<!--QuoteBegin--Code966+Nov 29 2003, 06:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Code966 @ Nov 29 2003, 06:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm a target shooter/collector, last time I hunted I was 13. My criminal record is spotless, and I have never had a NG (Negligent Discharge). I have been shooting pretty much since I had the strength to hold a rifle.
Point and click? Gee I wish someone had told me all those years ago, so I could've stopped practicing holding steady, breathing techniques, and estimating range and wind and just fired from the hip for the same effect!
<a href='http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/15/1068674432934.html' target='_blank'>http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/15/...8674432934.html</a> The nerve! Sidestepping the ban by building thier own, to sell on the streets like drugs! There should be a LAW against that sort of thin---...wait...
As far as knife vs. (I'll assume handguns here, eh?) a firearm, well, how the heck far away do you think the other guy is? Statistically (and we all know 70% of statistics are made up on the spot by those spewing them.) any defensive engagement with a handgun will likely be under 10 feet. Or even five. At that range, an adult male with a knife or even his bare hands can cover that in about a half second, and I dare someone to get on the firing line with a concealed handgun, and hit a 9-10 ring on a moving target before it gets across that 10 feet.
Which brings me to another point: unlike what most seemingly believe, guns do not typically have thermo nuclear tipped bullets. In fact, between the two, i'd put my money on a decent sized fixed blade knife as to which cuases more damage to the body. One shot will not likely kill someone unless it is a central nervous system hit, or completely takes out the heart and/or a major artery. In the latter case, maybe not even then (provided medical treatment is administered soon), and it very likely will not STOP them unless you are shooting a brick wall at him. Don't anyone start up "But omg youd be on the ground crying in pain!" or i'll start on the LONG list of people in firefights who got hit and didn't even NOTICE they had been hit until they looked down and saw thier internal organs on the ground/missing. Adrenaline is a lovely painkiller don't you think?
Killing something with a gun only requires a trigger to be pulled by the user? In the same sense that a knife only requires a flick of the wrist, or a vehicle requires you to flex your foot. Sorry guys, but the gun does not yet come equipped with an aimbot, a bad shot, 5 round magazine or 50, will make a whole lot of air move around, whilst someone who knows how to actually use one, well...hits the target.
As for the police stopping criminals, not citizens...well...I'd dare say you don't know as much as you think you know. #1 in the USA the police have no legal obligation to protect you personally. If they get there in time to get you out of the fire, hooray. If not, oops, we could not have done anything more. You on the other hand could very possibly be maimed or dead. Now, i'm not going to speak for anybody else, but where I live, my beretta 9mm is in the drawer of this desk, safety engaged, chamber empty. The police are 45 minutes down the road, provided you're driving 90 miles an hour. Do not misunderstand me, I do not advocate violence if you can solve the issue with words, or a phone call, and even if you ARE armed, call the police IF POSSIBLE, but if push comes to shove, that beretta shows up to help me a whole lot faster than the police do.
As for women defending themselves, give me a break, martial arts is fine and good, unless they can retailiate you kicking them by lifting your entire body off the ground and pinning you to the wall. Pepper spray? And if he is wearing a mask? Glasses? If she can't get him in the face? Congrats, you're screwed. Likely in more ways than one. (You guys have got to be getting tired of reading this BS by now, but, i'm trying to cover all bases here.)
Guns have a psychological effect as well, which, for someone who follows the law of the land, is a double edged sword. The mere sight of one can cuase the bad guy to stop in his tracks, becuase he might get shot, thus ending the confrontation with no broken bones, no blood, nothing. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your POV), for Joe Peon, it can work the same way for the bad guy. Someone in this thread brought up a logical point about the robber fires on the robee when he pulls his own weapon in response, this is typically what people do when confronted with lethal force, they either run or they fight back. Now, again, I do not advocate violence if you can solve things another way, and the vast majority of people who carry handguns, contrary to popular belief, are neither stupid nor unreasonable. If the situation looks like it can be resolved by giving up your wallet, then for gods sake, do it. That wallet is replaceable, but you'll have a lot tougher time getting replacement organs if you decide to force the issue and fail (Also: practice so that if you are ever forced to use that gun, you DON'T fail.). On the other hand, some criminals will stab/shoot/crack your skull open after they get what they want even if you do submit, in which case, you have no choice. Fight back or die. Determining which type of baddie the one in front of you is, is the hard part. (And oh, by the way, one of the things they try to teach you in most self defense courses, is to identify and avoid high risk areas and get around the whole mess in the first place.)
As to why our crime levels are supposedly so much higher than the rest of the world...again...70% of statistics are made up on the spot by the people spewing them, If anything i'd say its a problem with our society in general. Look at Isreal, Switzerland, Canada....nearly as many/more firearms per capita than the USA does, and the swiss ISSUE out true assault rifles and SAWS (read: Full Autos), and have the owners report at least yearly for training (read: how to make other humans fall down and stop moving.). If more guns = more crime, and it's as simple as that, then explain to me why there isn't a massive crater in the middle of europe? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Dude, nothing you say is going to convince me that using a knife is as easy as a handgun. Ever. They dont call the gun the "great equalizer" because knife advocates didnt like the ring of it when describing their weapon of choice. Gun is point and shoot, especially at the ranges they are usually used. They require no extreme physical strength, the size of the other person is irrelevant. If you had to go one-on-one with someone, you'd take the gun any day.
Knives can be blocked on limbs, or dodged. I wont pretend its easy or simple, but its possible. Knives similarily do NOT have the same mental impact of a gun. And they rely upon the strength and skill of the user. I requires very little to pull a trigger at close range, but to actually stick a knife into someone is a heck of a lot harder. You cant defend yourself against firearms. I'd consider bolting if faced with a knife, but no way in hell would I run away from a man with a gun unless I had some serious cover close by.
Guns can be used on the masses quite effectively, knives cannot. Nuff said.
As Ryo already pointed out, its not up to you to protect you - you have a police force. And if you feel they dont cut it, then get a dog. That said, if I lived in the US, I'd get a gun. Why? Because everyone else does (or seems to, or is assumed to have one) - so naturally any sort of intruder is going to assume I do and act to neutralise me should I interrupt them. And I'd like to have a chance.
Sometimes women cant defend themselves. Tough break lady. I will not have a hormonal woman walking around carrying a loaded weapon. Half the women I know I wouldnt trust with a kitchen knife, let alone firearms. The amount of times it would save a woman compared to the amount of times it would cause harm I hate to think of. Rape happens, and I dont think the solution to rape is the carrying of firearms.
I wont say that people who carry firearms are stupid or unreasonable, but when they are in an extreme situation, I dont count on them to do the right thing/intelligent thing. The great thing about firearm showdowns is that to win - you gotta pull it and use it first to win. It smacks of preemptive action. "He was robbing me and he was going to shoot me, but luckily I pulled my gun out and shot him so quickly he didnt have a chance." Whose to say he was gonna shoot you in the first place?
As for your last part - if you think stats are made up on the spot, I'm sure the Beauru (argh spelling) of Statistics dont do that. I'm also sure they have a website. Maybe that will have the true statistics.
So totally and completely agreed with your last point - its a problem with the American Society. Anyone have a great cure-all idea on how to fix the American society? I dont. However, you remove firearms from the general population, and you will see the amount of killings overall drop. Massacres will be extremely rare. I think killing, not crime overall, will fall.
<!--QuoteBegin--Urza+Nov 30 2003, 03:48 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Urza @ Nov 30 2003, 03:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> some other facts: in the us: 9 people per 100.000 are victim of homicide in Europe, the mean in 2 per 100.000
In the US, 2,77 % of the households were victim of burglary in the Netherlands, 1,44 %. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The United States = A country Europe = A continent
It's almost like apples and oranges.
There's sooooo many different things that would affect the rate of homicides and burglaries (Especially when comparing a country to a continent), such as economy, racial diversity, wealth of the citizens, density, population, and I'm sure I'm missing some other factors because it's 4am.
I don't know how to fel about gun controll really. On the one hand, it seems resonable to simply have apropriate controls in pace to make sure that gun owners a) know how to safley handle the wepon b) have no criminal record. This part of me thinks that guns are a pretty important part of defending freedom. Its rather dificult to rebel against a government using pepper spray. On theother hand, part of me thinks that getting rid of all the guns would be a great idea, then people could carry swords around like in the old days, sord fights are much cooler anyways.... unless everybody is doing that whole gun katas thing.
<!--QuoteBegin--François+Nov 30 2003, 04:40 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (François @ Nov 30 2003, 04:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's almost like apples and oranges.
There's sooooo many different things that would affect the rate of homicides and burglaries (Especially when comparing a country to a continent), such as economy, racial diversity, wealth of the citizens, density, population, and I'm sure I'm missing some other factors because it's 4am. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I took the numbers of the biggest countries, and none have a number above 3. so it's not apples and oranges. And true, there are different reasons why crime rates could differ, but I have already given you reasons why I think the availability of firearms is involved. Kind of funny that you don't make these notes when talking about Florida <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
@ Skulkbait: People do not need firearms to rebel against their government. Plus, swords aree defensive weapons; the first to attack is nine times out of ten the one who dies.
Does a hammer alone drive a nail into wood? Does the table saw rip wood alone?
The answer is no.
They are a tool. Same with a firearm.
Although I disagree with letting civilians own an automatic weapon, such as the AK-47. I think that's pushing it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->erm guns are evil if you arent smart enough to guess. making profit from something that will be used to kill somebody is also evil.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I fail to see how someone can derive evil from an inanimate object. To do so is silly.
You can bark statistics all you want, but the problem is still there. Perhaps we should also be discussing how to reduce automobile accidents, but the point of this thread isn't to discuss that. People die by firearms. That's a fact. If you have to compare to other ways of dying to show how "unimportant" it is, that's a pretty weak argument. A bigger problem does not mean the little problem goes away or should be ignored.
Also, I fail to see the point of your arguments to say how firearms can be used for things other than killing people. Yes, we all know hammers can be used for things other than nails, but if the focus of the thread is discussing the killing of people, I fail to see the interest in discussing its uses in hunting etc.
You pro gun folks are missing the point. People are dying, and you can't overshadow or ignore the deaths. All you can do is try to make it look weak in comparison or show how great it is to have a sidearm for you since you never kill people. The issue are the deaths. I'm sure we'd have plenty more anti-gun people, but they're dead at the moment. Brady didn't snap when he went from pro-gun to anti-gun in a matter of one split instance. He was seeing the forest from the trees in the first time in his life.
"Tough break lady. I will not have a hormonal woman walking around carrying a loaded weapon. Half the women I know I wouldnt trust with a kitchen knife, let alone firearms. "
Sexist ****, i know women a million times more responcable then some of the idiots that shoot themselves/other people on accident. The key is training... Kids blow their friend's head off because their curious... my kids wont, i am going to take them to the shooting range and educate them. Showing what a AR-15 can do to a steel bucket down range will get them thinking quickly about safety. When i was little, this very same thing happened to me and honestly it was one of the best times in my childhood. It would be cheap and very effective if we had some type of basic firearm education for EVERYONE. Simple things like Checking to see if a weapon is loaded, putting on a safety, how to handle a loaded firearm, and keeping the barrel away from things you dont want to shoot.
Could you cite your sources for those statistics? Neither <a href='http://www.interpol.int/Public/Statistics/ICS/downloadList.asp' target='_blank'>Interpol International Crime Statistics</a> or <a href='http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm' target='_blank'>The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics</a> agrees with what you've stated.
According to Interpol (which I believe that we can all agree is sufficiently accurate and politically neutral) the homicide rates per 100,000 people are as follows:
U.S. -- 5.61 (2001) Australia -- 3.62 (2000) Brazil -- 22.98 (2001) Canada -- 4.10 (2001) China -- 2.16 (1997) Finland -- 1.71 (2001) France -- 4.07 (2002) Germany -- 3.23 (2002) Italy -- 3.75 (2001) Japan -- 1.10 (2002) Russia -- 22.43 (2002) Switzerland -- 2.91 (2002) United Kingdom (England and Wales) -- 1.63 (2001) United Kingdom (Scotland) -- 15.28 (2001)
Also as interesting reading that breaks down the numbers by weapons used and other factors is the <a href='http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/02cius.htm' target='_blank'>FBI Uniform Crime Report</a>.
Using a blanket statement like "Europe has 2 homicides per 100,000 people" is inaccurate. Nations like England and Finland have slightly below 2, but France, Germany and Italy all have more than 3. In France's case, it's more than 4. In Scotland, it's more than <b>15</b>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A few years back an incident occured at Port Arthur here in Australia. A yong man named Martin Bryant killed 35 people with a semi-automatic weapon. After this terrible event, the Australian government moved to outlaw most guns in the country, with the exceptions being in those areas I have described above. Today you need to be one of those people: a policeman, a farmer, or a sportsman, to get guns, and even then you're restricted. Average people can get guns legally, but it's very hard. You have to establish a need, and "self-defense" isn't a need.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
According to Interpol, the homicide rate has been fairly consistent from 1995 to 2000 in Australia. That would seem to indicate that the gun restrictions didn't have an impact on the homicide rate. While the homicide rate has gone up about 0.2 per 100,000, the serious assaults have increased by 200 per 100,000 people from 1995 to 2000.
It's also interesting to note that in the <i>Table 5, State, 2002</i> of the FBI link, you can see a difference in regional homicide rates. New England (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island) have an average homicide rate of 2.15 per 100,000 people. N.H. has the 2nd lowest rate in America with 0.9 homicides per 100,000 people. Compared to the South (Florida, Alabama, Georgia, N. Carolina, S. Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Arkansas) which has an average homicide rate of 7.57 (rounded to nearest hundredth). Louisiana has the highest rate in America at 13.2 homicides per 100,000 people*.
I think that it's important to note that America has seen a drastic reduction in crime since 1993. Murder and non-negligent manslaughter has dropped by 33.9% and aggrivated assault has dropped by 21.2%. These statistics are from the FBI link, <i>Table 1, United States, 1983-2002</i>.
*I didn't include the District of Columbia, as it's not an actual state. It has a homicide rate of 46.2/100,000. Also, I believe most 2001 statistics don't include the deaths from September 11.
<a href='http://www.aacap.org/publications/factsfam/firearms.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.aacap.org/publications/factsfam...am/firearms.htm</a> <a href='http://www.minjust.nl/b_organ/wodc/publicaties/overige/pdf/ob211_07.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.minjust.nl/b_organ/wodc/publica...df/ob211_07.pdf</a> (yea it is in dutch but I'm sure you understand the graph on page 6: USA 6 ( in the last period, around 9 per 100.000 up till '96) rest of Europe about 2-3) O, it is a site of our Ministry of Justice
Could you cite your sources for those statistics? Neither Interpol International Crime Statistics or The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics agrees with what you've stated.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sources? You use sources?! I am defeated! Please take mercy! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Urza+Nov 30 2003, 03:48 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Urza @ Nov 30 2003, 03:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> some other facts: in the us: 9 people per 100.000 are victim of homicide in Europe, the mean in 2 per 100.000
In the US, 2,77 % of the households were victim of burglary in the Netherlands, 1,44 %. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> USA's gun homicide and household with gun statistics are way more revelative when you compare it with Canada. If you look at it, you can see that the percentage of households with guns has nothing to do with the gun homicide rate. (in one of my previous posts)
"Bowling for Columbine" says the same thing. I've watched that documentary and I've noticed that it is what is in the head of the guy who owns a gun that is dangerous, for gun safety and for crime reasons. If you don't allow potential criminals and irresponsable people to purchase a gun, there will be less gun accidents and gun crimes. But you cannot remove all guns because most of gun owners use them for hunting, target shooting and collecting and it doesn't hurn anybody.
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
edited November 2003
And you're not going to sit there and tell me that Joe Peon #12314142 can just pick up a pistol and become Blade. Stop watching so many war movies. When you dumb down what it takes to use something as a weapon, you get interesting results that are quite frequently misleading. As for blocking a knife but having no defense against a firearm: Firstly it's called kevlar, it's currently legal, much to the chagrin of the same people trying to rid america of its gun "problem". Under the clothes vest is about 200 bucks, stop a .44 mag, probably hurt like <censored> in the morning, but it'll stop it. Secondly, READ MY ENTIRE POST. I already stated that guns do not have thermo nuclear ammo, and without a central nervous system hit (That means, brain or spinal cord), it will not kill you outright (That is, provided, the person who gets hit does not literally faint upon realizing he has been shot. Course, thats assuming that the adrenaline coursing through your system allows you TO EVEN REGISTER THE IMPACT!!!!!!) A gun does not depend on overwhelming strength to use, but then neither does a knife does it? I believe you're thinking more along the lines of taking a military pick to a piece of plate armor with that comment. And I mean, sure, you can probably block a knife blade easier with your arm or leg, and it MIGHT not cut open anything vital like those annoying little things called arteries...unless he's faster than you can block....Wait, isn't that what happens in a GUN fight? Whoever can hit his target and do it faster than the other guy wins?
There are no no-skill-required tools in this world. No weapon is without a counter. (And oh, speaking of, if knives DIDN'T cuase so much raw damage to the human body, then militaries would not have adopted firearms to keep thier men out of the range of such things.)
Aye, sometimes women can't defend themselves. But they should have every option availible to them to do so. And between you and me, I fear the fool who picks up a gun and thinks he's John <censored> Wayne, more than the woman who just got into law school on her period.
And again, read my entire post. I said that in the US of A, the police have NO (zero, zilch), obligation to protect you as a person. Quite the contrary, most of the time you will be on your own in that regard. Not the PDs fualt, your officers can't be everywhere at once. Hence the no legal obligation.
A dog? Lawsuit waiting to happen if your "attack dog" bites someone. Great idea.
"Pre-emptive action"? That's for the court to decide. In any case the man who shot the robber WILL be paying upwards of 20,000 dollars in legal fees, deal with this case for months/years easily, and probably be facing lawsuits from the man he shot! Woe be unto the man who uses lethal force even when it IS legally justifiable.
You've ALMOST landed on the money though in that to win a gunfight someone needs to be fast. But you also need to put metal on target and do enough damage to make your assailant go down first. Speed and power without accuracy will get you dead.
It would be great if you didn't need some form of weapon in this world, unfortunately reality seems to disagree with me. Bad things do happen, the difference is some are prepared, some are not. Related note: Flamethrowers are not legally considered firearms, so what happens IF all firearms vanished from american soil tommorow, and some <censored> decides to go into his high school with a flame thrower?
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
A gun is a tool, a powerful tool that can decide life and death. Cars cant be prohibited for logistic and economic reasons, but weapons can, People kill people, and gun help with it, knives too, but you cant justify some evil with something evil.
Okay, if you feel that everyone should be wearing a bullet proof vest, then I suggest its time to shift countries. The day I suit up my kids and wife in kevlar before kissing them goodbye is the day I find myself a new country. Defence against knives = built in. Defence against bullets = an expensive armour vest. When people get shot and the first question is "why werent you wearing armour" then your country has a serious problem.
Knives DO take more strength to use. And you have to physically DRIVE it home, and most people find that way harder then pulling a trigger. And you can run from a knife. If someone pulls a knife on me, lunges for my body and hits my arm - I can still run. If someone pulls a gun on me, shoots at my body, I cant stop the bullet. I can even see it. Please can someone else support me here - who else sincerely believes that discharging a firearm on someone and stabbing someone with a knife are roughly equivalent in terms of difficulty of execution. The military built guns so they could do a knifes job at range. Thats all a gun is, a way of putting your steel through through them from distance. They didnt do it to keep men out of range of swords. The gun ended the sword because it took no great training to use effectively, didnt rely upon the strength and speed of the weilder, was relatively cheap to produce and could be used from a distance.
You reject my dog idea out of hand because of a lawsuit??!! And you are willing to shoot someone in the chest? I would suggest that if you cant handle going to court because your dog bit someone, then maybe you shouldn't be shooting people, because thats gonna wind you up in the same courthouse only in a heck of a lot more trouble.
Dont get me wrong on the women comment - I fear the hormonal woman just as much as the **** off male. However, in crisis situations, I put my money on the male.
With kids, you give them something, and then you watch how they handle it. If you give them a machete, and the number of trees in your garden decreases dramatically - obviously they cant handle the responsibility. You can either teach them responsibility, or take the weapon off them. You cannot do what is being done currently - which is point to the kid next door and say "well he has a machete, and he's not chopping trees down, so obviously machete's arent the problem", or "machetes are just a tool" and do nothing. And then you have to wonder why you gave him the machete in the first place. What can he actually do with it? Hurt himself - yes. Hurt others - yes. Defend himself? We dont want him hacking anyone up, even in self defence.
Seems to me that Americans have failed the responsibility test.
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
edited November 2003
You seem to think that after giving you a nice gash on your arm, and you run, he won't chase you. Same with a gun, he may shoot you hit you in the arm, and leave you alone. Depends on how far HE is willing to go in that situation.
Show me in my post where I said everyone should go out, right this instant, and buy head to toe level 4 body armor? Nowhere. I was just ripping your "guns have no defense" arguement to pieces. Just like a gun, it gives you options in extreme situations, all it does. You can buy it and wear it on your head like a giant hat for all I care, or not. Your choice. You seem to think also, that a knife to the arm is somehow less of a life threatening injury than a gunshot in the same place, not really.
A dog has a mind of its own. A gun does not. A gun does not just go into the neighbors yard and bite thier child playing in the lawn on it's own accord. Not saying all dogs do that, but it's not out of the realm of possibility, between the dangers of the two? I have more control over what happens with the gun. I think i'll go that route.
And as far as male/female in a combat situation, I put my money on whichever one of them practiced more on the range and has a cooler head.
Responsibility, you have a point, flawed, but a point. You give a child something quite possibly dangerous, and then you stay with him as he uses said item, teach him the rules of using the <censored> thing before you leave him alone with it, let alone use it on his own. To do otherwise is irresponsible on YOUR part. I was brought up from day #1 having the rules of handling a gun drilled into my brain by my father (Who would've thought...). And in the case hes not responsible? Oh well. You take it away from him, you do not however go down the neighborhood checking houses to see if THEY have anything that might be dangerous either.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->With kids, you give them something, and then you watch how they handle it. If you give them a machete, and the number of trees in your garden decreases dramatically - obviously they cant handle the responsibility. You can either teach them responsibility, or take the weapon off them. You cannot do what is being done currently - which is point to the kid next door and say "well he has a machete, and he's not chopping trees down, so obviously machete's arent the problem", or "machetes are just a tool" and do nothing. And then you have to wonder why you gave him the machete in the first place. What can he actually do with it? Hurt himself - yes. Hurt others - yes. Defend himself? We dont want him hacking anyone up, even in self defence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
May I say, Marine01. Beautiful argument. Molto bello!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Responsibility, you have a point, flawed, but a point. You give a child something quite possibly dangerous, and then you stay with him as he uses said item, teach him the rules of using the <censored> thing before you leave him alone with it, let alone use it on his own. To do otherwise is irresponsible on YOUR part. I was brought up from day #1 having the rules of handling a gun drilled into my brain by my father (Who would've thought...). And in the case hes not responsible? Oh well. You take it away from him, you do not however go down the neighborhood checking houses to see if THEY have anything that might be dangerous either. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the parent does not teach responsibility to the child, then perhaps it is his own fault for handing over the machete to the child. Maybe he is irresponsible if he doesn't train him proper usage. This is irrelevant. It's as if you are saying America is irresponsible for handing out hand guns and not teaching Americans how to use it. Perhaps Americans should be trained with handguns, or perhaps they should be removed. I won't argue this. The point is the same though, you are admitting yourself that something needs to change which is exactly how we feel.
As for your last sentence, suppose someone's kid hacks up your kid with a machete. Would you care then? I dare you to say no.
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
edited November 2003
Would I care? Of course I would! I'd care enough to know who the heck he plays with, and I would care enough to keep him away from the little <censored> *BEFORE* it gets to the point where he is slicing people up. I would also have a long hard talk with the other kids parents as soon as I cuaght wind of him running around chopping things with a blade the size of his body. As for after the fact...will banning machetes bring my kid back? No. Will watching the kid grow up in jail and rot bring him back either? Nope. But in all honesty i'd probably feel slightly better. Would me being a good parent keep him from being hacked into tiny pieces and dying in a bloody gory way? Very likely.
Does something need to change? I say yes. Responsibility and the idea that killing people is a (Emphasis) *BAD* thing needs to be ingrained in people from an early age again. Unlike what some people think, you cannot legislate it into people at the national level. It's an individual quality in people.
darnit Marine01 we're argeeing again! Stop it this instant! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->According to Interpol, the homicide rate has been fairly consistent from 1995 to 2000 in Australia. That would seem to indicate that the gun restrictions didn't have an impact on the homicide rate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's because average numbers of guns didn't drop significantly. Most of the people who had guns in Australia were farmers and sportsmen prior to Port Arthur, and as such they were allowed to keep most of their guns after the event. Semi-automatic weapons were banned, but not many people had them anyway. Australia doesn't have the kind of "gun-culture" that the US has. What I am simply pointing out is that Australia survives perfectly well with tough gun laws and low numbers of guns. Yet we have quite a few large cities that, if transported to America, would fit right in (ask Americans who've been here). Except of course, the murder rates are much lower and not everyone is packing a gun.
In Tennessee, 845 people died from firearms in 2001. There were 2,401 FFL's in 2001. There were 6,472 registered machine guns (fully automatic) weapons.
FFL's are greatly outnumbered by private gun owners, so there may be 10 times that many gun owners. For instance, there are only a few within ~40 miles of me.
Although these numbers feel high, they are put in perspective when you realize the population of Tennessee is pushing 6 MILLION. You could walk around nashville all day, talking to everyone you see, and not meet one person who carries a firearm with them. Quite a few probably OWN one but it's locked up at home when they're not hunting or something similar.
So it's not like everyone's got a gun, got it with them, and are trigger happy. It just SEEMS that way because of the media and the statistics provided. I won't deny that cases of gun toting people are higher than in the UK or australia, but you seem to think that the majority of the people in any american city is armed at any one time! Certainly not the case.
Can make those 845 deaths practically nil by totally banning firearms? Certainly. If there wasn't a gun in tennessee, no one would die from guns. Regardless of that fact, I still want to own my gun, and it's not from parnoia or flawed american mentality. It, to me, is a tool and shooting is a hobby for me. If I have to go through hoops, get it registered, Hell, if I have to put a GPS on it so the powers that be know where that gun is at any one time, so be it. I'm not suggesting that, I'm just saying that you can reduce gun fatalities without totally banning them alltogether, and that's what I'd rather attempt to do.
<!--QuoteBegin--Code966+Nov 30 2003, 06:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Code966 @ Nov 30 2003, 06:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You seem to think that after giving you a nice gash on your arm, and you run, he won't chase you. Same with a gun, he may shoot you hit you in the arm, and leave you alone. Depends on how far HE is willing to go in that situation.
Show me in my post where I said everyone should go out, right this instant, and buy head to toe level 4 body armor? Nowhere. I was just ripping your "guns have no defense" arguement to pieces. Just like a gun, it gives you options in extreme situations, all it does. You can buy it and wear it on your head like a giant hat for all I care, or not. Your choice. You seem to think also, that a knife to the arm is somehow less of a life threatening injury than a gunshot in the same place, not really.
A dog has a mind of its own. A gun does not. A gun does not just go into the neighbors yard and bite thier child playing in the lawn on it's own accord. Not saying all dogs do that, but it's not out of the realm of possibility, between the dangers of the two? I have more control over what happens with the gun. I think i'll go that route.
And as far as male/female in a combat situation, I put my money on whichever one of them practiced more on the range and has a cooler head.
Responsibility, you have a point, flawed, but a point. You give a child something quite possibly dangerous, and then you stay with him as he uses said item, teach him the rules of using the <censored> thing before you leave him alone with it, let alone use it on his own. To do otherwise is irresponsible on YOUR part. I was brought up from day #1 having the rules of handling a gun drilled into my brain by my father (Who would've thought...). And in the case hes not responsible? Oh well. You take it away from him, you do not however go down the neighborhood checking houses to see if THEY have anything that might be dangerous either. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He very well may chase me. But I like my chances a heck of a lot more when he has a knife. ANYONE likes there chances more when the assailant has a knife. Because guns can kill over distance. It isnt easy, but with the American gun culture I'm sure there are plenty of people who are trained and capable in the use of firearms, and could take you down on the run. And even inexperienced users can just spam and hope for the best - especially if they have a smg. Compare that to the knife. They HAVE to catch up and come within a metre of you. And it can still be blocked - without the need for a $200 vest. And then if you get someone to help you, you can take this guy down. But if he has a gun he can shoot you both just as easily - unless he's using a muzzle loading musket.
You were talking about stopping bullets as if it were as simple and easy a matter as blocking a knife swing. Having lvl 4 kevlar and plate is an extreme measure - I wont pretend its impossible to block bullets, but I'm talking about standard suburban situations. Kevlar jackets dont make an appearence. Arms to block thrusts do. So my arguement that there is no defence against guns holds perfectly and completely true - in the context we are discussing it in. Civilians.
A knife thrust to the arm IS less threatening then a bullet shot. Depending upon the power of the weapon, the bullet can travel through the arm and enter the chest. Very few knives are going to do that.
Sure you get the odd savage dog - but dogs are exactly like guns in one respect. You put the time and effort into training, and a dog is completely harmless to anyone unless they enter your yard. And for them to enter your yard, they will have to have been deaf, blind and mute because they didnt see your Rotti screaming in their face. Dogs are the complete home defence package. Dogs are pure defence - you cant turn em on a crowd. You dont even have to attack train it. If it barks and looks nasty - people will stay the hell away.
Agreed on the male/female situation. In my experience, men handle crisis situations better. I havent viewed combat crisis, but at the vet surgery were I work, men seem to take crisis situations a heck of a lot better in general.
My analogy was not for separate children in America, it was for Americans on the whole. When you have roughly 25,000 gun deaths a year (and please if I'm wrong there correct me, that number was stolen for BfC and many people have criticised the film so I am hesitant to use it in these arguements) then you have a serious problem. Moral and Ethical responsibility doesnt really cut it. Its not working, the people using these guns are definately deficient in both Morals and Ethics, and these arent things you teach people in 3 easy lessons. They are social problems that no immediate answer is available for.
So take the "machete" off the "child", educate the child, wait for it to grow up, and in the event that it doesnt take instruction or grow up, then make sure it never gets its hands on a "machete" again. You cant just leave the child with the machete and tell him he really shouldnt be using that.
Good lord - you think that the young people of America need to have it ingrained in them that killing is bad. Really? What shocks me is that they actually need to be told. I for one dont want a generation that actually needs to have it ingrained in them (because it obviously hasnt been happening up to this point) to have guns. I dont want them with paper or string, let alone firearms.
EDIT
To Ryo - I too felt the fabric of the space time continuum ripping <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
To Burncycle - agreed. Nothing wrong with firearms for hunting and target shooting, because these can be stored at ranges etc. But when you have the storage of firearms in your home, thats when the trouble starts. Kids get at them, owners are tempted to use them on anyone who intrudes, and they get stolen.
My real question was if the government decide to ban all guns tomorrow, all sporting rifles and target shooting pistols had to be stored in special lockups, and all "anti-personel" weapons - smgs and assault rifles were completely banned - would you be fighting that or would you welcome it?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My real question was if the government decide to ban all guns tomorrow, all sporting rifles and target shooting pistols had to be stored in special lockups, and all "anti-personel" weapons - smgs and assault rifles were completely banned - would you be fighting that or would you welcome it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Many probably would. In america, many gun owners call california a "communist" state because of their highly restrictive gun laws compared to the other states (what that has to do with communism I'm not sure, that's just a nickname that stuck I suppose). Many gunowners would probably protest a ban that restrictive heavily.
I own an SKS and an M44. Both are C&R firearms (curio and relic) meaning they're essentially an "antique" that has been imported. The SKS was made in the 70's IIRC and put into storage, and the M44 was made in 1944.
Because of it's C&R status, I'm allowed to keep the grenade launcher, flash hider, night sights, and bayonet. Most of these would be illegal otherwise. If I modify the weapon in any way, it loses C&R status, meaning it would not be importable and would be illegal unless I remove the features restricted by 922®
This sounds very evil- why can I have items that would generally be illegal just because it's considered a relic? Flash hiders are banned- so why can I have a flash hider at all? Why do they make exceptions for a C&R weapon? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of banning flash hiders if they are easily attained just by purchasing a C&R weapon? Perhaps, that's one of the problems with our laws- they're vague and aren't difficult to get around.
The major rules that apply to me (aside from state laws) are the 922® and the 1994 AWB. The 922® law essentially states that I cannot assemble a firearm that would not be importable. In other words, I can't import a firearm, then add parts to it here to form a firearm that would not be importable. C&R status is like a waiver- it lets specific "historical" firearms through, and as long as you don't modify it, it's legal even with usually illegal items.
What this translates to, is that if I want to modify my weapon, for instance add a scope for hunting, I have to remove all the features that would make this weapon un-importable. If I add a scope mount, the weapon is no longer considered a C&R, and that flash hider, grenade launcher, bayonet, and night sights are now illegal. If I remove those items, I can have the scope.
I don't mind the rules. Some gun owners are all gung ho about "2nd amendment rights" and think there shouldn't be any laws like that- they'll do what they want to their guns in spite of these rules that they liken to a "communist state". These are the worst kind- Any reasonable person would recognize that by defying the rules, all you are doing is giving the government an excuse to place MORE rules on top (which doesn't help gunowners any). These are the counter-productive people you see on the media where they search their homes and find silencers, explosives, machine guns, and enough firearms to supply a small army. Fortunately they are few and far between.
While some gun owners are paranoid that the government is oppressing their "rights" as I described in the previous paragraph, others are merely "survivalists"- their hobby is to be prepared, it's what they enjoy. While I doubt they WANT the government to go into a mode of martial law, they often talk about what would happen if "SHTF" (s*it hits the fan) and how they're going to survive, etc (think red dawn). This can be construed as paranoia, but I don't personally consider it as such- some people simply enjoy planning and being prepared. Some take it very serously, and for other it's just idle thinking.
Recently, legislation went through congress that would consider any .50 caliber BMG rifles as highly destructive devices that would fall under the same category as machine guns. This worries many gunowners because no crime has been commited with a .50 caliber rifle, and those who can AFFORD one (at $6,000+ each) usually are very careful about following the law. Such pre-emptive laws are the kind that really spark the gun owners who are paranoid into hiding in the corner more and more until they feel they have to take action. While it's true that a .50 BMG isn't suitable for hunting (overkill) or defense, it doesn't mean it deserves a highly restrictive ban. Most owners use the weapon for long range target shooting.
On a seperate note, I hardly think a victim being robbed by knifepoint goes "phew, at least it wasn't a gun, it's not so bad!." To them, at that moment, the weapon the enemy has in his hand right now is more dangerous than any gun that the robber does not have. Thinking "statistically, fewer people die from stab wounds than from gunshots, so this isn't so bad" is a good way to not take the threat as seriously as it should be taken- they may end up increasing the statistic by one more.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->With kids, you give them something, and then you watch how they handle it. If you give them a machete, and the number of trees in your garden decreases dramatically - obviously they cant handle the responsibility. You can either teach them responsibility, or take the weapon off them. You cannot do what is being done currently - which is point to the kid next door and say "well he has a machete, and he's not chopping trees down, so obviously machete's arent the problem", or "machetes are just a tool" and do nothing. And then you have to wonder why you gave him the machete in the first place. What can he actually do with it? Hurt himself - yes. Hurt others - yes. Defend himself? We dont want him hacking anyone up, even in self defence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Some people just can't understand that most gun owners have guns for hunting, collecting and target shooting and not necessarly for defending himself or killing someone.
I repeat that I have many guns for hunting and target shooting. Most of my neighboors also have guns for the same reasons than me. I didnt purchased these guns for personnal defense because I know that nobody wants to kill me, I'm not paranoid. While these guns are mine, they won't kill anybody.
And if someone wants to kill somebody, he will generally take the easiest and most accessible way to kill him. If it is a gun, he will use it. If there is no gun, he will probably take a knife, poison or a baseball bat etc. etc. As we say, ways to kill somebody are infinite. So the real question is "how to remove someone's will to kill someone else?".
When I eventually buy a gun, I'd rather the sellers make damn sure they know how responsible I am with them. And I'd want the same for everyone else who buys one as well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And if someone wants to kill somebody, he will generally take the easiest and most accessible way to kill him. If it is a gun, he will use it. If there is no gun, he will probably take a knife, poison or a baseball bat etc. etc. As we say, ways to kill somebody are infinite. So the real question is "how to remove someone's will to kill someone else?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Granted, but I think (I hope) we've established it is a bit harder to kill with a knife. I'm assuming the victim doesn't stick his neck out for easy accessibility but will be running away. Yes, it's possible, but makes it a heck of a lot harder.
We could either A) Put guns in the hands of responsible gun users, B) Remove guns. I understand you guys still want guns, so hopefully you'll agree efforts should be put into giving guns to responsible gun users and not maniacs (if you're not a maniac, you'd agree).
I remember the last guns thread, I think it made it to 14 pages before the Discussion forum was shut down. This is a large issue that could easily be argued for years, however some key points need to be kept in mind. First off in the United States, Police, ATF, CIA, FBI, Coast Guard, Border Patrol, and the Armed Services (im sure im leaving out quite a few, like Pilots and Air marshals) all use firearms while performing their duties at work. The rate of accidental death and Injury involving firearms amongst these services are almost non-existent. The main reason being education. Since the majority of the people who use firearms in their professional life are very well educated in the use, and more importantly the consequence of using their firearms, the rate of unintended injury or death is extremely low. That would lead a person to believe that firearms can indeed be used safely and effectively in achieving goals other than "murder, or mayhem" like some claim.
Secondly, and I believe this to be the most important point. So long as firearms exist on this planet, and are used by the certain groups like the military and other cited above, any person deemed properly educated and responsible (rules are already in place for this in the Untied States, Background Checks and Safety Certificates) should have the right to purchase a firearm. Hitler disarmed his public before he began his campaign, and I understand that a Hitler type scenario with a rouge government is very unlikely, but armed public is defiantly a deterrent.
Lastly, I believe that personal responsibility needs to play a greater role in the lives of all people. If individuals truly understand the consequences of their actions, and the impact those actions have on their environment, they are less likely to act in a negative way. People who are predisposed to negative actions (serial killers rapist and the like) will commit violent acts with whatever is available. Like someone mentioned above, if someone wanted to commit murder and firearms were not available they would use rocks, or bottles or whatever means they could find to achieve their goal.
Gun Control = Education. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Hawkeye+Dec 1 2003, 07:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Dec 1 2003, 07:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And if someone wants to kill somebody, he will generally take the easiest and most accessible way to kill him. If it is a gun, he will use it. If there is no gun, he will probably take a knife, poison or a baseball bat etc. etc. As we say, ways to kill somebody are infinite. So the real question is "how to remove someone's will to kill someone else?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Granted, but I think (I hope) we've established it is a bit harder to kill with a knife. I'm assuming the victim doesn't stick his neck out for easy accessibility but will be running away. Yes, it's possible, but makes it a heck of a lot harder.
We could either A) Put guns in the hands of responsible gun users, B) Remove guns. I understand you guys still want guns, so hopefully you'll agree efforts should be put into giving guns to responsible gun users and not maniacs (if you're not a maniac, you'd agree). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And what about poison?
(A) is for me the good choice. It's the guy behind the gun that makes the difference.
(and I am a gun maniac, but not a killer maniac <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> )
Well, I can see this has become strange...I agree with Marine01.
Now, I will admit that the idea of guns used for hunting/sport shooting is perfectly valid. Actually, I have the best idea.
Let anyone own any firearm they want. That's right. Full-auto m16's, M249 SAW's, Bazooka's, M79's, AK47's, SG552, AUG's, P90's, MP5's, and so on.
And then make each single ROUND of ammo for civilians cost 5k$-20k$.
Barring that, just reduce gun ownership, and then require stringent registration/licensing and such for Farmers, Sport shooters and private ownership. It's my personal opinion that Farmers won't really need rapid-action semi-auto's, just give them large caliber Bolt-action rifles, same with sportsman.
Comments
Point and click? Gee I wish someone had told me all those years ago, so I could've stopped practicing holding steady, breathing techniques, and estimating range and wind and just fired from the hip for the same effect!
<a href='http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/15/1068674432934.html' target='_blank'>http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/15/...8674432934.html</a> The nerve! Sidestepping the ban by building thier own, to sell on the streets like drugs! There should be a LAW against that sort of thin---...wait...
As far as knife vs. (I'll assume handguns here, eh?) a firearm, well, how the heck far away do you think the other guy is? Statistically (and we all know 70% of statistics are made up on the spot by those spewing them.) any defensive engagement with a handgun will likely be under 10 feet. Or even five. At that range, an adult male with a knife or even his bare hands can cover that in about a half second, and I dare someone to get on the firing line with a concealed handgun, and hit a 9-10 ring on a moving target before it gets across that 10 feet.
Which brings me to another point: unlike what most seemingly believe, guns do not typically have thermo nuclear tipped bullets. In fact, between the two, i'd put my money on a decent sized fixed blade knife as to which cuases more damage to the body. One shot will not likely kill someone unless it is a central nervous system hit, or completely takes out the heart and/or a major artery. In the latter case, maybe not even then (provided medical treatment is administered soon), and it very likely will not STOP them unless you are shooting a brick wall at him. Don't anyone start up "But omg youd be on the ground crying in pain!" or i'll start on the LONG list of people in firefights who got hit and didn't even NOTICE they had been hit until they looked down and saw thier internal organs on the ground/missing. Adrenaline is a lovely painkiller don't you think?
Killing something with a gun only requires a trigger to be pulled by the user? In the same sense that a knife only requires a flick of the wrist, or a vehicle requires you to flex your foot. Sorry guys, but the gun does not yet come equipped with an aimbot, a bad shot, 5 round magazine or 50, will make a whole lot of air move around, whilst someone who knows how to actually use one, well...hits the target.
As for the police stopping criminals, not citizens...well...I'd dare say you don't know as much as you think you know. #1 in the USA the police have no legal obligation to protect you personally. If they get there in time to get you out of the fire, hooray. If not, oops, we could not have done anything more. You on the other hand could very possibly be maimed or dead. Now, i'm not going to speak for anybody else, but where I live, my beretta 9mm is in the drawer of this desk, safety engaged, chamber empty. The police are 45 minutes down the road, provided you're driving 90 miles an hour. Do not misunderstand me, I do not advocate violence if you can solve the issue with words, or a phone call, and even if you ARE armed, call the police IF POSSIBLE, but if push comes to shove, that beretta shows up to help me a whole lot faster than the police do.
As for women defending themselves, give me a break, martial arts is fine and good, unless they can retailiate you kicking them by lifting your entire body off the ground and pinning you to the wall. Pepper spray? And if he is wearing a mask? Glasses? If she can't get him in the face? Congrats, you're screwed. Likely in more ways than one. (You guys have got to be getting tired of reading this BS by now, but, i'm trying to cover all bases here.)
Guns have a psychological effect as well, which, for someone who follows the law of the land, is a double edged sword. The mere sight of one can cuase the bad guy to stop in his tracks, becuase he might get shot, thus ending the confrontation with no broken bones, no blood, nothing. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your POV), for Joe Peon, it can work the same way for the bad guy. Someone in this thread brought up a logical point about the robber fires on the robee when he pulls his own weapon in response, this is typically what people do when confronted with lethal force, they either run or they fight back. Now, again, I do not advocate violence if you can solve things another way, and the vast majority of people who carry handguns, contrary to popular belief, are neither stupid nor unreasonable. If the situation looks like it can be resolved by giving up your wallet, then for gods sake, do it. That wallet is replaceable, but you'll have a lot tougher time getting replacement organs if you decide to force the issue and fail (Also: practice so that if you are ever forced to use that gun, you DON'T fail.). On the other hand, some criminals will stab/shoot/crack your skull open after they get what they want even if you do submit, in which case, you have no choice. Fight back or die. Determining which type of baddie the one in front of you is, is the hard part. (And oh, by the way, one of the things they try to teach you in most self defense courses, is to identify and avoid high risk areas and get around the whole mess in the first place.)
As to why our crime levels are supposedly so much higher than the rest of the world...again...70% of statistics are made up on the spot by the people spewing them, If anything i'd say its a problem with our society in general. Look at Isreal, Switzerland, Canada....nearly as many/more firearms per capita than the USA does, and the swiss ISSUE out true assault rifles and SAWS (read: Full Autos), and have the owners report at least yearly for training (read: how to make other humans fall down and stop moving.). If more guns = more crime, and it's as simple as that, then explain to me why there isn't a massive crater in the middle of europe? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dude, nothing you say is going to convince me that using a knife is as easy as a handgun. Ever. They dont call the gun the "great equalizer" because knife advocates didnt like the ring of it when describing their weapon of choice. Gun is point and shoot, especially at the ranges they are usually used. They require no extreme physical strength, the size of the other person is irrelevant. If you had to go one-on-one with someone, you'd take the gun any day.
Knives can be blocked on limbs, or dodged. I wont pretend its easy or simple, but its possible. Knives similarily do NOT have the same mental impact of a gun. And they rely upon the strength and skill of the user. I requires very little to pull a trigger at close range, but to actually stick a knife into someone is a heck of a lot harder. You cant defend yourself against firearms. I'd consider bolting if faced with a knife, but no way in hell would I run away from a man with a gun unless I had some serious cover close by.
Guns can be used on the masses quite effectively, knives cannot. Nuff said.
As Ryo already pointed out, its not up to you to protect you - you have a police force. And if you feel they dont cut it, then get a dog. That said, if I lived in the US, I'd get a gun. Why? Because everyone else does (or seems to, or is assumed to have one) - so naturally any sort of intruder is going to assume I do and act to neutralise me should I interrupt them. And I'd like to have a chance.
Sometimes women cant defend themselves. Tough break lady. I will not have a hormonal woman walking around carrying a loaded weapon. Half the women I know I wouldnt trust with a kitchen knife, let alone firearms. The amount of times it would save a woman compared to the amount of times it would cause harm I hate to think of. Rape happens, and I dont think the solution to rape is the carrying of firearms.
I wont say that people who carry firearms are stupid or unreasonable, but when they are in an extreme situation, I dont count on them to do the right thing/intelligent thing. The great thing about firearm showdowns is that to win - you gotta pull it and use it first to win. It smacks of preemptive action. "He was robbing me and he was going to shoot me, but luckily I pulled my gun out and shot him so quickly he didnt have a chance." Whose to say he was gonna shoot you in the first place?
As for your last part - if you think stats are made up on the spot, I'm sure the Beauru (argh spelling) of Statistics dont do that. I'm also sure they have a website. Maybe that will have the true statistics.
So totally and completely agreed with your last point - its a problem with the American Society. Anyone have a great cure-all idea on how to fix the American society? I dont. However, you remove firearms from the general population, and you will see the amount of killings overall drop. Massacres will be extremely rare. I think killing, not crime overall, will fall.
in the us: 9 people per 100.000 are victim of homicide
in Europe, the mean in 2 per 100.000
In the US, 2,77 % of the households were victim of burglary
in the Netherlands, 1,44 %.
in the us: 9 people per 100.000 are victim of homicide
in Europe, the mean in 2 per 100.000
In the US, 2,77 % of the households were victim of burglary
in the Netherlands, 1,44 %. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The United States = A country
Europe = A continent
It's almost like apples and oranges.
There's sooooo many different things that would affect the rate of homicides and burglaries (Especially when comparing a country to a continent), such as economy, racial diversity, wealth of the citizens, density, population, and I'm sure I'm missing some other factors because it's 4am.
There's sooooo many different things that would affect the rate of homicides and burglaries (Especially when comparing a country to a continent), such as economy, racial diversity, wealth of the citizens, density, population, and I'm sure I'm missing some other factors because it's 4am. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I took the numbers of the biggest countries, and none have a number above 3. so it's not apples and oranges. And true, there are different reasons why crime rates could differ, but I have already given you reasons why I think the availability of firearms is involved. Kind of funny that you don't make these notes when talking about Florida <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
@ Skulkbait: People do not need firearms to rebel against their government. Plus, swords aree defensive weapons; the first to attack is nine times out of ten the one who dies.
The answer is no.
They are a tool. Same with a firearm.
Although I disagree with letting civilians own an automatic weapon, such as the AK-47. I think that's pushing it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->erm guns are evil if you arent smart enough to guess. making profit from something that will be used to kill somebody is also evil.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I fail to see how someone can derive evil from an inanimate object. To do so is silly.
Also, I fail to see the point of your arguments to say how firearms can be used for things other than killing people. Yes, we all know hammers can be used for things other than nails, but if the focus of the thread is discussing the killing of people, I fail to see the interest in discussing its uses in hunting etc.
You pro gun folks are missing the point. People are dying, and you can't overshadow or ignore the deaths. All you can do is try to make it look weak in comparison or show how great it is to have a sidearm for you since you never kill people. The issue are the deaths. I'm sure we'd have plenty more anti-gun people, but they're dead at the moment. Brady didn't snap when he went from pro-gun to anti-gun in a matter of one split instance. He was seeing the forest from the trees in the first time in his life.
Sexist ****, i know women a million times more responcable then some of the idiots that shoot themselves/other people on accident. The key is training... Kids blow their friend's head off because their curious... my kids wont, i am going to take them to the shooting range and educate them. Showing what a AR-15 can do to a steel bucket down range will get them thinking quickly about safety. When i was little, this very same thing happened to me and honestly it was one of the best times in my childhood. It would be cheap and very effective if we had some type of basic firearm education for EVERYONE. Simple things like Checking to see if a weapon is loaded, putting on a safety, how to handle a loaded firearm, and keeping the barrel away from things you dont want to shoot.
Could you cite your sources for those statistics? Neither <a href='http://www.interpol.int/Public/Statistics/ICS/downloadList.asp' target='_blank'>Interpol International Crime Statistics</a> or <a href='http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm' target='_blank'>The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics</a> agrees with what you've stated.
According to Interpol (which I believe that we can all agree is sufficiently accurate and politically neutral) the homicide rates per 100,000 people are as follows:
U.S. -- 5.61 (2001)
Australia -- 3.62 (2000)
Brazil -- 22.98 (2001)
Canada -- 4.10 (2001)
China -- 2.16 (1997)
Finland -- 1.71 (2001)
France -- 4.07 (2002)
Germany -- 3.23 (2002)
Italy -- 3.75 (2001)
Japan -- 1.10 (2002)
Russia -- 22.43 (2002)
Switzerland -- 2.91 (2002)
United Kingdom (England and Wales) -- 1.63 (2001)
United Kingdom (Scotland) -- 15.28 (2001)
Also as interesting reading that breaks down the numbers by weapons used and other factors is the <a href='http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/02cius.htm' target='_blank'>FBI Uniform Crime Report</a>.
Using a blanket statement like "Europe has 2 homicides per 100,000 people" is inaccurate. Nations like England and Finland have slightly below 2, but France, Germany and Italy all have more than 3. In France's case, it's more than 4. In Scotland, it's more than <b>15</b>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A few years back an incident occured at Port Arthur here in Australia. A yong man named Martin Bryant killed 35 people with a semi-automatic weapon. After this terrible event, the Australian government moved to outlaw most guns in the country, with the exceptions being in those areas I have described above. Today you need to be one of those people: a policeman, a farmer, or a sportsman, to get guns, and even then you're restricted. Average people can get guns legally, but it's very hard. You have to establish a need, and "self-defense" isn't a need.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
According to Interpol, the homicide rate has been fairly consistent from 1995 to 2000 in Australia. That would seem to indicate that the gun restrictions didn't have an impact on the homicide rate. While the homicide rate has gone up about 0.2 per 100,000, the serious assaults have increased by 200 per 100,000 people from 1995 to 2000.
It's also interesting to note that in the <i>Table 5, State, 2002</i> of the FBI link, you can see a difference in regional homicide rates. New England (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island) have an average homicide rate of 2.15 per 100,000 people. N.H. has the 2nd lowest rate in America with 0.9 homicides per 100,000 people. Compared to the South (Florida, Alabama, Georgia, N. Carolina, S. Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Arkansas) which has an average homicide rate of 7.57 (rounded to nearest hundredth). Louisiana has the highest rate in America at 13.2 homicides per 100,000 people*.
I think that it's important to note that America has seen a drastic reduction in crime since 1993. Murder and non-negligent manslaughter has dropped by 33.9% and aggrivated assault has dropped by 21.2%. These statistics are from the FBI link, <i>Table 1, United States, 1983-2002</i>.
*I didn't include the District of Columbia, as it's not an actual state. It has a homicide rate of 46.2/100,000. Also, I believe most 2001 statistics don't include the deaths from September 11.
<a href='http://www.minjust.nl/b_organ/wodc/publicaties/overige/pdf/ob211_07.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.minjust.nl/b_organ/wodc/publica...df/ob211_07.pdf</a>
(yea it is in dutch but I'm sure you understand the graph on page 6:
USA 6 ( in the last period, around 9 per 100.000 up till '96)
rest of Europe about 2-3)
O, it is a site of our Ministry of Justice
Could you cite your sources for those statistics? Neither Interpol International Crime Statistics or The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics agrees with what you've stated.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sources? You use sources?! I am defeated! Please take mercy! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
in the us: 9 people per 100.000 are victim of homicide
in Europe, the mean in 2 per 100.000
In the US, 2,77 % of the households were victim of burglary
in the Netherlands, 1,44 %. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
USA's gun homicide and household with gun statistics are way more revelative when you compare it with Canada. If you look at it, you can see that the percentage of households with guns has nothing to do with the gun homicide rate. (in one of my previous posts)
"Bowling for Columbine" says the same thing. I've watched that documentary and I've noticed that it is what is in the head of the guy who owns a gun that is dangerous, for gun safety and for crime reasons. If you don't allow potential criminals and irresponsable people to purchase a gun, there will be less gun accidents and gun crimes. But you cannot remove all guns because most of gun owners use them for hunting, target shooting and collecting and it doesn't hurn anybody.
There are no no-skill-required tools in this world. No weapon is without a counter. (And oh, speaking of, if knives DIDN'T cuase so much raw damage to the human body, then militaries would not have adopted firearms to keep thier men out of the range of such things.)
Aye, sometimes women can't defend themselves. But they should have every option availible to them to do so. And between you and me, I fear the fool who picks up a gun and thinks he's John <censored> Wayne, more than the woman who just got into law school on her period.
And again, read my entire post. I said that in the US of A, the police have NO (zero, zilch), obligation to protect you as a person. Quite the contrary, most of the time you will be on your own in that regard. Not the PDs fualt, your officers can't be everywhere at once. Hence the no legal obligation.
A dog? Lawsuit waiting to happen if your "attack dog" bites someone. Great idea.
"Pre-emptive action"? That's for the court to decide. In any case the man who shot the robber WILL be paying upwards of 20,000 dollars in legal fees, deal with this case for months/years easily, and probably be facing lawsuits from the man he shot! Woe be unto the man who uses lethal force even when it IS legally justifiable.
You've ALMOST landed on the money though in that to win a gunfight someone needs to be fast. But you also need to put metal on target and do enough damage to make your assailant go down first. Speed and power without accuracy will get you dead.
It would be great if you didn't need some form of weapon in this world, unfortunately reality seems to disagree with me. Bad things do happen, the difference is some are prepared, some are not. Related note: Flamethrowers are not legally considered firearms, so what happens IF all firearms vanished from american soil tommorow, and some <censored> decides to go into his high school with a flame thrower?
Knives DO take more strength to use. And you have to physically DRIVE it home, and most people find that way harder then pulling a trigger. And you can run from a knife. If someone pulls a knife on me, lunges for my body and hits my arm - I can still run. If someone pulls a gun on me, shoots at my body, I cant stop the bullet. I can even see it. Please can someone else support me here - who else sincerely believes that discharging a firearm on someone and stabbing someone with a knife are roughly equivalent in terms of difficulty of execution. The military built guns so they could do a knifes job at range. Thats all a gun is, a way of putting your steel through through them from distance. They didnt do it to keep men out of range of swords. The gun ended the sword because it took no great training to use effectively, didnt rely upon the strength and speed of the weilder, was relatively cheap to produce and could be used from a distance.
You reject my dog idea out of hand because of a lawsuit??!! And you are willing to shoot someone in the chest? I would suggest that if you cant handle going to court because your dog bit someone, then maybe you shouldn't be shooting people, because thats gonna wind you up in the same courthouse only in a heck of a lot more trouble.
Dont get me wrong on the women comment - I fear the hormonal woman just as much as the **** off male. However, in crisis situations, I put my money on the male.
With kids, you give them something, and then you watch how they handle it. If you give them a machete, and the number of trees in your garden decreases dramatically - obviously they cant handle the responsibility. You can either teach them responsibility, or take the weapon off them. You cannot do what is being done currently - which is point to the kid next door and say "well he has a machete, and he's not chopping trees down, so obviously machete's arent the problem", or "machetes are just a tool" and do nothing. And then you have to wonder why you gave him the machete in the first place. What can he actually do with it? Hurt himself - yes. Hurt others - yes. Defend himself? We dont want him hacking anyone up, even in self defence.
Seems to me that Americans have failed the responsibility test.
Show me in my post where I said everyone should go out, right this instant, and buy head to toe level 4 body armor? Nowhere. I was just ripping your "guns have no defense" arguement to pieces. Just like a gun, it gives you options in extreme situations, all it does. You can buy it and wear it on your head like a giant hat for all I care, or not. Your choice. You seem to think also, that a knife to the arm is somehow less of a life threatening injury than a gunshot in the same place, not really.
A dog has a mind of its own. A gun does not. A gun does not just go into the neighbors yard and bite thier child playing in the lawn on it's own accord. Not saying all dogs do that, but it's not out of the realm of possibility, between the dangers of the two? I have more control over what happens with the gun. I think i'll go that route.
And as far as male/female in a combat situation, I put my money on whichever one of them practiced more on the range and has a cooler head.
Responsibility, you have a point, flawed, but a point. You give a child something quite possibly dangerous, and then you stay with him as he uses said item, teach him the rules of using the <censored> thing before you leave him alone with it, let alone use it on his own. To do otherwise is irresponsible on YOUR part. I was brought up from day #1 having the rules of handling a gun drilled into my brain by my father (Who would've thought...). And in the case hes not responsible? Oh well. You take it away from him, you do not however go down the neighborhood checking houses to see if THEY have anything that might be dangerous either.
May I say, Marine01. Beautiful argument. Molto bello!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Responsibility, you have a point, flawed, but a point. You give a child something quite possibly dangerous, and then you stay with him as he uses said item, teach him the rules of using the <censored> thing before you leave him alone with it, let alone use it on his own. To do otherwise is irresponsible on YOUR part. I was brought up from day #1 having the rules of handling a gun drilled into my brain by my father (Who would've thought...). And in the case hes not responsible? Oh well. You take it away from him, you do not however go down the neighborhood checking houses to see if THEY have anything that might be dangerous either. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the parent does not teach responsibility to the child, then perhaps it is his own fault for handing over the machete to the child. Maybe he is irresponsible if he doesn't train him proper usage. This is irrelevant. It's as if you are saying America is irresponsible for handing out hand guns and not teaching Americans how to use it. Perhaps Americans should be trained with handguns, or perhaps they should be removed. I won't argue this. The point is the same though, you are admitting yourself that something needs to change which is exactly how we feel.
As for your last sentence, suppose someone's kid hacks up your kid with a machete. Would you care then? I dare you to say no.
Does something need to change? I say yes. Responsibility and the idea that killing people is a (Emphasis) *BAD* thing needs to be ingrained in people from an early age again. Unlike what some people think, you cannot legislate it into people at the national level. It's an individual quality in people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->According to Interpol, the homicide rate has been fairly consistent from 1995 to 2000 in Australia. That would seem to indicate that the gun restrictions didn't have an impact on the homicide rate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's because average numbers of guns didn't drop significantly. Most of the people who had guns in Australia were farmers and sportsmen prior to Port Arthur, and as such they were allowed to keep most of their guns after the event. Semi-automatic weapons were banned, but not many people had them anyway. Australia doesn't have the kind of "gun-culture" that the US has. What I am simply pointing out is that Australia survives perfectly well with tough gun laws and low numbers of guns. Yet we have quite a few large cities that, if transported to America, would fit right in (ask Americans who've been here). Except of course, the murder rates are much lower and not everyone is packing a gun.
In Tennessee, 845 people died from firearms in 2001. There were 2,401 FFL's in 2001. There were 6,472 registered machine guns (fully automatic) weapons.
FFL's are greatly outnumbered by private gun owners, so there may be 10 times that many gun owners. For instance, there are only a few within ~40 miles of me.
Although these numbers feel high, they are put in perspective when you realize the population of Tennessee is pushing 6 MILLION. You could walk around nashville all day, talking to everyone you see, and not meet one person who carries a firearm with them. Quite a few probably OWN one but it's locked up at home when they're not hunting or something similar.
So it's not like everyone's got a gun, got it with them, and are trigger happy. It just SEEMS that way because of the media and the statistics provided. I won't deny that cases of gun toting people are higher than in the UK or australia, but you seem to think that the majority of the people in any american city is armed at any one time! Certainly not the case.
Can make those 845 deaths practically nil by totally banning firearms? Certainly. If there wasn't a gun in tennessee, no one would die from guns. Regardless of that fact, I still want to own my gun, and it's not from parnoia or flawed american mentality. It, to me, is a tool and shooting is a hobby for me. If I have to go through hoops, get it registered, Hell, if I have to put a GPS on it so the powers that be know where that gun is at any one time, so be it. I'm not suggesting that, I'm just saying that you can reduce gun fatalities without totally banning them alltogether, and that's what I'd rather attempt to do.
Show me in my post where I said everyone should go out, right this instant, and buy head to toe level 4 body armor? Nowhere. I was just ripping your "guns have no defense" arguement to pieces. Just like a gun, it gives you options in extreme situations, all it does. You can buy it and wear it on your head like a giant hat for all I care, or not. Your choice. You seem to think also, that a knife to the arm is somehow less of a life threatening injury than a gunshot in the same place, not really.
A dog has a mind of its own. A gun does not. A gun does not just go into the neighbors yard and bite thier child playing in the lawn on it's own accord. Not saying all dogs do that, but it's not out of the realm of possibility, between the dangers of the two? I have more control over what happens with the gun. I think i'll go that route.
And as far as male/female in a combat situation, I put my money on whichever one of them practiced more on the range and has a cooler head.
Responsibility, you have a point, flawed, but a point. You give a child something quite possibly dangerous, and then you stay with him as he uses said item, teach him the rules of using the <censored> thing before you leave him alone with it, let alone use it on his own. To do otherwise is irresponsible on YOUR part. I was brought up from day #1 having the rules of handling a gun drilled into my brain by my father (Who would've thought...). And in the case hes not responsible? Oh well. You take it away from him, you do not however go down the neighborhood checking houses to see if THEY have anything that might be dangerous either. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He very well may chase me. But I like my chances a heck of a lot more when he has a knife. ANYONE likes there chances more when the assailant has a knife. Because guns can kill over distance. It isnt easy, but with the American gun culture I'm sure there are plenty of people who are trained and capable in the use of firearms, and could take you down on the run. And even inexperienced users can just spam and hope for the best - especially if they have a smg. Compare that to the knife. They HAVE to catch up and come within a metre of you. And it can still be blocked - without the need for a $200 vest. And then if you get someone to help you, you can take this guy down. But if he has a gun he can shoot you both just as easily - unless he's using a muzzle loading musket.
You were talking about stopping bullets as if it were as simple and easy a matter as blocking a knife swing. Having lvl 4 kevlar and plate is an extreme measure - I wont pretend its impossible to block bullets, but I'm talking about standard suburban situations. Kevlar jackets dont make an appearence. Arms to block thrusts do. So my arguement that there is no defence against guns holds perfectly and completely true - in the context we are discussing it in. Civilians.
A knife thrust to the arm IS less threatening then a bullet shot. Depending upon the power of the weapon, the bullet can travel through the arm and enter the chest. Very few knives are going to do that.
Sure you get the odd savage dog - but dogs are exactly like guns in one respect. You put the time and effort into training, and a dog is completely harmless to anyone unless they enter your yard. And for them to enter your yard, they will have to have been deaf, blind and mute because they didnt see your Rotti screaming in their face. Dogs are the complete home defence package. Dogs are pure defence - you cant turn em on a crowd. You dont even have to attack train it. If it barks and looks nasty - people will stay the hell away.
Agreed on the male/female situation. In my experience, men handle crisis situations better. I havent viewed combat crisis, but at the vet surgery were I work, men seem to take crisis situations a heck of a lot better in general.
My analogy was not for separate children in America, it was for Americans on the whole. When you have roughly 25,000 gun deaths a year (and please if I'm wrong there correct me, that number was stolen for BfC and many people have criticised the film so I am hesitant to use it in these arguements) then you have a serious problem. Moral and Ethical responsibility doesnt really cut it. Its not working, the people using these guns are definately deficient in both Morals and Ethics, and these arent things you teach people in 3 easy lessons. They are social problems that no immediate answer is available for.
So take the "machete" off the "child", educate the child, wait for it to grow up, and in the event that it doesnt take instruction or grow up, then make sure it never gets its hands on a "machete" again. You cant just leave the child with the machete and tell him he really shouldnt be using that.
Good lord - you think that the young people of America need to have it ingrained in them that killing is bad. Really? What shocks me is that they actually need to be told. I for one dont want a generation that actually needs to have it ingrained in them (because it obviously hasnt been happening up to this point) to have guns. I dont want them with paper or string, let alone firearms.
EDIT
To Ryo - I too felt the fabric of the space time continuum ripping <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
To Burncycle - agreed. Nothing wrong with firearms for hunting and target shooting, because these can be stored at ranges etc. But when you have the storage of firearms in your home, thats when the trouble starts. Kids get at them, owners are tempted to use them on anyone who intrudes, and they get stolen.
My real question was if the government decide to ban all guns tomorrow, all sporting rifles and target shooting pistols had to be stored in special lockups, and all "anti-personel" weapons - smgs and assault rifles were completely banned - would you be fighting that or would you welcome it?
Many probably would. In america, many gun owners call california a "communist" state because of their highly restrictive gun laws compared to the other states (what that has to do with communism I'm not sure, that's just a nickname that stuck I suppose). Many gunowners would probably protest a ban that restrictive heavily.
I own an SKS and an M44. Both are C&R firearms (curio and relic) meaning they're essentially an "antique" that has been imported. The SKS was made in the 70's IIRC and put into storage, and the M44 was made in 1944.
Because of it's C&R status, I'm allowed to keep the grenade launcher, flash hider, night sights, and bayonet. Most of these would be illegal otherwise. If I modify the weapon in any way, it loses C&R status, meaning it would not be importable and would be illegal unless I remove the features restricted by 922®
This sounds very evil- why can I have items that would generally be illegal just because it's considered a relic? Flash hiders are banned- so why can I have a flash hider at all? Why do they make exceptions for a C&R weapon? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of banning flash hiders if they are easily attained just by purchasing a C&R weapon? Perhaps, that's one of the problems with our laws- they're vague and aren't difficult to get around.
The major rules that apply to me (aside from state laws) are the 922® and the 1994 AWB. The 922® law essentially states that I cannot assemble a firearm that would not be importable. In other words, I can't import a firearm, then add parts to it here to form a firearm that would not be importable. C&R status is like a waiver- it lets specific "historical" firearms through, and as long as you don't modify it, it's legal even with usually illegal items.
What this translates to, is that if I want to modify my weapon, for instance add a scope for hunting, I have to remove all the features that would make this weapon un-importable. If I add a scope mount, the weapon is no longer considered a C&R, and that flash hider, grenade launcher, bayonet, and night sights are now illegal. If I remove those items, I can have the scope.
I don't mind the rules. Some gun owners are all gung ho about "2nd amendment rights" and think there shouldn't be any laws like that- they'll do what they want to their guns in spite of these rules that they liken to a "communist state". These are the worst kind- Any reasonable person would recognize that by defying the rules, all you are doing is giving the government an excuse to place MORE rules on top (which doesn't help gunowners any). These are the counter-productive people you see on the media where they search their homes and find silencers, explosives, machine guns, and enough firearms to supply a small army. Fortunately they are few and far between.
While some gun owners are paranoid that the government is oppressing their "rights" as I described in the previous paragraph, others are merely "survivalists"- their hobby is to be prepared, it's what they enjoy. While I doubt they WANT the government to go into a mode of martial law, they often talk about what would happen if "SHTF" (s*it hits the fan) and how they're going to survive, etc (think red dawn). This can be construed as paranoia, but I don't personally consider it as such- some people simply enjoy planning and being prepared. Some take it very serously, and for other it's just idle thinking.
Recently, legislation went through congress that would consider any .50 caliber BMG rifles as highly destructive devices that would fall under the same category as machine guns. This worries many gunowners because no crime has been commited with a .50 caliber rifle, and those who can AFFORD one (at $6,000+ each) usually are very careful about following the law. Such pre-emptive laws are the kind that really spark the gun owners who are paranoid into hiding in the corner more and more until they feel they have to take action. While it's true that a .50 BMG isn't suitable for hunting (overkill) or defense, it doesn't mean it deserves a highly restrictive ban. Most owners use the weapon for long range target shooting.
On a seperate note, I hardly think a victim being robbed by knifepoint goes "phew, at least it wasn't a gun, it's not so bad!." To them, at that moment, the weapon the enemy has in his hand right now is more dangerous than any gun that the robber does not have. Thinking "statistically, fewer people die from stab wounds than from gunshots, so this isn't so bad" is a good way to not take the threat as seriously as it should be taken- they may end up increasing the statistic by one more.
Some people just can't understand that most gun owners have guns for hunting, collecting and target shooting and not necessarly for defending himself or killing someone.
I repeat that I have many guns for hunting and target shooting. Most of my neighboors also have guns for the same reasons than me. I didnt purchased these guns for personnal defense because I know that nobody wants to kill me, I'm not paranoid. While these guns are mine, they won't kill anybody.
And if someone wants to kill somebody, he will generally take the easiest and most accessible way to kill him. If it is a gun, he will use it. If there is no gun, he will probably take a knife, poison or a baseball bat etc. etc. As we say, ways to kill somebody are infinite. So the real question is "how to remove someone's will to kill someone else?".
When I eventually buy a gun, I'd rather the sellers make damn sure they know how responsible I am with them. And I'd want the same for everyone else who buys one as well.
Granted, but I think (I hope) we've established it is a bit harder to kill with a knife. I'm assuming the victim doesn't stick his neck out for easy accessibility but will be running away. Yes, it's possible, but makes it a heck of a lot harder.
We could either A) Put guns in the hands of responsible gun users, B) Remove guns. I understand you guys still want guns, so hopefully you'll agree efforts should be put into giving guns to responsible gun users and not maniacs (if you're not a maniac, you'd agree).
Secondly, and I believe this to be the most important point. So long as firearms exist on this planet, and are used by the certain groups like the military and other cited above, any person deemed properly educated and responsible (rules are already in place for this in the Untied States, Background Checks and Safety Certificates) should have the right to purchase a firearm. Hitler disarmed his public before he began his campaign, and I understand that a Hitler type scenario with a rouge government is very unlikely, but armed public is defiantly a deterrent.
Lastly, I believe that personal responsibility needs to play a greater role in the lives of all people. If individuals truly understand the consequences of their actions, and the impact those actions have on their environment, they are less likely to act in a negative way. People who are predisposed to negative actions (serial killers rapist and the like) will commit violent acts with whatever is available. Like someone mentioned above, if someone wanted to commit murder and firearms were not available they would use rocks, or bottles or whatever means they could find to achieve their goal.
Gun Control = Education. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Granted, but I think (I hope) we've established it is a bit harder to kill with a knife. I'm assuming the victim doesn't stick his neck out for easy accessibility but will be running away. Yes, it's possible, but makes it a heck of a lot harder.
We could either A) Put guns in the hands of responsible gun users, B) Remove guns. I understand you guys still want guns, so hopefully you'll agree efforts should be put into giving guns to responsible gun users and not maniacs (if you're not a maniac, you'd agree). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And what about poison?
(A) is for me the good choice. It's the guy behind the gun that makes the difference.
(and I am a gun maniac, but not a killer maniac <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> )
Now, I will admit that the idea of guns used for hunting/sport shooting is perfectly valid. Actually, I have the best idea.
Let anyone own any firearm they want. That's right. Full-auto m16's, M249 SAW's, Bazooka's, M79's, AK47's, SG552, AUG's, P90's, MP5's, and so on.
And then make each single ROUND of ammo for civilians cost 5k$-20k$.
Barring that, just reduce gun ownership, and then require stringent registration/licensing and such for Farmers, Sport shooters and private ownership. It's my personal opinion that Farmers won't really need rapid-action semi-auto's, just give them large caliber Bolt-action rifles, same with sportsman.