't always help.

easy access isnt the cause but it definately makes it a heck of a lot easier

 

[Terminator]

Jeez, the gun control debate is still ongoing here!

 

[CptStern]

and everywhere else on the internets ..welcome back SR

 

[Saturos]

Jeez, the gun control debate is still ongoing here!

Have I created a monstrous thread that is gun control, or have I merely summoned it here? "It's Alive! It's Aliiive!
Go Mr. Stabby!

 

[Mr Stabby]

regardless you brought up US povertyy and when I proved you wrong you attempted to prove your point by using the UK as an example, even though it has nothing to do with gun crime in the US

actually you agreed poverty was strongly linked to crime.

easy access isnt the cause but it definately makes it a heck of a lot easier

It makes it slightly easier, a criminal determined to get a gun can get one elsewhere. It's still not a reason to prohibited the law abiding majority from getting guns

 

[CptStern]

actually you agreed poverty was strongly linked to crime.

ok? this is no mystery ..however jaywalking is a crime ..all crimes are not created equal so your point is moot

It makes it slightly easier, a criminal determined to get a gun can get one elsewhere. It's still not a reason to prohibited the law abiding majority from getting guns

ffs not this again ..in the majority of domestic homicides, which accounts for the majority of overall homicides, the perp rarely has a criminal record

you're completely adamanrt yet never bring evidence to support your claims ..really you're just arguing in circles

 

[Saturos]

ffs not this again ..in the majority of domestic homicides, which accounts for the majority of overall homicides, the perp rarely has a criminal record

Evidence please.

 

[CptStern]

butt out god boy debating you is like purposefully stabbing myself in the brain with a pencil ..I also have a rule against debating prepubescents