Gun Controll question.

[cloudy]

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

Alabama, but the wooded area is more, I think, and the snake population probably larger. Running them over is so common that no one even thinks twice about it.

 

[FatDino]

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.

Let's just move all Litsters to Canada, especially Ontario.

 

[kendo1]

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.



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.



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.

Double 'yep!'.
I truly understand that now.
There are a whole lot of nasty critters over there and everyone has to have a gun to protect themselves from these dangerous varmints.
Getting rid of guns would put a hell of a lot of people in a very dangerous situation.
Just keep looking at the 30,000 figure.

Just imagine the figure might double if guns were banned and all these nasty creatures ganged up together and started a rampage through New York City. My God! The outcry that would ensue!

You need to keep all your guns to protect yourself.
I see your point. Life would be very difficult without a gun.

 

[Weird Harold]

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.

You probably missed it in the volume of posts on this thread, but I have addressed this point:

The relevant comparison is what might happen by accident:

If you are momentarily distracted while driving, or are simply imcompetent, you can cause a chain reaction accident -- the record chain reaction accident is something on the order of 250 vehicles and 100+ deaths.

If you are momentarily distracted with a gun, you Might get an accidental discharge of ONE round which might injure as many as two people if they happen to be lose enough together and the gun is powerful enough to completely penetrate the first person. Much more likely is that nothing will happen if you're distracted.

If you're simply incompetent with a gun, the odds of doing any significant damage is slim because you need to hit what you're aiming at to do do damage with a gun.

Cars are inherently more dangerous than guns because guns have to be purposfully and deliberately used to cause anywhere near the mayhem that a bad driver can cause by accident. The Numbers that Kendo is so certain of bear that out -- even the subset of "car deaths" caused by Drunk or Impaired drivers, which something CAN be done about, is an order of magnitude greater than "gun deaths" however you count them.

 

[Liar]

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.

You're splitting hairs. My grandfather likes to run over toads with his car. That doesn't make the designed purpose of a car any less a transportation device or any more a tool built for killing toads. And yeah, you can use a frying pan as a ping pong racket. I have.

If you go into your local gun shop and buy a gun, you're buying a weapon. No matter how you try to horse that around. And no matter how you then choose to use it.

Now, as I said, all this may be irrelevant to the debate, that's another question. I just waanted to point out why cars and guns are different in many people's eyes.

 

[Liar]

Harold, did you read the first five words of my post?

I was not talking about what kills most people. No matter what you may think, I have not lived in a closet since the combustion engine took over the horse-and-buggy business.

I pointed out why the "Oh, but cars are a lot worse, why don't you call for ban on cars? Huh?" argument rubs some people the wrong way. Although a car can be a weapon, it was never intended to be. Nobody sat down at the drawing table and said "let's see how to make a machine for killing people."

It's an emotional position yes, and if we just count deaths, not a rational one. But the fact remains, a gun is a device constructed with a specific function in mind. it's a difficult thing to disregard.

 

[Weird Harold]

Alabama, but the wooded area is more, I think, and the snake population probably larger. Running them over is so common that no one even thinks twice about it.

Alabama was 51,704 sq/mi and 4,203,00 people in the 1991 Almanac, so that makes it about 199% of the area and maybe 8% of the population of the United Kingdom.

 

[Weird Harold]

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

Where has anyone in this thread said that we need MORE guns? I certainly haven't.

The only thing I've said is that there are legitimate reasons for people to own guns and responsible gun owners should not be punished because criminals engage in turf wars and psychos take (often already illegal) guns into places where guns are banned to kill large numbers of people.

I pointed out why the "Oh, but cars are a lot worse, why don't you call for ban on cars? Huh?" argument rubs some people the wrong way.

You and Kendo both missed the point that DRUNKS are a lot worse than gunmen and alcohol is statistically responsible for more injuries and deaths than guns are. We tried banning alcohol, in the 1920s and the only result was and increase in crime and more "gun deaths"


Still, the fact is that guns are essentially fail-safe devices while cars and drunks are prone to catastrophic failure -- especially when combined.

 

[TheEarl]

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

My driving instructor told me a very apposite thing when I was learning to drive. He said, "Assume that everyone else on the road is an idiot. That way, when they act like one, you won't be expecting them to be sensible."

Personally, I htink that's a reasonable way to look at gun control. Of course, you're safe with guns. Of course you are, and I've no doubt that a lot of other gun-owning Litizens are too. However, assume everyone else with a gun is an idiot, rather than assuming they're not going to pull out in front of you and cut you up.

That's my position in a nutshell really. Individuals are, I'm certain, the most wonderful and careful gun-owners in the world. People in general, on the other hand, are fucking idiots.

The Earl

 

[Passion2BFree]

Are you prepared to take on the wolf when he comes callin'? Call the police and hope for the best? It doesn't take a firearm to fight but it's hard to win when the "wolf" has one and you don't.

To each his own, I guess but no one can take away your right to be safe. Balancing "control" and freedom is not so easy! I'll be the first to surrender all firearms and the right to own them the minute I believe no one else has them. Until then I will continue to love peace, seek understanding and keep my eye on the felonious sexual predator that lives across the street!

 

[TheEarl]

WH: I kinda see your point on the fact that guns have non-lethal uses (esp Cloudy's snake-killing), but I can't help but see a lot of countries which get by without them. Australia, for example, has many more varied and deadly forms of wildlife than the USA and yet there are strict gun controls. They appear to survive without.

I have points to make, but I'm afraid that my English is not currently up to expressing them. I'm tired and it's not helping my cause. Probably not the best debator atm.

<bowing out>

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

Are you prepared to take on the wolf when he comes callin'? Call the police and hope for the best? It doesn't take a firearm to fight but it's hard to win when the "wolf" has one and you don't.

To each his own, I guess but no one can take away your right to be safe. Balancing "control" and freedom is not so easy! I'll be the first to surrender all firearms and the right to own them the minute I believe no one else has them. Until then I will continue to love peace, seek understanding and keep my eye on the felonious sexual predator that lives across the street!

Is it pointless to suggest that maybe the wolf has a gun because he knows that there's a likelihood that the inhabitants of the house are armed?

Oops, sorry. I was leaving, wasn't I?

The Earl

 

[Passion2BFree]

Could be but he is the one entering under stealth or force to do things left to the imagination or luck. It is a circular little affair isn't it!

I'de be happy if we could bottle back up the bomb too!

 

[TheEarl]

Could be but he is the one entering under stealth or force to do things left to the imagination or luck. It is a circular little affair isn't it!

I'de be happy if we could bottle back up the bomb too!

Just because it's open is no excuse to spread the contents of Pandora's Box far and wide. If you give the good guys the tools that the bad guys use, what's to draw the line between the good guys and the bad?

The Earl

 

[Weird Harold]

Australia, for example, has many more varied and deadly forms of wildlife than the USA and yet there are strict gun controls. They appear to survive without.

I refer you to Starkkers posts about australian gun control and foxes in the "cooch house."

I would also point out that to the best of my knowledge, Australia doesn't have any large "man-eating predators" although they do have a lower population density than the US so individual farmers/ranchers are much further from "official" assistance against whatever wild animals there might be.

The US has a much wider variety of large predators and destructive wild animals and regions where the population density is as low as one person per ten square miles. Having a weapon readily available in those regions is simple prudence but the "gun control lobby" seems to feel that one-size-fits-all is the only solution to (mostly urban) "gun crimes."

My driving instructor told me a very apposite thing when I was learning to drive. He said, "Assume that everyone else on the road is an idiot. That way, when they act like one, you won't be expecting them to be sensible."

... Individuals are, I'm certain, the most wonderful and careful gun-owners in the world. People in general, on the other hand, are fucking idiots.

I would go even further than your driving insructor.

Weird Harold's School of Paranoid Driving teaches:

Every third car is driven by a drunk. The two in beween are driven by a damned fool and a homicidal maniac. Every tenth car is all of the above.

But the difference in "failure modes" where something becomes a danger to public health and safety makes the extension of that kind of paranoia to gun owners is fallacious. In order for the public to be in danger from a gun requires conscious, deliberate and repeated action on the part of a person. For a gun to endanger more than a single individual, the trigger has to be pulled repeatedly (or held down for an automatic weapon) and the gun has to be pointed in the precise direction of another indiviual for each round.

However, the statistical chances of being killed by a car, drunk, or gun, are really irrelevant. What is relevant is the question of whether responsible, competent, law-abiding should be restricted because there are idiots in the world.

It doesn't matter whether we're talking about revoking everyone's driver's licenses, banning away their Raid Fumigator's (and replacing them with less effective ingredients,) or restricting their access to pseudophedrine HCL to treat their allergies.

"Gun Control" is just another case of placing restrictions on responsible law-abiding citizen's because there are idiots and criminals in the world.

 

[Weird Harold]

what's to draw the line between the good guys and the bad?

How about Personal Responsibility and Respect for other people's rights and property?

 

[R. Richard]

You're splitting hairs. My grandfather likes to run over toads with his car. That doesn't make the designed purpose of a car any less a transportation device or any more a tool built for killing toads. And yeah, you can use a frying pan as a ping pong racket. I have.

Well, I suppose you could use a frying pan that way, but not with a pencil grip.

If you go into your local gun shop and buy a gun, you're buying a weapon. No matter how you try to horse that around. And no matter how you then choose to use it.

Now, as I said, all this may be irrelevant to the debate, that's another question. I just waanted to point out why cars and guns are different in many people's eyes.

Oh really? You might try to Google up Morini Free Pistol or Hammerli Free Pistol. The Free Pistol is an Olympic shooting event. The basic Morini Free Pistol costs around $2,000. In order to have a usable Free Pistol, a shooter would have to have at least another $1,000 [and up] in accessories. There is only one real use for a Free Pistol and it is Olympic style shooting. No one sane willingly carries a Free Pistol into a gun fight.

 

[TheEarl]

It doesn't matter whether we're talking about revoking everyone's driver's licenses, banning away their Raid Fumigator's (and replacing them with less effective ingredients,) or restricting their access to pseudophedrine HCL to treat their allergies.

"Gun Control" is just another case of placing restrictions on responsible law-abiding citizen's because there are idiots and criminals in the world.

I see your point here, and believe me it's a fairly good one, but I'm still not convinced that guns have a primary function other than killing. Okay, as it's been pointed out, they can be used for Olympic shooting and killing snakes. Why not just license guns that can do just those things?

A car gets you from A to B. A Fumigator fumigates. Presumably pseudophedrine HCL is good at clearing allergies. What is the purpose of a non-Olympic pistol other than to kill? Why does an ordinary, law-abiding citizen need a gun if they're not killing snakes or Olympic shooting?

The Earl

 

[cloudy]

Why does an ordinary, law-abiding citizen need a gun if they're not killing snakes or Olympic shooting?

The Earl

There is another use: hunting. Deer meat is delicious.

 

[FatDino]

There is another use: hunting. Deer meat is delicious.

I've seen someone skinned a deer once...and it was NOT pretty. If I remember correctly, it took me two weeks to get my appetite back.

 

[cloudy]

I've seen someone skinned a deer once...and it was NOT pretty. If I remember correctly, it took me two weeks to get my appetite back.

Moose is good, too.

 

[FatDino]

Moose is good, too.

I'm eating meat balls here! Please don't remind me of bloody dead animals.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

I'm eating meat balls here! Please don't remind me of bloody dead animals.

I never had moose meatballs. Sounds interesting. But then I'm a member of PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals).

There was an interesting piece of 60 Minutes tonight relating to gun control. Seems some mental health advocacy groups oppose any move that would deny mentally ill folks the right to bear arms. Also, while the Brady bill created a national database so local authorities could cross-check info on folks applying for gun permits, it voted no money for the states to impliment the program. Just to make things more exciting, 22 states have laws against adding info on the mentally ill to the national database.

If I may be permitted a personal comment: That's crazy, man.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[SeaCat]

If the scumbags won't enforce the law against criminals, then they attempt to make up for it by overenforcing the laws against normally law abiding citizens. The Permitting System [we already have one, its called the Second Amendment to the US Constitution] will eventually be 'interpreted' by some scumbag to disallow posesssion of guns by law abiding citizens.

R. Richard,

Is it the Police who are at fault here, or is it the judges and the Court System that is at fault here?

It is not the Police, or Scumbags as you call them, that are letting these guys Plea Bargain or walk free. It is rather the Jdges and the Courts and the Lawyers. It is the people who vote for them and vote for the laws.

One of the comments posted today made mention of people being let free early because of the over crowding of our jails and prisons. Why are they overcrowded? It is not the Police who are voting in the people who make the laws that cause the overcrowding. It is all of us.

I can't tell you the number of times I have heard friends of mne who are Police complain about the stupidity of the laws they have to enforce. I can't tell you the number of times I have listened to them complain bitterly about some scum sucker they have finally caught only to see them on the street later that day.

You can't blame the police for the problems, they are only doing their jobs. Instead blame the courts, the legislature and finally ourselves.

Cat

 

[FatDino]

There was an interesting piece of 60 Minutes tonight relating to gun control. Seems some mental health advocacy groups oppose any move that would deny mentally ill folks the right to bear arms. Also, while the Brady bill created a national database so local authorities could cross-check info on folks applying for gun permits, it voted no money for the states to impliment the program. Just to make things more exciting, 22 states have laws against adding info on the mentally ill to the national database.

If I may be permitted a personal comment: That's crazy, man.

Rumple Foreskin

Is it the same as allowing psychopaths to own guns?

Oh wait a minute, they're already allowed.