Some food for thought...

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Remove all guns. All crimes must now be committed via Highlander-esque sword battle.

Just imagine the new gang wars. It'd be like an old samurai movie.

 

[gauchecritic]

Colly had the correct fundamental: the right of self defense. (BTW no longer supported in Britain: you can't take a baseball bat to an intruder in your home there).

Except that you can apparently. You can sneak up on them in the dark, without warning and deprive a mother of her son. Even if they spot you and try to get away you are still apparently, without fear of prosecution, able to render them senseless and sentence them to life on life-support because they wanted your downstairs video machine.

And your only defence needs to be: "This nervous, spotty, jobless, sweaty, skinny addict put me in fear of my life."

by Dran
Doctors:
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.

(B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000.

(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services.



Guns:

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. Yes, that is 80 million.

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000188.



Conclusion:

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

So what about the statistics for purposeful death?

Doctors nil (?)
Gun owners 4 or 5 thousand? More?

How d'ya like them apples?

 

[Liar]

Ok, since we're now officially a serious gun debarte thread. Let's debate.

I also remember a case from several years ago where a man killed his wife by reatedly stabbing her in the chest with a straightened paper clip.

But people still seem to be stuck on this "Guns kill people" thing.

So let's try an experiment.

Take a gun, your choice of what type, brand, model, etc., load it and lay it on a table. Now how long will it be before that gun kills someone of it's own volition?

Your point being? Niether will a straightened paper clip. Lay a doctor on that table and he won't kill nobody either.

Honestly Dran, that not much of an agument.


Let's try another experient that is a bit more close to comparable to the risk of mistakes a physician faces:

Let's wave the gun around in a suburbian neighborhood. Shoot at trees and lamp posts. Over and over. Eight hours a day, five days a week. That doesn't kill anyone either, now does it?

An inactive gun doesn't kill people. Nither does an inactive physician. Or lawyer.

An inactive physician however, lets people die that he could had saved. This could also sometimes be said about guns, when they are active for the right purpose. But it's apples and oranges, as I'm sure you know.

#L

 

[Liar]

And I still want a gnu, dammit.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Dudes, it's an ironic joke about seeing all sides of an issue and the worthlessness of most statistics. Everyone knows the reasons why physicians have a greater accidental death rate than guns but the numbers don't show it.

It's not a serious statement. Get over it and come back to the discussion of street punks doing drive by ninja attacks.

Or a wife going ape shit on her husband screaming "They're can be only one"

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

And I still want a gnu, dammit.

gnus don't kill peppers, peppers do.

 

[Guest]

Remove all guns. All crimes must now be committed via Highlander-esque sword battle.

Just imagine the new gang wars. It'd be like an old samurai movie.

You might be surprised at just how close to the truth that is.

The capitol of the United States of America, Washington D.C., Has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the world. Yet it is illegal to even be in possession of ammunition for a gun in DC.

And believe me, they take those laws VERY seriously there. About 5 yrs ago I was in DC on a job, I had driven my on truck and unknowingly had the holster for one of my competition guns behind the seat. While getting my tool belt out of the truck (I keep it hanging on the back of the seat) a passing police officer spied the holster and was ready to run me in, even though there was no gun or even amunition in the truck.

So how did their muder rate get so high with such strict gun control?

Let me give you another example. Have you ever wondered why car bombs are so popular in the middle east? Why couldn't terrorists just walk into a crowded area, pull out some AKs and mow the crowd down? Seems like it would be much more effective if you ask me.

The answer is; because it has been tried before and the results were startling.

In the late 80's a group of 6 Palastinian terrorists walked into a crowded Jeruselem cafe with the intent of doing just that. However, when they drew ther guns they were shot down by a cafe full of legal gun carrying citizens before the poor terrorists got off a shot.

So now they resort to killing by remote control.

Switzerland has the highest per capita gun ownership of any country in the world. Their citezens are not only allowed to own guns but encouraged and in some cases required to own them. It is completly legal to own and carry even fully automatic weapons and even such things as anti-aircraft guns can be legaly obtained. Knowing this would it shock you to learn that Switzerland also has the lowest crime rates in the world? They do.

The simple fact is, just like automobiles, no gun ever killed anyone. But people, irresponsible and criminally inclined people do. And it doesn't matter if they have a weapon or not.

Seems to me I remember hearing just recently about a man in Denton, TX killing his ex-girlfriend(7 mo pregnant) and her 7 yr old son by suffocation. And and he didn't even use a pillow.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Except that you can apparently. You can sneak up on them in the dark, without warning and deprive a mother of her son. Even if they spot you and try to get away you are still apparently, without fear of prosecution, able to render them senseless and sentence them to life on life-support because they wanted your downstairs video machine.

And your only defence needs to be: "This nervous, spotty, jobless, sweaty, skinny addict put me in fear of my life."

Within my own home, I would hope I have the right to deprive a mother of her son. If the SOB was in my home, exactly how am I to ascertain he's after the 40$ walmart special DVD player and not there to rape or kill me? I feel pretty strongly asking him his intentions isn't the best way to deal with it. Shooting him most likely will be my response, and unless I have lost my touch with a pistol, that means killing him. Guns aren't for playing, nor for scaring someone, they are there to be used in extreme situations and when used, they should be used properly, i.e. If faced with an intruder I'll be shooting for the biggest part of his body, not trying to be Dick Deadeye and wound him in the leg.

If you don't want to get shot, don't go breaking into people's houses. If you are going to break in, you know the possible consequences. The fact that you know the consequences and are still in my living room, tends to make me believe you are prepared to forestall those consequences by inflicting bodily harm if confronted by the homeowner.

Holding a homeowner liable is absolutely Bull****. I'm supposed to risk my life in acertaining his intentions when he has already broken into my home? What ind of crap is that Gauche? Making the thief out to be the victim? If he were obeying the law, he wouldn't have been in harms way to begin with. If putting himself there dosen't make him responsibile for the consequences, I just don't know what would.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

You might be surprised at just how close to the truth that is.

The capitol of the United States of America, Washington D.C., Has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the world. Yet it is illegal to even be in possession of ammunition for a gun in DC.

And believe me, they take those laws VERY seriously there. About 5 yrs ago I was in DC on a job, I had driven my on truck and unknowingly had the holster for one of my competition guns behind the seat. While getting my tool belt out of the truck (I keep it hanging on the back of the seat) a passing police officer spied the holster and was ready to run me in, even though there was no gun or even amunition in the truck.

So how did their muder rate get so high with such strict gun control?

Let me give you another example. Have you ever wondered why car bombs are so popular in the middle east? Why couldn't terrorists just walk into a crowded area, pull out some AKs and mow the crowd down? Seems like it would be much more effective if you ask me.

The answer is; because it has been tried before and the results were startling.

In the late 80's a group of 6 Palastinian terrorists walked into a crowded Jeruselem cafe with the intent of doing just that. However, when they drew ther guns they were shot down by a cafe full of legal gun carrying citizens before the poor terrorists got off a shot.

So now they resort to killing by remote control.

Switzerland has the highest per capita gun ownership of any country in the world. Their citezens are not only allowed to own guns but encouraged and in some cases required to own them. It is completly legal to own and carry even fully automatic weapons and even such things as anti-aircraft guns can be legaly obtained. Knowing this would it shock you to learn that Switzerland also has the lowest crime rates in the world? They do.

The simple fact is, just like automobiles, no gun ever killed anyone. But people, irresponsible and criminally inclined people do. And it doesn't matter if they have a weapon or not.

Seems to me I remember hearing just recently about a man in Denton, TX killing his ex-girlfriend(7 mo pregnant) and her 7 yr old son by suffocation. And and he didn't even use a pillow.

You're assuming I'm anti-gun.

And really, this debate has its success stories on either side. In Japan it's very illegal to have a gun. Basically only Yakuza will risk it. Their gun murder rate is in the single-double digits and their murder by sword/knife rate is actually higher than it.

All sides of an issue, that was the joke behind your joke, what makes it funny.

Though it's probably too late for the thread. It looks like an AK-47 accidentally went off. Or the rapper ninjas swept through again.

 

[Guest]

Within my own home, I would hope I have the right to deprive a mother of her son. If the SOB was in my home, exactly how am I to ascertain he's after the 40$ walmart special DVD player and not there to rape or kill me? I feel pretty strongly asking him his intentions isn't the best way to deal with it. Shooting him most likely will be my response, and unless I have lost my touch with a pistol, that means killing him. Guns aren't for playing, nor for scaring someone, they are there to be used in extreme situations and when used, they should be used properly, i.e. If faced with an intruder I'll be shooting for the biggest part of his body, not trying to be Dick Deadeye and wound him in the leg.

If you don't want to get shot, don't go breaking into people's houses. If you are going to break in, you know the possible consequences. The fact that you know the consequences and are still in my living room, tends to make me believe you are prepared to forestall those consequences by inflicting bodily harm if confronted by the homeowner.

Holding a homeowner liable is absolutely Bull****. I'm supposed to risk my life in acertaining his intentions when he has already broken into my home? What ind of crap is that Gauche? Making the thief out to be the victim? If he were obeying the law, he wouldn't have been in harms way to begin with. If putting himself there dosen't make him responsibile for the consequences, I just don't know what would.

Amen.

It is unfortunate that criminals, it seems, have a constitutional right to break into my home and rob me blind or rape and kill with no fear of reprisal from me. Yet if I even speak harshly to him when I catch him I am likely going to face a lawsuit with the ACLU on the HIS side.

Sorry for being an asshole, but if he is a criminal, he has no rights to protection in my eyes.

 

[yui]

You're assuming I'm anti-gun.

And really, this debate has its success stories on either side. In Japan it's very illegal to have a gun. Basically only Yakuza will risk it. Their gun murder rate is in the single-double digits and their murder by sword/knife rate is actually higher.

In Hong Kong, the triad uses machetes. Can you imagine a gang coming at you with machetes? Oya! That is going to leave a mark!

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

In Hong Kong, the triad uses machetes. Can you imagine a gang coming at you with machetes? Oya! That is going to leave a mark!

I'd head for the vines. It might slow them down while they play jungle explorer.

 

[Guest]

You're assuming I'm anti-gun.

And really, this debate has its success stories on either side. In Japan it's very illegal to have a gun. Basically only Yakuza will risk it. Their gun murder rate is in the single-double digits and their murder by sword/knife rate is actually higher.

All sides of an issue, that was the joke behind your joke, what makes it funny.

Though it's probably too late for the thread. It looks like an AK-47 accidentally went off. Or the rapper ninjas swept through again.

I'm not assuming anyone is one side or the other in the debat, L_C. And, yes, it was intended to be humorous. "Guns don't kill people, Doctors do." damn near made me spit my drink last night. But the conversation turned serious so I thought I would make some serious points. Not to accuse, not to put anyone down, but HOPEFULLY to give some people alittle more "Food for thought".

 

[Liar]

I do understand self defence. But there is something in the tone here that goes way beyond that. I'm sorry, but I can't comprehend this reasoning.

As long as someone is committing crime on your property, that makes you the righteous police? Judge? Jury? Executioner? I know we're talking about pressured situations here. I've been in situations like that too, so don't come at me with "if it happened to you, you would" because I wouldn't. I wouldn't take an eye for the possibility of an eye. I fail to see how people can opt with violence so easily. Yes, I'm sorry, but I said easily. It seems that the mere suspicion of a threat is an excyse to blow someone's head off. What if I'm paranoid? Does that give me the right to kill everything that walks on it's hindlegs?

Oh forget it, we live in different worlds.

#L

ps. Yep, we're definitely is Seriousville now.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I do understand self defence. But there is something in the tone here that goes way beyond that. I'm sorry, but I can't comprehend this reasoning.

As long as someone is committing crime on your property, that makes you the righteous police? Judge? Jury? Executioner? I know we're talking about pressured situations here. I've been in situations like that too, so don't come at me with "if it happened to you, you would" because I wouldn't. I wouldn't take an eye for the possibility of an eye. I fail to see how people can opt with violence so easily. Yes, I'm sorry, but I said easily. It seems that the mere suspicion of a threat is an excyse to blow someone's head off. What if I'm paranoid? Does that give me the right to kill everything that walks on it's hindlegs?

Oh forget it, we live in different worlds.

#L

ps. Yep, we're definitely is Seriousville now.

Should've stuck with the discussion about peppers using gnus and ethyl force to deafen their pottery.

 

[Liar]

Should've stuck with the discussion about peppers using gnus and ethyl force to deafen their pottery.

Gnus don't kill peppers. But feed them peppers and there will be a stampede that gould end the age of man.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Gnus don't kill peppers. But feed them peppers and there will be a stampede that gould end the age of man.

We must enact Gnu Control now!

 

[gauchecritic]

No, no, no Colly. I didn't say, nor was I implying that if you are in fear of your life then you can't take reasonable precautions up to and including shooting them dead.

The point I was attempting to make was that reasonable force is a poor excuse when the defender (homeowner) is a 6' 6" left tackle and the intruder is a 'hunger' driven 17 year old.

I was actually (obscurely) making my attack on a society that will put property over life and will bolster its own fundamental short comings which engender an underclass who are 'worthless'.

It just seems to me we are no further along than being hung for sheep stealing.

The sentence of death for house-breaking just seems a little harsh and yes they do have a right to life which they do not abdicate merely by being somewhere they shouldn't be.

 

[rgraham666]

That's right sir," said Enzo Hawker as he met the Chief Executive's wondering eyes. "You have to know exactly what you're doing before you use guns."

At Any Price by David Drake

To me guns are just a tool, neither good nor evil. It's the people that use them that are good or evil.

I'm with cloudy. It's the training that makes the difference. If you know more about a gun than which end the bang comes out of you'll be less likely to use a gun badly. I have no objection to mandating training and storage regulations.

I will never buy the argument that guns makes you safer or freer. Freedom is like souls, never taken, always given up. And there will always be some one out there with a better gun, faster and more accurate with than you.

I'm afraid I'm now going to piss off my American friends on this thread.

The problem isn't with the guns, it's with the society.

The U.S. was born in violence. It nearly destroyed itself with violence less than a hundred years after it's inception. It expanded westwards with violence.

It seems to me that in the U.S. violence is a widely accepted method of solving problems.

And there is the lack of social mobility in the U.S. If you're poor in the U.S. you are more likely to stay that way. For many the only way out is through crime and the violence that crime engenders. With the huge numbers of guns that exist in the U.S., it's not surprising that there are so many gun deaths.

Until the U.S. changes into a different type of society, the problems relating to guns will remain. And these changes aren't the type that can be legislated. They can only come from within each individual.

 

[Guest]

I have to say I agree with you wholeheartedly, RG.

The problem is that no one seems to want want to see the truth of the matter. Getting rid of guns will not get rid of crime. Getting rid of the criminals is another story.

But the liberals would rather stand up and fight for the rights of those criminals than their victims.

It's just not right.

 

[rgraham666]

Careful there, Dran. I'm a liberal.

In many ways, I regard most criminals as victims. There's been a number of times over the last few years that I wanted to say "Fuck it! What's being good gotten me except abuse?" Luckily, I have that contrary streak in me that keeps me from doing things like that.

Not everybody is so lucky.

The fewer ways someone has to contribute to a society, the more likely they are to poison that society. A society, and individuals, are like water. If they stay too still too long they stagnate.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I have to say I agree with you wholeheartedly, RG.

The problem is that no one seems to want want to see the truth of the matter. Getting rid of guns will not get rid of crime. Getting rid of the criminals is another story.

But the liberals would rather stand up and fight for the rights of those criminals than their victims.

It's just not right.

In salute to the "seeing all sides" main point, the NRA has blocked some bills that would help fight criminal misuse of guns without infringing on right to ownership, such as ammunition tracking and so forth.

Eh, I just stick to swords. No one's getting political on swords yet.

 

[Op_Cit]

The problem isn't with the guns, it's with the society.

And what is society but the state? The state is force and violence. Either actual or implied, force/violence is the tool of the state: Obey or suffer the consequences, resist and be killed.

What good can come of that fundamental?

 

[Guest]

No, no, no Colly. I didn't say, nor was I implying that if you are in fear of your life then you can't take reasonable precautions up to and including shooting them dead.

The point I was attempting to make was that reasonable force is a poor excuse when the defender (homeowner) is a 6' 6" left tackle and the intruder is a 'hunger' driven 17 year old.

I was actually (obscurely) making my attack on a society that will put property over life and will bolster its own fundamental short comings which engender an underclass who are 'worthless'.

It just seems to me we are no further along than being hung for sheep stealing.

The sentence of death for house-breaking just seems a little harsh and yes they do have a right to life which they do not abdicate merely by being somewhere they shouldn't be.

So what if that hungry 17 yr old is going to rape and kill you or your wife, kids, dog, cat, etc. when he's done rifling your wallet? How do you know?

You hear a noise in the middle of the night and go to investigate. You flip on the the sitting room light to find a skinny teenager robbing you blind. A teenager that may well be armed himself and the fact that you just caught and startled him may be enough for him to risk shooting you so that he can escape.

You can argue that his life is as valuable as yours. And you can risk dying by his hand to prove it. As for me, my life and the lives of my loved ones is more valuable than anyones. Threaten them and you risk losing yours. I am simply not willing to risk my life to find out out if this punk is desperate enough to shoot me.

If he values his own life he shouldn't be breaking into someones home. For ANY reason.

There are children raised in poverty that do make it out and it's not rare. I dare say it's not even difficult. The hardest part of it is that they have to WANT to. They have to want to improve their lives enough to stay in school and actually learn something. That is the way out of the ghetto. Not breaking into my home and stealing what I worked hard to obtain. I don't care how you slice it, when anyone breaks into my home with intentions less than legal he deserves what he gets.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I also remember a case from several years ago where a man killed his wife by reatedly stabbing her in the chest with a straightened paper clip.

Sorry. Two names: Thomas Hamilton, Horrett Campbell. Same motive, same target, same opportunity. Hamilton: 16 dead. Campbell: 0 dead.

Hamilton: firearms
Campbell: machete

Yes, people kill people, but they do it a great deal more efficiently with guns. That's why we give them to our soldiers, as opposed to sending them into battle with straightened paper clips.