Gun Controll question.

[alltherage]

I don't think anyone should be able to own a functional tank, or a battleship, or an F16. I am certain i don't want individuals to own a nuke. I am pretty sure that hunters can kill bambi and yogi without using an assualt weapon or teflon coated bullets. I really don't think giving someone 12 really fast shots versus 12 relatively slow shots really imposes a great hardship on gun owners. I do think that if someone owns an assualt weapon they ought to belong to a militia. There is that pesky clause in the amemdment about a well regulated miltia. It is odd that so many fight for absolute freedom to weapons without reguard for the carnage it causes. I know gun control won't happen in my lifetime. Sadly.

 

[cloudy]

I don't think anyone should be able to own a functional tank, or a battleship, or an F16. I am certain i don't want individuals to own a nuke. I am pretty sure that hunters can kill bambi and yogi without using an assualt weapon or teflon coated bullets. I really don't think giving someone 12 really fast shots versus 12 relatively slow shots really imposes a great hardship on gun owners. I do think that if someone owns an assualt weapon they ought to belong to a militia. There is that pesky clause in the amemdment about a well regulated miltia. It is odd that so many fight for absolute freedom to weapons without reguard for the carnage it causes. I know gun control won't happen in my lifetime. Sadly.

*sigh*

yet someone else who seems to think that guns just magically kill people without someone pulling the trigger.

 

[yevkassem72]

*sigh*

yet someone else who seems to think that guns just magically kill people without someone pulling the trigger.

Because they do not grasp that there are no demons that possess a gun and then infect the owner. That seems to be the attitude here. That a man or woman who buys a gun suddenly touches a talisman and becomes possessed by the evil within it. Henry Winkler of "Happy Days" fame even toyed with this, with the usual anti-gun bias, in his "Dead Man's Gun".

I've yet to see a man or woman need an exorcist after buying a gun.

I'm sure that the racist basis for gun-control and the history behind it doesn't even occur to most people. But going back to your own people's history or those of the European Jews, of the Palestinian Arabs (not that Israel shouldn't exist, just that it continues to be a bit draconian at times in dealing with the Arabs- both sides are fault there), of the blacks in America, the Irish, etc. can easily show that disarmament of the populace is the first step toward oppression and genocide.

I'll bet that President Jackson would love to have disarmed the Five Civilized Tribes when he illegally evicted them from their lands in Georgia. On some level, he probaby did so. I'm also sure that being armed was no small factor in the Seminoles being able to be the only indigenous nation/tribe to avoid a "treaty" (code for surrender in those days, from what I can see, but you know that issue better than I do).

It's no accident that Esther wanted to be able to let the Jews arm themselves after Haman's despicable plan to exterminate them. It's also no accident that the Japanese disarmed the Okinawans when they took over. Mind you, the Okinawans used unarmed combat....and lost.

 

[R. Richard]

I am, as I have stated before, an average sized man. I can handle a 200 pound man hand to hand [A) I am trained; B] I am in top notch physical condition; C] I fight DIRTY!] A 100 pound woman can not realistically handle a 200 pound man hand to hand. [I have taught a couple of my lady friends to handle a 200 pound creep who tries the real friendly approach. OK, OK, the bitches are not actually ladies, it is a gaddam COURTESY title.]

A 100 pound woman with a loaded 9mm Glock in her hand and the will to use it can easily handle a 200 pound man who breaks into her home or, with a little luck/advance planning the same 200 pound man who accosts her on the street. Take the loaded 9mm Glock away from the lady and she goes from citizen to victim.

But wait! What about the children who get shot each year by awful evil citizen owned guns? Well, most of the child deaths are caused by a 15 year old gangsta' shooting into a crowd of other gangstas'. [Gangstas like to use 15-year-olds because they can almost always get treated as juveniles. A trained 15-year-old with a .357 magnum is deadly. [Trust me on this last, I carried a .357 magnum from the time I was 12-years-old. The mere threat of the weapon was sufficient to protect me and I never had to off anyone. I don't give a damn what the scumbags say, they have no witnesses and no proof.]

 

[Weird Harold]

try a baseball bat... works against all foxes i've ever seen.

So says someone who has obviously never seen a fox (or any other "varmint" class pest) outside of a zoo enclosure.

For a realistic idea of the problems wild animals can cause, do a search on raccoons -- there's a very long thread around here somewhere about dealing with raccoons that ran through the gamit of "humane" solutions before the problem was finally resolved by firearms.

 

[Pure]

note to rr
A 100 pound woman with a loaded 9mm Glock in her hand and the will to use it can easily handle a 200 pound man who breaks into her home or, with a little luck/advance planning the same 200 pound man who accosts her on the street. Take the loaded 9mm Glock away from the lady and she goes from citizen to victim.

i kinda like the idea that 100 lb women who live in or walk through 'bad neighborhoods' should, when licensed and trained, have hanguns. do you think they need the 30 bullet magazines?

i remind you, however, rr, that it's an empirical matter, 'what works,' whether pistol packing ladies get raped or assaulted or burglarized less is a matter for research, collecting data etc. i would imagine, for example that the "Old West" of the US had many such women (and i doubt there were legal obstacles in 1860 Kansas or Arizona territory.) as a matter of fact, i wonder how well they did.?? the obvious issue is that assaulters and burglars *expect* an armed 'victim' and take steps accordingly.

RR, like Weird H, you have an a priori theory, a speculation, that an armed citizenry reduces crime. What you don't seem to realize is that it's not the same as "Shit don't flow uphill" (self evident). It's a matter for investigation.

 

[rgraham666]

Sigh. Madness.

On both sides.

 

[Weird Harold]

RR, like Weird H, you have an a priori theory, a speculation, that an armed citizenry reduces crime. What you don't seem to realize is that it's not the same as "Shit don't flow uphill" (self evident). It's a matter for investigation.

I DO NOT believe an armed citizenry automatically reduces crime. A few hours study of the history of places like Tombstone or Deadwood should dispel that myth.

However, I can conclusively prove that the four guns in my closet have not committed any crimes or endangered the general populace -- one of which has been continuously loaded for at least ten years.

The a priori theory that eliminating or controlling guns will reduce crime is as unproveable as the premise that an armed populace reduces crime -- statistics can be found to support both views; often concerning the same situation.

My only a priori theory is that there is no possible legislation that will make the public any safer from the four guns in my closet than they have been for the past ten years.

 

[Edward Teach]

I don't think anyone should be able to own a functional tank, or a battleship, or an F16. I am certain i don't want individuals to own a nuke. I am pretty sure that hunters can kill bambi and yogi without using an assualt weapon or teflon coated bullets. I really don't think giving someone 12 really fast shots versus 12 relatively slow shots really imposes a great hardship on gun owners. I do think that if someone owns an assualt weapon they ought to belong to a militia. There is that pesky clause in the amemdment about a well regulated miltia. It is odd that so many fight for absolute freedom to weapons without reguard for the carnage it causes. I know gun control won't happen in my lifetime. Sadly.

Just for what it's worth, I have a friend who bought six MIG 15 fighter planes, complete with guns, from Poland. He may have had to remove the guns before he could bring the planes into the US, I am not sure.

Regardless, he now has an operational MIG 15 and sold five others.

I see nothing wrong with that other than, knowing him, that MIG may very well be armed, illegally or not and I get a little nervous each time I get into an airplane knowing that he might be flying that day too.

Eddie the Trepid

ps - I own eight guns including an M-1 Carbine.

 

[R. Richard]

note to rr
A 100 pound woman with a loaded 9mm Glock in her hand and the will to use it can easily handle a 200 pound man who breaks into her home or, with a little luck/advance planning the same 200 pound man who accosts her on the street. Take the loaded 9mm Glock away from the lady and she goes from citizen to victim.

i kinda like the idea that 100 lb women who live in or walk through 'bad neighborhoods' should, when licensed and trained, have hanguns. do you think they need the 30 bullet magazines?

A 30 ROUND magazine is normally used only with automatic weapons. Such a magazine makes a self defense weapon very difficult to carry.

i remind you, however, rr, that it's an empirical matter, 'what works,' whether pistol packing ladies get raped or assaulted or burglarized less is a matter for research, collecting data etc. i would imagine, for example that the "Old West" of the US had many such women (and i doubt there were legal obstacles in 1860 Kansas or Arizona territory.) as a matter of fact, i wonder how well they did.?? the obvious issue is that assaulters and burglars *expect* an armed 'victim' and take steps accordingly.

Back in the 1860s, there was a bit of a different culture in the US. If a guy went around raping or assaulting women the men of the area did not wait for a long, tedious court procedure but instead held a Druid ceremony. [I think it was a Druid ceremony, anyhow it involved a tree and a rope.]

RR, like Weird H, you have an a priori theory, a speculation, that an armed citizenry reduces crime. What you don't seem to realize is that it's not the same as "Shit don't flow uphill" (self evident). It's a matter for investigation.

In the area in which I live, the locals have done the investigation. No, you will not see the results published in scholarly journals, but the results are very evident in my local community. There may be a few elderly people who don't have a loaded gun in their house, but it is a damn small number. Most of my neighbors have a loaded gun(s) in their house and they know how to use it/them. As a result [admittedly a conclusion] we have very little home burglary and almost no nighttime home burglary. If some ass hole gets caught trying to rob a residence, he doesn't get the speedy public trial supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution. What he gets is a speedy public funeral. On the other hand, if you leave your car parked with something that even looks like it might be valuable, your car will get broken into. [Your car, not my car. I will go to any lengths to find out who broke into my car and then I deal with the matter in the same fashion as the public library: "Everyone who lives at the same address is equally guilty." The local scumbags don't like public library policy, then again I suspect that most of them can't read since they spent their younger years pimping for their mothers instead of learning scholarly things.]

You want more evidence for investigation? Cat has given an example of two ass holes who used guns to commit a crime(s) and got a few years in prison rather than the statutorially mandated 20 years. Cat lives in South Florida. Check the crime rate statistics for the South Florida area.

 

[Pure]

query to rr

Pure said, //RR, like Weird H, you have an a priori theory, a speculation, that an armed citizenry reduces crime. What you don't seem to realize is that it's not the same as "Shit don't flow uphill" (self evident). It's a matter for investigation. //


RR In the area in which I live, the locals have done the investigation. No, you will not see the results published in scholarly journals, but the results are very evident in my local community. There may be a few elderly people who don't have a loaded gun in their house, but it is a damn small number. Most of my neighbors have a loaded gun(s) in their house and they know how to use it/them. As a result [admittedly a conclusion] we have very little home burglary and almost no nighttime home burglary. If some ass hole gets caught trying to rob a residence, he doesn't get the speedy public trial supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution. What he gets is a speedy public funeral. On the other hand, if you leave your car parked with something that even looks like it might be valuable, your car will get broken into.

Care to identify your state, or region (e.g., southern Arizona)?

I'm a little confused, since we're investigating whether lots of guns cut crime: you seem to be saying that burglaries are down and low frequency, but car break ins are very common. How does it all add up?

I wonder, overall, how your state or region stacks up in crime statistics; how about murder, robbery and rape, to take a few examples. We have to compare with similar areas in terms of urban/rural, wealth/poverty, etc.
How about if we compare to a similar area of Britain or Japan?


he doesn't get the speedy public trial supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution.

it's odd, that like Amicus, you have a problem with the Bill of Rights. you seemingly prefer vigilante "justice" to normal process-- no doubt because you think law enforcement and justice are run by evil corrupt people. it sounds like you'd be very much at home in the US. South in 1900, where Black infractions (real or imagined) were dealt with speedily by the citizenry, using your Druid methods.

 

[kendo1]

Duh.

Let me state again for the slow of brain. I know I'm going to piss off a lot of people, but what the fuck.

30,000 US citizens, on average, are killed every year by GUNS.

Okay, that's not so many. Just a drop in the ocean.

Where I live, we have a local population of 10,000, the wee town up the road is also 10,000, Down the road towards Edinburgh are two other little towns of 5,000 each.

Imagine all those men, women and little children being wiped out every year.
This year, next year, the year after...

What American citizens need is MORE GUNS.




It's obvious to me. You need more guns,

That will fix the problem of 30000 deaths a year from firearms. Yep. That will fix it.
More law abiding citizens armed to the teeth with guns.

That will make the gun crime figure fall.

It's obvious.

SO FUCKING OBVIOUS!


YOU NEED MORE GUNS.


The deaths caused by guns will fall. Just you wait and see.



30000. Just whisper it. It's not a lot of people (just friends, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters). Try whispering 30000 people killed every year by guns.

Oh! I know! It's not guns that kill people.

Oh, no! Not guns! It's people.


Well, Duh!

I think it might be people with guns.



30,000 people every year.

Get a life. It's only a wee percentage.

You need more guns.

As I stated before, you can look it up - just Google it, 50 people died last year in the UK from gun related incidents. From a population of 59 million.

You go figure.

But there again, we are not FREE. We don't have the 'right' to own guns.
Well fuck me with a bargepole.


You obviously need more guns. To protect your freedoms. To make sure the government doesn't take away your 'freedoms'. To make sure that no less than 30,000 people die every year from guns.

It's your RIGHT.


Duh.


I hope no-one takes offence at this.

 

[Weird Harold]

30,000 US citizens, on average, are killed every year by GUNS.

More people are killed or injured by drunk drivers. Let's outlaw cars and/or alcohol. Either will save far more lives than banning guns.

 

[Liar]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. But without their guns, they'd be fucking exhausted by lunchtime.

 

[Liar]

More people are killed or injured by drunk drivers. Let's outlaw cars and/or alcohol. Either will save far more lives than banning guns.

I'm not sure it's relevant, but intended purpose might have something to do with it. A car's designed function is to transport people from point A to point B. Incorrect use might reslult in bodily harm. A gun's designed function is to inflict bodily harm upon persons. Correct intended use will result in exactly that.

 

[kendo1]

More people are killed or injured by drunk drivers. Let's outlaw cars and/or alcohol. Either will save far more lives than banning guns.

Is that it?

More people are killed by cars?

I give up.
Go buy another gun. Or another car.
Who gives a fuck. It's only 30000 Americans.

I take that back. I do care. honestly.
It could be one of you lot over there.
It could be Lucky, or Vella, Weird H, Imp, Sophia...

I just do not understand the mentallity that thinks that packing a weapon will protect you.

Look at the figures for fucks sake!


50 in the UK with a population of 59 million.

30000 in the US with a population of 300 million.

It does not add up!
You obviously need more guns! Every citizen armed to the teeth. Every pocket filled with amo.

That will solve the problem.

And if Abs, or Mckenna, CD, or god knows who else gets killed by a gun?
It's only one of 30,000 people!

Fucking hell, they are more likely to get killed by a car after all.

And that's your argument?

Duh!

 

[cloudy]

I can understand y'all's arguments against guns - truly, I can.

We own guns - four of them, in fact. One is an antique 12-gauge. I don't suppose it's been fired in over 50 years, but I'm sure it still would. It's kept meticulously clean, and hangs on the wall. It's actually beautiful to look at...the stock is carved into a tiny scene. It belonged to my great-grandfather. I've never loaded it, never fired it. I have no reason to.

The others are taken out occasionally to the range and fired. Not very often, to be honest, but every once in awhile. I've found the 410 shotgun to be quite useful in killing the occasional water moccasin or copperhead that finds itself in my yard. See, they're deadly snakes, and I have a small child that plays in that yard. There are other ways to kill those snakes, but it would require me to get much closer to them than I'm comfortable with. Our area is also host to coral snakes and rattlers. I haven't seen one of those yet, but the other two? I kill at least a couple of those each and every summer.

That particular shotgun loaded with the ratshot that I keep wouldn't kill anyone. It might piss 'em off real good, but it wouldn't kill anyone. It doesn't stay loaded anyway, but I keep the shells within MY easy access simply because of the snake issue I detailed above.

The other two are never kept loaded, and are locked up.

I've handled guns since I was seven years old. My father was a nationally ranked skeet champion. I have been certified on combat courses; the first when I was around 15. I competed on my college's nationally ranked (at the time) rifle team.

Am I a danger to anyone?

I don't possibly see how.

 

[kendo1]

Evening, Cloudy.

I'm just pissed off.

Remember, where I come from- the Old Country-, there are no deadly critters or beasts. There is the occasional adder up in the hills. But you would have to go and find one and stand on it, maybe kick it a bit, to piss it off enough so that it would notice you.

You are more likely to get kicked to death by a donkey around here.

There are some donkeys in a farm up the road, come to that.

 

[TheEarl]

Before diving straight in, I'd like to say:

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. But without their guns, they'd be fucking exhausted by lunchtime.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!! I may steal that line.

I've handled guns since I was seven years old. My father was a nationally ranked skeet champion. I have been certified on combat courses; the first when I was around 15. I competed on my college's nationally ranked (at the time) rifle team.

Am I a danger to anyone?

I don't possibly see how.

I can.

If I were to lose the place and attempt to kill my fucking annoying ex-housemate (and lord knows he's given me provocation), the deadliest weapons I have to hand are a cricket bat and a knife. Granted, those are reasonably dangerous. However, they also offer him a fighting chance of disabling me as I would have to engage in hand-to-hand.

Should you suddenly lose the place and decide to kill someone who you wish were dead, then you have access to four guns. You could kill them from a distance, without tussling and without any need for any preparation.

Anti-gun-control people will argue that I could lay my hands on a gun, even in England and I've no doubt that, given enough ingenuity, I probably could. However, that would require going to my dodgiest mate and meeting his dodgiest mate, or possibly taking my chances in the worst part of the nearest big city. Neither of which are conducive to fit-of-pique murders.

It might be argued that I am talking a rare case and, when it comes to statistics, rare cases aren't usually significant. But, if I offed the ex-housemate in a furious rage, I'm damned sure it would be significant to him and his family. I'm for reducing murder as much as possible, no matter how small a chip you shave off the numbers.

The Earl

 

[cloudy]

Before diving straight in, I'd like to say:BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!! I may steal that line.

I can.

If I were to lose the place and attempt to kill my fucking annoying ex-housemate (and lord knows he's given me provocation), the deadliest weapons I have to hand are a cricket bat and a knife. Granted, those are reasonably dangerous. However, they also offer him a fighting chance of disabling me as I would have to engage in hand-to-hand.

Should you suddenly lose the place and decide to kill someone who you wish were dead, then you have access to four guns. You could kill them from a distance, without tussling and without any need for any preparation.

Anti-gun-control people will argue that I could lay my hands on a gun, even in England and I've no doubt that, given enough ingenuity, I probably could. However, that would require going to my dodgiest mate and meeting his dodgiest mate, or possibly taking my chances in the worst part of the nearest big city. Neither of which are conducive to fit-of-pique murders.

It might be argued that I am talking a rare case and, when it comes to statistics, rare cases aren't usually significant. But, if I offed the ex-housemate in a furious rage, I'm damned sure it would be significant to him and his family. I'm for reducing murder as much as possible, no matter how small a chip you shave off the numbers.

The Earl

Earl...I can't kill them with ratshot. Not even close. And we don't keep bullets/shells for the other three on hand - we have no need to. So, yeah, it would absolutely take preparation, because I'd have to go buy bullets first.

I'm not trying to be facetious, I promise (you know I adore you), but how do you propose I deal with the snakes? Just keep the young'un inside? Or send him out, and keep my fingers crossed he doesn't run across one?

 

[TheEarl]

Earl...I can't kill them with ratshot. Not even close. And we don't keep bullets/shells for the other two on hand - we have no need to. So, yeah, it would absolutely take preparation, because I'd have to go buy bullets first.

I'm not trying to be facetious, I promise (you know I adore you), but how do you propose I deal with the snakes? Just keep the young'un inside? Or send him out, and keep my fingers crossed he doesn't run across one?

I made a mistake by using you as the strict example; I was just trying to answer your point. People will say, "Well, I only have one tiny handgun for protection and I'm trained in its use; how am I a danger to anyone?" Granted, it is very unlikely that you will be a danger, but millions of people in very similar situations could be.

The Earl

 

[cloudy]

I made a mistake by using you as the strict example; I was just trying to answer your point. People will say, "Well, I only have one tiny handgun for protection and I'm trained in its use; how am I a danger to anyone?" Granted, it is very unlikely that you will be a danger, but millions of people in very similar situations could be.

The Earl

You're right, of course. But then, it also proves that guns really aren't the issue. The fools that own them are.

 

[R. Richard]

I'm not sure it's relevant, but intended purpose might have something to do with it. A car's designed function is to transport people from point A to point B. Incorrect use might reslult in bodily harm. A gun's designed function is to inflict bodily harm upon persons. Correct intended use will result in exactly that.

A gun's designed function is to propel an aimed bullet at high speed.

There are those who frequently fire a gun at a target for sport/competition. Many of those people have never fired a shot in anger.

There are those people who use guns to kill varmints. Poisonous snakes are dangerous to deal with up close. Varmint beasties are damn near impossible to catch unless you shoot them [you can poison them and your pet animals.]

Some people use a gun to fire a warning shot. [No, I don't know why.]

There are probably those who wish to inflict bodily harm on others, via a bullet. I prefer to inflict death.

 

[Weird Harold]

Look at the figures for fucks sake!


50 in the UK with a population of 59 million.

30000 in the US with a population of 300 million.

I am "looking at the figures." I'm just looking at ALL of the figures. Drunks are far more dangerous than guns but look what happened when the US outlawed alcohol in the 1920's.

The US does have a problem with violent crime -- the numbers for non-gun murders and assaults are also higher for the US. However, Banning guns -- or knives, or cars, or alcohol, or swords, or anything else -- is treating one symptom while ignoring the primary illness.

Remember, where I come from- the Old Country-, there are no deadly critters or beasts.

Your location is a large part of why you don't understand why some Americans need guns.

According to my 1991 almanac, the United Kingdom has an area of 94,248 sq/mi and a population of 57,335,000.

The State of Nevada, (where I live) has an area of 110,562 sq/mi and a populaion of 1,076,000.

The State of Oklahoma (where Cloudy lives, IIRC) has an area of 69,957 sq miles and a population 3,352,000.

Between our two states, we have 200% of the area and 7.7% of the population. We have lots of room for dangerous critters, and even in more densely populated states like California or New York, wild animal attacks are not unheard of even in large cities.

I just do not understand the mentallity that thinks that packing a weapon will protect you.

Packing a weapon will NOT protect you simply because you're packing a weapon, any more than owing a 2,000 piece set of Craftsman brand tools will make you a master mechanic (or even a shadetree mechanic.)

The point is that disarming law-abiding citizens does nothing to protect anyone either.

If you really want to see that 30,000 "gun deaths" in the US reduced, campaign for legalizing drugs and taking the profit out of gang turf wars over drugs.

 

[kendo1]

A gun's designed function is to propel an aimed bullet at high speed.

There are those who frequently fire a gun at a target for sport/competition. Many of those people have never fired a shot in anger.

There are those people who use guns to kill varmints. Poisonous snakes are dangerous to deal with up close. Varmint beasties are damn near impossible to catch unless you shoot them [you can poison them and your pet animals.]

Some people use a gun to fire a warning shot. [No, I don't know why.]

There are probably those who wish to inflict bodily harm on others, via a bullet. I prefer to inflict death.

That makes me feel a whole lot better. Yep! You need more guns.

30000 people is so obviously not enough.

More guns = more safety. It stands to reason. it will make America a safer place to live.

I can see that now. I've been converted.