A 4-year-old boy who was struck by a stray bullet while at church died Friday.
The incident happened around midnight Friday during a New Year’s Eve watch service at the Covington Drive Church Of God of Prophecy in Decatur, [Georgia].
It was not immediately clear who fired the shot that came through the roof of the church and struck the child, who was identified as Marquel Peters.
“It’s hard. He was my only child. He was only 4. He was a smart little boy, he was so sweet,” said his mother, Nathalee Peters.
I’ll try again but without the links to sources:
“In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220.”
“The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King’s College London said its research also suggested the number of gun-related deaths was falling since reaching a peak eight years ago. In 2008, there were 42 gun related deaths in the UK, in 2007 there were 51.”
The population of the whole USA is only around five times higher than that of Great Britain, and no guns DOES NOT equal more murders through other means: The 2002 murder rate in the USA was 5.07 people per 100,000 head of population, while in the UK it was 2.03 per 100,000.
The figures speak for themselves.
One in three households where both guns and children are present have the guns kept loaded and easily accesible.
In households with guns, children are up to seven times more likely to commit suicide.
Domestic firearms are FIVE TIMES more likely to be used to accidentally kill a family member than to even take a shot at an intruder.
But according to Faux News, there’s no connection between strong firearms control laws and low firearms death rates.
Face it Americans, your people are too stupid to be trusted with guns!
Hmmph, to me it looks like suicidal people shouldn’t be trusted with guns.
I guess without guns, we have to resort to razors, bridges and pills. Serious many ways I would hypothetically rather kill myself than a bullet.
In households with guns, children are up to seven times more likely to commit suicide.
That’s not just with a gun, that’s all forms of suicide. Guns make killing, even killing yourself, too easy.
I don’t think having guns around makes you suicidal. It might be more the atmosphere of the types of people likely to own guns. Most houses have a lot of very sharp knives and a medicine cabinet, but those items don’t in and of themselves taunt the depressed to off themselves. It’s the attitude of ownership, safety precautions, etc. Knives are for cutting food. Medicine makes you feel better when you’re sick. Guns are for? They’re not for making you depressed enough to commit suicide, and if you’re saying having a gun in the home makes someone more likely to eat a bottle of pills than if they only had the pills and no gun?
I think there’s obviously more to the story and can’t follow this statistic as a cause and effect. I know there’s a lot of dumb careless people, but I feel confident most gun owners are very careful and lawful, and they practice gun ownership seriously and safely. I thought you were saying guns make it easy to kill yourself with a gun, but you make it seem like it’s the gun’s fault someone feels suicidal and slits their wrists instead. I do not see what guns could have to do with suicide if the razors were already in the home too, that without the gun in the home, that person would not feel depressed or would choose to seek help earlier. It’s possible to miss symptoms without guns in the home as it is possible to notice things heading this way with guns in the household. Statistics can say this more likely than that, but it’s not showing cause. It’s just a thing, a potentially lethal thing, like a car or a knife or even a dog, which some people are reckless and most are careful and respectful of potential hazards of owning such things.
Like I said, it’s about the method. A bullet in the head is quick, clean and painless. Hanging, knives, jumping and ODing…. Well, go ask an ER nurse how much suffering they can cause before you die from them.
Do you think maybe then if you’re going to do it, do it in the most painless way? I don’t know what you’re getting at, but when people want to kill themselves, they’re probably already figuring out what method attracts them and not asking an ER nurse what’s the most effective and painless. I still don’t see how having a gun in the home causes people to act on their desperate feelings vs. not having a gun. Your previous post said “all forms of suicide” are more likely with a gun in the home, not just suicides with guns. I think it makes sense that suicides with guns would be higher – you have to have a gun before you can kill yourself with it, but what does that have to do with pills and ropes, etc., any more than having a nice set of chef knives, a garage, or an interest in archery or fencing, or poi juggling?
@ Kodie: My point is that fewer people do it if there isn’t such an easy way to do it. Juvenile suicide stats seem to back this up. It happens, but it happens less.
Having a gun makes suicide too easy, b’cos, if/when someone gets the urge, they can act on it in a matter of seconds. Where as, while driving to the bridge, they have time to think & maybe change their mind.
” I feel confident most gun owners are lawful and careful” WHAT?????
How can you make such a blanket statement? I presume you meant to say ” most registered gun owners” , for many posess a gun and can be considered an owner, but are still by nature violent and/or unstable, i.e.- domestic abusers, drug dealers, gang members, rapists, child molesters- I could continue, but suspect it is unnecessary. Regardless, when I see the typical NRA member becoming vocal, it is usually in an aggressive and dominating, defensive manner. One could easily infer, therefore, that those “legal” gun owners could be provoked to violence as easily as one who is not in legal posession. Gun laws could save lives. If nothing else, think of children who die when they play with guns in their homes ( trigger locks, please), or those victims of domestic violence who are inadequately protected by the law and whose tormenters escalate to homicidal insanity.
I don’t know a lot about guns or gun culture, so maybe it is a figment of my imagination, but stories like this one seem rare, and looking up statistically, it is relatively compared to auto accidents.
Everyone I’ve ever heard defend their right to own a gun sounds reasonable about it and has a respectful attitude toward the lethality of it, and teaches their kids the same. Kids can be more curious if you don’t teach them. With a lot of people monitoring their own precautions even if the law doesn’t make them, in addition to states where the laws are tighter doesn’t make me fear guns. By comparison, people usually take driving for granted and “multi-task,” or drink, or just don’t react in time for whatever reason. I don’t think I’ll get shot in my neighborhood, but I think I could get hit by a car any day of the week. Statistics sound pretty scary, especially to foreigners. Stories like this heighten a need to do something and the first thing is to stop too many people from having guns. It is like TSA enforcement – focus on thing, overlook many other things.
You could also say the same about cars, but we are not very strict about that. It’s not hard to pass the test and you never have to take it again. You could also say the same about having children, and some people do suggest licensing child-bearing, and sterilizing certain people if they don’t meet a minimum standard. It’s very difficult to have your own children taken away from you as well. You have to be a monster, not merely slightly inadequate.
Some neighborhoods might be less safe in regards to gun death – like crossfire or celebrations (stupidity as described in the article above) or walking past a house where a couple is having a domestic abuse issue. I agree there are some places where if one has access to a gun, they are too quick to reach for it as their stress levels rise. I don’t think taking away their guns helps more than addressing their socio-economic stressors and cycles. Resorting to crime (like robbery) is only one thing. Living in an environment where you are at such an edge you lose perspective quickly… what’s the solution to that? It’s not the guns, dear. It’s the attitude toward guns. It is people who would otherwise resolve conflicts by shouting the loudest. That tendency is what needs to be addressed.
I used to be like Custador and freak out about guns and just imagine guns as bad, people who have guns as typically careless, but I no longer think that’s the case. I do not put criminals in the same category, and of course some gun owners are irresponsible, as well, accidents do happen (much more likely with a car). I don’t really think the US would be better off if we just got rid of all the guns. I think that is missing the point. I’m not against stricter controls, but I have come around to see that stories like this make people hysterical to ban guns – that’s a blanket statement. Fear of crime, fear of accidents, I’m the victim of a would-be robbery (or worse) who tried to break into my 1st floor apartment in 1995 while I slept in my studio apartment, so my solution to that is not live on the 1st floor anymore. From 2002-2005, I did anyway, with 100-year-old glass doors anyone could get in, and I still never thought of having a gun. Taking away guns from responsible gun owners is a drastic solution. Statistics come off fairly exaggerated so close to an event. Everyone who owns a car or has a kid also swears they are responsible, and it’s different somehow. Flying is statistically safer than driving, yet some people are afraid to leave the ground and take their chances.
Some people are stupid. Some people are walking around with a chip on their shoulder and don’t think about consequences. Taking guns away doesn’t really take away the danger, because, like I said, I think most people take it as seriously as you want them to, and a few don’t, and most of them are lucky, while fewer still commit crimes intentionally or just have anger issues and don’t feel like going to the kitchen for the big knife. I do not hear about, aside from child-safety latches (cheap plastic locks), people dismantling their kitchen knives and keeping the knives locked for real. Also, in my bathroom, a few medicines have a safety cap but my drano does not. My mouthwash does. Well, hell, shampoo smells yummy and doesn’t have a safety cap. Where’s the cry for the control of shampoo and liquid dish soap? Matches in the junk drawer? Or dad’s lighter right on the coffee table. Are you going to worry about everything? Why are guns so special? I think most people handle their weapons with especial regard and deserve that right.
We also have in the US a thing about the government banning things that used to be fun and, you know, holding our hand and treating us like children. Frivolous lawsuits that cause companies to label their products against the most moronic misuses, etc. A few morons make the rest of us seem negligent and violent and stupid to the general public and the world, that doesn’t mean we need babysitter government taking away everyone’s gun because some idiot thought it was fun to shoot it on NYE. Punish the idiot, not everyone else.
“Everyone I’ve ever heard defend their right to own a gun sounds reasonable about it and has a respectful attitude toward the lethality of it, and teaches their kids the same.”
On the other hand, there was Charlton Heston’s “from my cold,dead hand” rhetoric and the NRA turning up in Columbine for a conference a week after the school massacre there (not the forst or last time they’ve done similar things, I believe). Daniel’s readers are, in the main, fairly intelligent – but I soncerely doubt that reflects on a majority of gun owners.
You seem to have this link between guns and stupid people which is not the case. I’m not taking the sample of just Daniel’s readers either. Columbine is a tragedy; however, access to guns may have upped the fatalities, of course, there is that exaggeration thing again. It doesn’t happen that often, and no reason to seize everyone’s guns. I think the NRA is trying to help people put these things into a perspective lest they do get hysterical and start banning guns from responsible people.
It may sound like bad timing to you, but when something happens so raw like that, the first reaction of many is to the cause of destruction, the weapons, not the minds of the youths who perpetrated. Well, they died by their guns also, we can’t rehabilitate them or punish them properly, nobody got the chance to spit on them and tell them what assholes they are, and I think that means a lot to people. What drove them to it? How can we keep people from being driven to it? Some people may think it would be better if they didn’t have guns, then whatever they were suffering would at least spared the others’ lives. I don’t have sympathy for them, exactly, but they didn’t just think it would be funny. They had been motivated to do it from circumstances in school. They could have built a bomb. When I was in school, we had bomb threats every day for a couple months. I know who was calling them in, and I have no idea why he did it, but there were no actual bombs. We carried our coats to class for waiting outside every day when the alarm rang. Why, if someone doesn’t have access to any guns, they just give up on the dream of destroying their school and their classmates, is that true? We only hear of school shootings now, very rarely, because guns are a little easier to get, so why bother making bombs? How many people just don’t get pushed far enough to quite go through with it? I don’t know how to reason with you, it’s not the guns.
No, that didn’t happen. Michael Moore spliced together footage from the AGM held a week after Columbine (because it would have been impossible to provide the legally required notification to the shareholders) with a rally two years previously, where he’d made the “cold, dead hands” statement.
Newsflash!
Gun ownership carries certain responsibilities and inherent dangers.
Just like knife ownership, chainsaw ownership auto, boat and home ownership.
Lets take them all away and go back to living in caves! Don’t you even think about picking up that rock, Ogg!
Kodie, the only reason you find reasonable arguments must be because you only read rational websites.
As an official gun nut, I will easily and freely admit that there are far too many insane and ignorant armed people in the US. I would really like to see some sensible gun control laws passed. Unfortunately, the only legislators passing gun control bills want them banned outright, and that puts all gun owners on the defense all the time. Passing any real gun reform is damn near impossible these days.
Kodie,
1) Cars serve a utilitarian purpose in daily life. Guns do NOT.
2) I support gun LAWS, as per my prior statement, not gun bans.
Regards-
Kodie-
The Columbine boys did make bombs, which were intended to cause the majority of the damage.
IIRC nobody was killed or injured by the bombs as they did not go off as planned or cause as much damage as the boys expected, as they did not make them well enough. The guns worked though.
I agree. If you live everyday with a level of insecurity that makes you feel you need to have a gun accessible, if your family has some “us versus them” mentality, then you might just already be at risk for gun violence or suicide.
Emphasis on “might.” I keep a handgun accessible, and I am confident there is virtually zero risk of me using it against myself or my family, for the same reasons ty outlined. It is for self-defense, period.
Well, I don’t own a gun, and I don’t plan to ever own a gun.
But I’m glad I live in a country that gives me the right to own one for the purposes of defending myself and my family.
I own three.
But we don’t have a child in the house, and the few times when a young relative or friend stays with us, we physically disassemble the gun and lock up the parts in separate places.
My wife and I have both taken combat firearms training and firearms safety training. We have well planned out rules regarding when the firearm can be used and not used, and we periodically go over them to refresh them in our minds. We’ve also purchased a firearm for home defense that physically can not overpenetrate and kill a neighbor. The odds of someone who isn’t a badguy getting shot by our gun are about as close to zero as you can get.
I also own a car, and I have alcoholic drinks on average a couple times a week. But I use the designated driver rule, and won’t drive after even one drink unless I have two hours to metabolize.
Lots of things can be deadly if you are not smart about how you use them. I don’t want a government that assumes I am too stupid to use my property correctly.
All that being said, I’d love to spend a few minutes alone in a cement cell with the kind of people who use their firearms so recklessly that a child can get hurt or killed by them.
US must be a very dangerous place if you need a gun to feel safe.
I would not live well with such level of paranoia.
Do you have a choice about what part of town you can afford to live?
Lock your doors at night?
Drive a car?
Do you drive around totally unconcerned with the other auto’s around you? Trusting the other diver will not collide with you as long as you are obeying the traffic laws?
Screw your casual attitude about what it takes for other people to feel safe.
“Trusting the other diver will not collide with you as long as you are obeying the traffic laws?”
That’s why I should have the right to drive a tank in the street, just in case another driver is risking my life. Oh, wait, then he would have the right to drive a tank too…
People who are licensed to drive a Tank on the street can already do this.
And you seriously think that’s a good thing, Sunny?
Sorry but I can’t stoop to stripping away rights from someone just because someone else thinks those rights are SCARY.
How about people’s “rights” to not get shot to death and crushed under tanks? Laws are there to protect people from other people, Sunny. In that regard, US gun laws fail miserably. Why would it be so bad to register guns and owners? Why would it be a bad thing to make them all have some training? Why would it be a bad thing to limit gun ownership to weapons which aren’t explicitly designed to murder people?
Tanks don’t exactly sneak up on people.
If you don’t want to get shot by a tank you probably shouldn’t shoot at them.
If you don’t want to get crushed by a tank then you shouldn’t play in the street.
Show me where I said it would be bad to register gunz and owners? (I do think it should be left to the states to decide.)
In fact it was even implied in my statement above to which you responded. “People who are licensed to drive a Tank on the street can already do this.”
Specifically to highlight the absurdity of escalating gun ownership to tank or nuke ownership.
“Why would it be a bad thing to limit gun ownership to weapons which aren’t explicitly designed to murder people?”
Who lied to you and told you guns are not supposed to kill people?
Hunting rifles do not exist for the sole purpouse of murder. Uzis do.
And now of all those impressive impressive “murder” statistics you showed, how many were by Uzis?
“Who lied to you and told you guns are not supposed to kill people?”
Who lied to you and told you that knifes are not suppose to kill people?
I’ve just used my knife to chop some shallots for making some stuffing that is going to be part of my roast dinner. It’s a very nice knife and could certainly be used to kill someone but I doubt that’s what they had in mind when they made the handle and blade out of one part of metal to stop the build up of germs.
You’ve got it backwards, Sunny. What proportion were with weapons explicity designed to go hunting? A few, no doubt, but probably not many compared to the vast majority which were with weapons designed for no other purpouse than to kill human beings.
LOL you keep trying to re frame the argument to be one of guns are only supposed to be used for hunting.
You are wrong. It is silly for you to try to drag the argument there in the first place.
Sunny, I completely disagree with you. I am completely convinced that you are wrong and defending the indefensible in the face of the evidence, in much the same way as creationists do. You seem to think the same about me. We are going to have to agree to differ on this one.
Creationist, really?
Who’s claiming evidence presenting none, and declaring victory?
You must be reading a different version of the 2nd Amendment than I am.
You are arguing from a position of what YOU want instead of what the framers of the constitution wanted.
You are still wrong. Please quit trying to lecture me about my culture and the document upon which my country was built upon.
@Sunny Day
I don’t think that Custador is trying to reframe the argument but just point out that the vast majority of guns are designed for one purpose only, which is killing people in an efficient way.
“In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220.”
“The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King’s College London said its research also suggested the number of gun-related deaths was falling since reaching a peak eight years ago. In 2008, there were 42 gun related deaths in the UK, in 2007 there were 51.”
The population of the whole USA is only around five times higher than that of Great Britain, and no guns DOES NOT equal more murders through other means: The 2002 murder rate in the USA was 5.07 people per 100,000 head of population, while in the UK it was 2.03 per 100,000.
You seem to worship the constitution like other people worship their bibles. It was written with a mechanism to alter itself built in for a good reason.
Oh, and as for that “you’re not from here so you can’t criticise” bullshit: I guess that means that pretty much every foreign policy decision that the US has taken over the last…. Well, forever, is completely wrong in your eyes.
@Jabster: Guns are weapons. They are supposed to kill. Why someone would want a inefficient weapon is beyond me.
@Sunny Day
You miss the point … a shotgun has more than one purpose an AK-47 doesn’t …
So we need to rewrite our constitution, endure a monstrous increase in violent crime (the criminal element will certainly not turn in their guns) to protect 3 out of 100,000? I’m so not caring.
“You seem to worship the constitution like other people worship their bibles.”
Wrong again.
“It was written with a mechanism to alter itself built in for a good reason.”
I agree.
However you have failed to give a good reason for adjusting the constitution. If you are still concerned you can move here, get citizenship, and try to amend the constitution yourself. that 3/4th majority of states will be quite a stumbling block though. I wish you best of luck.
“Oh, and as for that “you’re not from here so you can’t criticize” bullshit: I guess that means that pretty much every foreign policy decision that the US has taken over the last…. Well, forever, is completely wrong in your eyes.”
“Do you seriously think that the writers of the constitution, if they could see the state of the States thanks to that “right to bear arms”, they wouldn’t have been a bloody sight more careful about their wording?!”
Actually when you try telling me what the Framers of the Constitution ACTUALLY intended is when you should shut your Tea and Crumpet ‘hole.
But thanks for trying to confuse the issue and bring up all of US Foreign Policy as some kind of smokescreen. The Straw it burns!
“You miss the point … a shotgun has more than one purpose an AK-47 doesn’t ”
I think the error is you believing that it was a point. Trying to draw the issue away from what the framers intended and over to hunting. The 2nd amendment by no stretch of the imagination can be used to cover hunting.
Honestly who gives a shite about the 2nd amendment, do you always want to live in the past or only use the rules that suit you?
Spectacular!
You’ve fail utterly to address any of the points raised, instead shouting “straw man! straw man!” – in truth, I don’t think you even know what that means, or you’d realise how much it applies to what YOU’RE doing. Shouting “Straw man!” as a straw man argument – must be a first.
“You’ve fail utterly to address any of the points raised,”
Which points were those?
The laughable one about Tanks?
The one full of your ego and cultural myopia where you attempted to tell me what the Framers REALLY thought?
The point about agreeing with you on registering guns and owners with the cravat about leaving it up to the states?
The point where I supposed to care about the 3 out of 100,000 people who supposedly die to gun violence?
The point where you attempt to re-frame the argument to claim that guns are only supposed to be used for Hunting?
The point where you want to agree to disagree and throw a little jab in there about comparing me to a creationist?
Those failed miserable stinking points? Who the hell do you think you are fooling?
“instead shouting “straw man! straw man!” – in truth, I don’t think you even know what that means, or you’d realize how much it applies to what YOU’RE doing.”
It’s possible that I’ve confused the proper name for a shabby debate tactic you attempted to use and if so I apologize for using the incorrect term. Lets go over them and you can take the opportunity to give me the correct words.
When you brought up disagreeing with US Foriegn Policy, it had what to do about the constitution or the 2nd amendment.
When you tried to tell me that the framers didn’t intend the word “guns” to encompass an advancement over the Ball and Musket type of firearm. But do not seem to be willing to include the same advancements in the use of the Printing Press.
You brought up impressive impressive gun violence statistics and I pointed out that nobody will pick up a knife or cricket bat. You included thoughts on how a crowd of people can easily stop a guy when he’s not armed with a gun. I asked you to tell me how many of those aforementioned stats were based on attacks on crowds of people.
I would also like to apologize for using the words “that” and “they” and the accidental use of a . or ? or , in a few inappropriate places in some of my previous postings. I always cringe when I notice those mistakes or how the phrasing didn’t flow as well as I hoped. :(
Another point you brought up elsewhere in the thread, the one where you admit it’s already too late to have the USA reach the same level of disarmament of your country. I agree with you there.
So whats the matter?
I don’t share the same desire for the the level of gun control that you want for my country and the cavalier attitude I have for the #’s of people killed by guns and suicide by guns?
As I was the first to say the word “tank” and you find it laughable, sunny day…
I think the comparison is valid. You want the right to own a machine to kill because you are afraid of your neighbours who may have the same machine to kill. US answer seems to be: ok, everyone has the right to have one. I still find that a better decision is “”"no one”"” can have it. And a solution in between would be a high gun control with psichiatric evaluation for everyone who wants to own them, and a high legal responsability for everyone who missuses them
“You want the right to own a machine to kill because you are afraid of your neighbors who may have the same machine to kill. ”
Oh really? You know my intentions so well?
You/Me are a fucking idiot.
You/Me just blew the good thing I/we had going and just exposed me as your SockPuppet.
Yep that’s the truth ladies and gentlemen, Francesc knows me so well because I’m his SockPuppet. I have no thoughts or intentions of my own other than what Francec chooses to give me.
“And a solution in between would be a high gun control with psychiatric evaluation for everyone who wants to own them, and a high legal responsibility for everyone who missuses them”
OK.
First lets start with a psychiatric evaluation for everyone who lives with such abject fear of strangers with guns. Then we’ll hold them responsible for every injury caused by a lack…..
What, no?
The second amendment translated for the civilised:
“You have the right to own machines which have no practical use whatsoever other than for murdering other human beings”
Guess what? If you give people that “right”, some of them are going to assume it extends to allowing them to use what they have a “right” to own.
There’s nothing “right” about it. People have a right to not get shot to death, and in a civilised nation, that is far more important than any fake “right” to own a murder machine.
Actually, for fairness it should be pointed out that technicaly it says:
“You have the right to own machines which have no practical use whatsoever other than for murdering other human beings provided you are a part of an organised militia”
To my knowledge it says nothing about private individuals keeping murder machines in their homes.
Custador, you should really read Thomas Jeffersons notes on the second amendment, and what he was trying to say when he wrote it.
It is a fair argument that he probably didn’t foresee automatic rifles and shoulder fired missiles, but he was quite clear in his personal wittings about private gun ownership.
Custador, you should really read Thomas Jeffersons notes on the second amendment, and what he was trying to say when he wrote it.
Not to be pedantic, but it was Madison who wrote the Bill of Rights. Jefferson was ambassador to France during the Constitutional Convention (and I got five bucks that says that was intentional on somebody’s part) and during Madison’s research for the Bill of Rights.
Point VorJack.
I stand corrected. T.J. still wrote quite a bit about the right to arm bears in his personal letters.
And I fear an armed bear just as much as the next guy.
Thankyou.
That was hilarious Custy, I imagine you said it with the same straight face that you used when you said the Queen protects you from Tyranny.
Regardless that I don’t like gun ownership, I do have to commend you on your responsible attitude to it, Ty.
Thanks.
But I thought you were not opposed to gun ownership. Just uneducated gun ownership. You seemed to take that position with ddr below.
Not liking something is not the same as being completely anti. In Britain, I am anti gun ownership beyond farmers with shotguns because we’re better without them. I have already said, though, that it’s too late for that in America.
You are to be commended, but frankly, an exception to the rule. Many are too stupid and need to be told how to safely use their property. Acknowledging that fact should not be insulting. Be proud of your very high level of responsibility, but don’t expect everyone to be capable of emulating you.
Custy said “Face it Americans, your people are too stupid to be trusted with guns!”
Graduated top of his class in Dale Carnegies “how to win friends and influence people” course! Actually, I think he’s still smarting over the arse whooping his beloved red coats took at the hands of a few thousand colonial peasant farmers 200+ years ago! j/k Custy
But seriously, some of us Yanks are a bit weary of the Euro types incessant whining about U.S. gun ownership rights and their attempts at what amounts to the wussyfication of America as we see it. Statistics have no bearing in an actual incident and incidents are random, mostly unpredictable (although common sense plays a part for sure). That’s the very “reason” people buy firearms, so they dont become a statistic!
I dont personally own a firearm any longer, but I have no qualms with concerned citizens carrying firearms for their (and possibly my own) protection. I do however appreciate the wisdom of states requiring certain pre-cautionary measures such as background checks, etc prior to issuing licenses. Again, common sense (which is becoming less and less common these days) applies here.
I dont think Americans are too stupid to be trusted with guns. I think humans are.
Yep. I’m not too proud to point out when I agree with you, John.
My wife and I are going through the concealed carry permit process. I’m quite happy that there are rigorous requirements to obtain such a license. But I’m also happy that law abiding citizens with the proper training have access to it.
If “incidents are random”, explain how, then, there are distinctions of punishment for death a human being, i.e. murder vs. manslaughter.
Wussification? Really? Methinks only someone who feels his dignity threatened would resort to attacks of the same vein.
People buying firearms so they don’t become “statistics” are buying into the fear that they will, therby perpetuating more fear and violent responses.
I am obviously pro – gun control. I wish I could get the hell out of dodge without estranging family members. Canada, you are so close, yet so far away.
Two World Wars, the Holocaust, the Gulags, Bosnia, there was a lot of bloodletting in Europe last century. But at least the Europeans are smarter then Americans. Why else do us stupid Americans keep fighting in their wars?
http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec
Lies
So you think it’s acceptable to conveniently ignore murder and rape?
They are also too stupid to be trusted with world affairs, but that’s life.
As a UK ex-pat resident in the USA, and a gun owner, I say don’t generalise, just because you (we) were too stupid to retain our right to bear arms in the UK.
“don’t generalise, just because you (we) were too stupid to retain our right to bear arms in the UK.”
Please read through the cold, hard numbers I posted and tell me in what way we were stupid to get guns out of our society?
(Just to inform my opinion slightly: I’ve been on my national rifle shooting team and I still enjoy target shooting when I get the chance – But guns don’t ever belong in the home).
So you think only the police & military should have guns? Doesn’t that leave the population defenseless against tyranny & criminals?
As the statistics show, it leaves you at lower risk of being killed by criminals. The risk of tyranny is perhaps a valid point, but we have this thing called “constitutional democracy” that takes care of that quite nicely.
Actually, in the UK the police DON’T carry guns. There are teams like SO-19 which do for emergencies, but that’s it.
The low gun murder rate I already posted proves another point: Criminals in the UK also generally don’t have guns. They’re too hard to get hold of here, and the penalties for illegaly owning or commiting a criminal act with one are too steep.
Believe it or not, the Queen protects us from tyranny. Her only real power is that she can disband any government and force an election – and the armed forces swear allegiance to her, not to the government. It’s a system which works very well.
Sounds like you live on another planet. Criminals without guns? That’s hard for me to even imagine.
But that’s the way it is. There are guns out there, of course, but they’re very, very rare. It’s a major argument against giving police guns as standard; it ups the ante. Criminals will feel the need to arm themselves the police are armed. It’s better to live in a society where neither one side nor the other carries guns – there are no innocent bystanders in a fist-fight.
I agree that would ideal (though still not sure about the tyranny part — I want self-defense against a government if necessary). But the thing is, most criminals have guns. I also live in the middle of nowhere where some people think they can get away with breaking into your place. So I feel like I need one to defend myself. How does the cycle end?
Because nobody will pick up a knife or cricket bat.
NOBODY.
@ Daniel: In America, I just don’t know. Like I said, Pandora is out of the box there, and you can’t put her back.
@ Sunny: Guns make killing easy, and they make it very hard for an unarmed person to defend against. Attack a crowd with a knife or a bat and you’ll get torn to peices real quick – do it with a gun, and people run away. The proof of this is in the murder rates I already posted – 5.07 per 100,000 with badly controlled guns, 2.03 per 100,000 where the only guns are extrmely tightly controlled.
“Attack a crowd with a knife or a bat and you’ll get torn to peices real quick – do it with a gun, and people run away. ”
Strawman.
How many of those above statistics were attacks on crowds?
Such as school shootings you mean? Not such a straw man, Sunny.
To be fair Custador, he asked how many of the above statisics were on crowds, not has anyone ever attacked a crowd.
12,791 homicide deaths in 2006.
Total school shooting deaths = 15.
News Media has made school shootings into a world wide epidemic. In reality, its an almost insignificant statistic. Almost, accept that its kids dying.
In every case I’d read about school shootings, a good mental health program would have gone a long way in preventing them.
Many criminals have guns. But few burglars are armed. Burglars are mostly dopers looking for stuff to sell to get drugs. If they had a gun, they would sell it to get drugs. Or they would use the gun to do a crime with a higher pay off than taking someone’s xbox and computer. The armed home invasion stories you sometimes hear on the news are almost always about a group of dopers trying to take down their dealer and get all his drugs.
I’m a retired cop and gun owner. But I don’t sleep with a gun near my bed. All my guns are unloaded in the gun safe. I don’t like guns for home defense. There is just too big a chance I will miss and the bullet will punch through the interior wall to hit someone I care about. That is the big problem with shooting guns in a house. The bullet will not just hit what you want to hit and stop. I just can’t feel good about spraying lead all over an area where my loved ones are.
I’ve got dogs as a first line of defense to let me know if someone is around and I have a great big sword within reach if I need to go check out a noise in the house at night. I really think that is a much better solution. Yeah, there is a very slight chance I might be taking a sword to a gun fight. But bringing a gun into that situation is not a guarantee that I would live and it would lower the odds of my family living because more bullets would be flying around.
I hear you ddr.
And yet, the most recent break-in attempt at my house (our third in just a few years) the guy was carrying a pistol. Fortunately, he wasn’t able to get past our steel solid core door with heavy deadbolts. Which is our first line of defense.
I don’t worry about hitting anyone but my target, because my home defense weapon is a 12 gauge loaded with #2 shot. From ten feet away or so, it will basically disintegrate whatever it hits, but it won’t go through a wall and still have any killing power.
And jeebus, dude, a sword?! I have to admit, in spite of three years studying a martial art that used swords, I’d be far more worried about hacking myself or my wife up swinging a sword around then I would about shooting either of us accidentally. :)
Exactly, those impressive impressive statistics were not complied on the criteria of an attack on a crowd of people with a gun. Yet when I mention Knives and Cricket Bats, poof, suddenly a crowd gets brought up.
@ Revylution: Attack me with a knife or bat and I’ll give myself good odds of disarming and detaining you without either of us sustaining life-threatening injuries (and I have scars to prove it). Pull a gun on me, and it’s better than even that one or both of us is getting killed – probably me. Even if I had a gun, by that point it’s too late anyway.
@DDR: I find that the people most qualified to use firearms are also those most in favour of tight gun control. I have to wonder, if people want to own firearms but don’t want them registered or to obey basic safety guidelines – why not? What are they afraid of? Those people, by definition, should never be allowed to own guns. Ever.
:) Yeah. No weapon is really safe. Just a personal choice.
Yeah, there is always the one time that a burglar is armed and really wants in your house for some reson. Shotguns are very messy. Went to a scene once where the burglar was shot with one. Blood and little scraps of skin every where. And the guy had AIDS, so we have to get our moon suits on to go in and get evidence. Very unpleasent.
@Custador : I didn’t say I was in favor of gun control. I have some real mixed feelings about it. I really think that it would end up being mostly uninforcable. People have owned guns for centuries and if guns were outlawed, people would hord them for centuries more.
I often take a gun along when I go on a road trip or if I go hiking someplace. But it is just a matter of the right tool for the right job. I just think that in most cases a gun is the wrong tool to take with you to check out a noise in the night. Once you pull thge trigger, you own what ever damage is done and what ever life is lost. Too big a risk for me.
Controlling guns doesn’t mean banning them – it means making sure that anybody who has them handles them properly and isn’t a complete muppet.
ddr:
Here’s hoping I never ever have to use it. But if I am ever forced to, I prefer messy over murdered.
“Controlling guns doesn’t mean banning them – it means making sure that anybody who has them handles them properly and isn’t a complete muppet.”
I am all in favor of education requirements. I mean, hell, we demand people demonstrate an adequate level of safety education before we let them drive a car. I’d be fine with requiring gun safety education of prospective owners. My wife and I did it voluntarily, because we take it very seriously. I dislike the idea of anyone who does NOT take it seriously.
The harsh fact is, Ty, you stand a better chance of mistaking your wife for a burglar and shooting her dead than you do of shooting a burglar – and vice versa, of course. Let’s also remember that a body doesn’t always stop a round – even if you hit an intruder, you have no clue where that round is heading next.
You don’t know crap about me, Cust, so stop acting like the expert.
There is a pretty close to zero chance of my wife or I ever mistaking the other person for a burglar and shooting them. Mostly because rule number one of the list of requirements for pulling the gun out is that the location of the spouse is known. If I wake up and hear a noise, and my wife isn’t immediately visible to me, I don’t get out the gun. Same with her.
Also, yes, I know exactly where the round is going. I specifically buy ammunition that can not penetrate a wall with killing force. If I hit the target, the shot stops with them. If I miss and hit a wall, the round stops at the wall.
I recognize your evangelical zeal on this topic, but the fact is you are taking generic statistics and trying to apply them to individual cases. That’s not a smart thing to do, especially when you don’t know crap about the individuals in question.
Custador, I dont think you will find much residence to education and licensing here.
Also, your US statistics are filled with the idiot fringe. We let lunatics have guns here. Saying that you have a ‘ better chance of mistaking your wife for a burglar’ is specious.
If you take the time to dig into the statistics, people that have appropriate training and education in firearms have a very low chance of shooting the wrong person or being shot with their own firearm. They also have a very high percentage of using a weapon to stop a crime.
In your statistics of ‘more likely to get shot with your own gun’ most people forget to mention the other half of that statistic. The person holding the gun is very likely to be your spouse. Its not like criminals are breaking into peoples homes and taking the guns away from them, then shooting them.
I’m sure every person who ever accidentaly shot a loved one felt equaly qualified to handle their weapons before the fact, Ty. That doesn’t change the grim statistics of it. I sincerely and honestly hope that you are right about yourselves and that you never have to find out either way.
And you would be wrong yet again. Most people who buy guns do not take gun safety courses, nor firearm combat training. Most of them never seriously discuss the rules of gun use in home defense. Even a simple rule like the one I list above, “Don’t pull a gun unless you know exactly where your loved ones are,” would be something uneducated gun users never think about.
So, no, not every person felt qualified, because frankly, most people never stop to think about it.
Only the police have guns? Hell no – we take their guns away too.
Yes, I know some UK police do – but as far as I’m aware they’re in an extreme minority, fairly tightly regulated and only deployed when there’s a genuine reason for them to be there, and it’s an absolute scandal when the police accidentally shoot someone (whether or not justice was reached in the end, the Menezes case has been national news for years). In theory, we keep the police in line through the government (although they’re perfectly capable of killing people armed only with sticks). There’s even been a public backlash about giving police tasers. The idea of traffic police with guns gives me the fear.
As for crime – I’d feel a damn sight safer if my house was broken into knowing that it’s highly unlikely the burgler has a firearm than I would, even armed myself, knowing to a certainty that they were packing. The idea that gun ownership would make me feel more safe than living in a country where most people (criminals included) don’t have guns is ludicrous.
And frankly, barring the survivalist brigade (who are scary in a whole different way), if your military decided to turn on you, you really think you’d be able to defend yourself with domestic firearms?
“I’d feel a damn sight safer if my house was broken into knowing that it’s highly unlikely the burgler has a firearm than I would, even armed myself, knowing to a certainty that they were packing. The idea that gun ownership would make me feel more safe than living in a country where most people (criminals included) don’t have guns is ludicrous.”
Bingo.
“So you think only the police & military should have guns? Doesn’t that leave the population defenseless against tyranny & criminals?”
I hear the tyranny argument a lot in the gun control debate, and it’s a complete non-starter for me. The general population never will, and shouldn’t, own weaponry of the sophistication, size and devastating force that the police and millitary have. (Particularly the millitary.) If the government, with the support of the millitary, ever decided to impose “tyranny” on us, there is no gun we can buy that could stand up against the tanks, aircraft, missiles, bombs etc.. they have. We may as well have pea shooters. We don’t live in a muskets vs muskets time any more.
Take whatever position you want on gun control, but the handgun you can buy at the sporting goods store is not going to do much against the full force of the millitary.
Because soldiers never leave their tanks and aircraft?
Heavilly armed civilians didn’t stop your army taking Baghdad – what makes you think Boston could do better? There might be more RPGs in Boston, I’ll concede that.
Taking a place is not the same thing as enforcing your orders in a place.
All the military can do is blow up buildings and destroy public services and mass indiscriminate killing of people.
Mission accomplished indeed.
I think we have different ideas about the usefulness of picking off a stray soldier or two (or two hundred.)
Were our government to actually turn tyrannical against us (something exraordinarily unlikely), the guns available to us would have extremely minimal usefulness in overthrowing that government. Any internal force trying to overthrow the government would need foreign aid to do it. (Assuming the millitary wasn’t itself involved in overthrowing.) You may be an annoyance to a select few for a while with those guns, but you will pretty quickly be dead.
In fairness, holding a land-mass the size of the USA against the will of the populace would be very difficult, the troop numbers you’d need would be insane… Still think that being the nation that has 5% of the world’s population but spends 50% of the world’s military budget is a good thing? ;-)
“In fairness, holding a land-mass the size of the USA against the will of the populace would be very difficult, the troop numbers you’d need would be insane…”
Not sure what your point is here. You may well be right, but my point was to rebut the “we must have guns to fight tyranny argument.”
BTW – if you are right it’s yet another reason to not need a gun to oppose tyranny.
I was more pointing out the ridiculous American infatuation with their military and how grossly disproportionate it has become in size and budget.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm
It sounds like the Swiss are even more infatuated with their military, more in love with their guns than the US as a culture (we’re not homogeneous, you know), and while they are at it, manage to have low gun crime rate. I don’t think it’s the guns, Custador. I don’t think it’s the military.
More on the guns and Switzerland and why it’s not the guns:
(later, there may be 3 of these posts stacked up – for some reason, it’s not posting).
http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html
The Wall Street Journal Europe
June 4, 1999 Stephen P. Halbrook
The Swiss militia model, however, preserved democracy and held Europe’s despots at bay. In fact, it inspired the rebellious American colonists.
John Adams praised the democratic Swiss Cantons, where every man was entitled to vote on laws and to bear arms. Patrick Henry, another American Founding Father, lauded the Swiss for maintaining their independence without “a mighty and splendid President” or a standing army.
The Swiss influence is clear in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today, it has become fashionable to hate this orphan of the Bill of Rights.
However, a quick glance at history shows that tyrannical governments kill far more than do private criminals. But first, governments must disarm their victims. In 1933, the
Nazis seized power via massive search-and-seizure operations for firearms against “Communists,” i.e., all political opponents. In 1938, during the Night of the Broken Glass, they disarmed the Jews. When the Nazis occupied Europe in 1939-41, they proclaimed the death penalty for any person who failed to surrender all firearms within 24 hours.
There may be various reasons why the Nazis did not invade Switzerland, but one of those reasons is that every Swiss man had a rifle at home.
So what you’re saying, Kodie, is that the US had better embrace socialist values pretty damned quick? I agree wholeheartedly!
However, this is apples and oranges: America DOES have a huge problem with gun crime – so I stand by the notion that if America had never had guns after the Springfield rifle, it would be a safer place today.
Boy, I would love to get my hands on a Springfield. My sisters husband has one, shoots like a dream. Heavy bastard, I feel sorry for all the GI’s that had to pack them, of course I feel sorry for all the GI’s today that are expected to fight war with a cartridge better suited to coyote hunting.
FYI, the automatic Browning Pistol was invented prior to the Springfield. Even if we stopped developing new guns, there would still be automatic pistols on our streets.
Nothing is instant – but if you start registering all new firearms and recording their balistic signiatures (rifling patterns) together with who owns them (and indeed who is licensed to own a gun period, I can’t believe that no such register exists), over an (admitedly long) period of time, the police will slowly remove more illegal weapons from the streets than make it back on to them. I know the US will never give up its “right” to posess things which have no purpose beyond murder, but for crying out loud at least get some kind of control over them!
Oh absolutely. I still think its silly that we don’t have a licencing system for gun owners in the US.
I am hesitant about gun registration. Australian politicians told their electorate to register all their firearms, and promised not to take them away. It didn’t take them long to go back on their promise. I have a friend who is a police officer in Sydney. They even took her antique black powder rifle and cut the action.
Just one little anecdote from her:
One of her duties is handgun training. SInce the ban in 1998, the recruits she gets are so gun illiterate that they sometimes shot themselves in the foot drawing their firearm.
She also tells me that the number of automatic weapon seizures keeps going up too.
Of course, anecdotal evidence is worthless. Statistics are far more enlightening.
AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%
Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of- the-elderly
At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said “self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm”
From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia had averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.
The ban has destroyed Australia’s standings in some international sport shooting competitions
The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has risen to 112,000, a 200% increase, in response to the ban and as an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.
Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in “safety” has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in “ridding society of guns”. Their response has been to “wait longer”.
An unfortunate problem with gun control is that for a while law abiding folks will find it harder to get them than criminals – like I said, nothing’s instant, it’s got to be long-term. Without gun control, though, there is no hope at all of getting them out of criminal hands. The ideal should be that it’s difficult for a citizen to get a gun unless they are suitable to own one and it’s near impossible for a criminal to get one. I know that’s shooting for an ideal, but as an American how can you want the situation as it stands to continue?
Oh, I definitely don’t want the situation as it is now to continue. I just disagree on how to change it.
Starting with social welfare. I would be a happy monkey if we could just transplant all of the healthcare and social reforms England adopted 60 years ago. Add in the responsibility of the Swedes, the secularism of the Finlanders, the humility of the Japaneses, the brew craft of the Germans (well, honestly, here in Oregon we have some damn fine brewers) .
I would bet dollars to doughnuts that fixing those problems first would be easier, cheaper, and render the gun debate moot.
You have a point, Revy.
Daniel, for myself, yes I do believe this. I never saw a gun until I was 17 and crossed the border into Northern Ireland.It was scary. Like Custador says the UK Police dont usually carry guns. I certainly wouldn’t feel secure if they did!
Guns… escalate things. If the Police all have guns, criminals will all need to have guns. If ordinary people might have guns how am I supposed to feel I can walk down a street without getting shot?
Americans seem to love guns as a symbol of freedom, but free speech was a far better symbol.
The other option being perpetuating more gun violence?
I can only describe this as an ignorant, spoiled, view about guns. As an liberal atheist who lives in the south, you better damn well better believe I am going to own a firearm! And I do not appreciate your attempt to demand that I be unarmed in an are filled with “god fearing” rednecks whom have no qualms about dragging me behind a truck because I’m a “dirty atheist”! While your “statistics’ are nice, they do leave out the large number of lynchings that where stopped by the personal ownership of a shotgun.
My statistics are FACT. Your opinion is OPINION. Vive le diference. I’m neither ignorant nor spoiled, and if all you can do is (metaphorically) scream “WAH! WAH! WAH! SELF DEFENCE! WAH!”, then you’re onto a major loser – your argument has been debunked a thousand times by better people than me.
You also need to differentiate somewhat; some people (even in the UK) have shotguns because they need them. I was a farm boy – I’ve owned them myself in the past. A double barrelled shotgun is one thing – a 9mm semi-automatic pistol or a 7.62mm fully-automatic assault rifle, however, are a whole different ballgame.
Buckshot hursts and leaves scars. Hollow-points kill you painfully. That’s the difference.
My arguments been debunked?? Rally? So in your la la fantasy world black people in the south where never banned by law from owning firearms, then constantly living under the threat of being drug out of their homes and hung from trees? You need to do some history reading.
And no, buckshot will not “just hurt” it will blow a whole the size of a softball through a man. And I stand by you being spoiled, here in the US south, people can be extremely violent towards minority groups (ethnic, and religious), history has shown that over and over again (hell the only reason liberalism exists in general is because of the firearm). All your doing is demanding that those same minority groups must be unarmed against the pitchfork welding mobs that when given the chance will drag you out of your house. Or at the least they must live under the threat of such, and in turn will loose much of their rights, once again, this did happen here and you should read up on it.
“Domestic firearms are FIVE TIMES more likely to be used to accidentally kill a family member than to even take a shot at an intruder.”
That matters. I’m sorry, but it does.
As for “pitchfork wielding mobs”, well, here in what we like to call “Civilisation”, we have things called “police”, and they deal with violent criminals on our behalf. We also have a thing called “the judiciary”, and what they do is, they hand out punishments to violent criminals which are hopefully harsh enough to deter other criminals from being violent. Since violent crime rates have been dropping for years here in Civilisation, I have to assume it’s working.
Meanwhile in “the colonies”, gun ownership during the ’60s and ’70s more than doubled – and so did violent crime.
Enough said.
Many, many of the lynchings that where preformed here in the south where done so BY law enforcement. In one famous case a jewish man was taken from a prison and lynched by a group that was believed to contain a judge, and several local politicians. Yea that’s reality!
“Civilization” is also not some magic all present unshakable force, it can also disappear rather quickly, just ask a Yugoslavian.
Captain – Are you saying that in your experience law enforcement in the modern south engage in acts of violence against minority groups?
Bill, depends what you mean by “modern south”. Within the last hundred years, most defiantly. 50? Yes. Does it happen today? No, not within the last few decades (although many rumors still surround the police today), but lack of current involvement does not mean with such a history that it can not, or will not happen again.
“Bill, depends what you mean by “modern south”. Within the last hundred years, most defiantly. 50? Yes. Does it happen today? No, not within the last few decades (although many rumors still surround the police today), but lack of current involvement does not mean with such a history that it can not, or will not happen again.”
This is interesting. I’m not from the south, but I have in recent years spent a fair amount of time there. It is not a place I would chose to live, but I’m not left with the impression that it’s not the same place it was 50 years ago. Yes history can repeat itself, but do you consider that likely?
Incidentally, I know that it’s too late for the USA to control guns – Pandora is well and truly out of that box – but they should at least think about controlling ammunition sales.
“Incidentally, I know that it’s too late for the USA to control guns”
I think it’s still possible, but VERY unpopular in large parts of the country. Politicians have no stomach for it, and thus it’s very unlikely.
Its not a matter of finding politicians that have a stomach for it, its a matter of you not having thought it through.
1st. You’d have to pass a constitutional amendment.
2nd. Your opinion is a minority opinion.
3rd. It is not possible without the total dismantling of our society.
To ban guns you would have to declare martial law and utterly and ruthlessly enforce it for a period of YEARS. You would have to cordon off the area allow nobody in or out, go house to house block by block and search each and every square inch of space.
Then rinse, repeat. For YEARS.
At the end you would have the tyrannical society that would make you feel safe and cozy.
Sunny – Please, feel free to disagree with me but don’t assume me so stupid to not have thought it through.
1. A constitutional amendment is the current preferable method inlight of the make up of the current Supreme Court, as well as recent 2nd amendment rulings, but it is certainly not the only method of BANNING guns. A different court will be in place some day who may well have a very different view of the 2nd amendment. One ruling could easily allow for a legislative ban on individual gun onwership shy of an amendment.
Please note however that my comment was not about BANNING guns but about controlling them. There are legislative steps that can be taken to control guns shy of banning them.
2. How do you even know what my position is? It appears you are assuming my position is for an outright ban. It’s not. I want to limit the types and number of guns available, and make damn sure that the people buying guns are the type of people we want owning them.
3. Your kidding with this right? Our entire society is built and premised on the unfettered ownership of guns?
Even if we did enact a ban, house by house searches wouldn’t be needed. A voluntary submission would get a large number, and over the course of years the remaining guns would be found and confiscated in the regular course of law enforcement activities. Just as they are today. Difference would be that there would be thousands more flooding the market the next day.
“Difference would be that there would be thousands more flooding the market the next day.”
That was the point.
“Difference would be that there would be thousands more flooding the market the next day.”
“That was the point.”
That was suppose to read – difference would be that there WOULDN’T be thousands more flooding the market the next day. My mistake. (But I think you understood that.)
Oh. Silly me.
I thought you understood that there was no way to get the guns without going house to house to take them. That the asinine idea of asking for the non violent law abiding element of society to disarm themselves would be utterly futile.
“I thought you understood that there was no way to get the guns without going house to house to take them. That the asinine idea of asking for the non violent law abiding element of society to disarm themselves would be utterly futile.”
Ok – fine – if you really don’t understand that cops confiscate many guns every day I can’t make you. The process would take a long time but would not require house to house searches.
It’s an academic debate anyway because it’s not happening.
Straw man argument much?
As far as I’ve read, Cus hasn’t yet suggested you should go out and hawk your gun tomorrow. If I were to live in the US long term, I would probably own a gun for exactly that reason. Your straw man about racial discrimination aside, I agree that if the US were to drag in blanket gun restrictions tomorrow, I agree that the result would probably be a crime wave.
That doesn’t change the fact that you live in a country that is more dangerous because of gun ownership.
This is not a moral indictment on you for owning a gun. Owning a gun in a gun-ridden country is prudence. It is, however, a moral indictment on people who claim that universal gun ownership is the safest way that your society can be.
I also take exception to your hinting that peace and democracy can only come down the barrel of a gun. It was pointed out to me recently that of the Western European countries, none has gone to war with each other in the last sixty years (a millennia-long record, if I’m not mistaken), not because of guns, but because of politics.
Custador, I think your numbers are a bit specious. Comparing only two countries, then declaring causation is poor logic.
Why do we have less crime in Canada than in the States? Canadians own more guns per capita than the Americans do. (for full disclosure, im currently a resident of the US, but my family lives in both countries). Finland and Sweden both have high gun ownership rates, but low homicide rates.
When I look at violent crime rates, I see a far better correlation between healthcare and education availability than gun availability.
Canada and Finland lack the common factor: Fox Noise.
It’s not just about ownership, it’s about control – who can legally own guns (and more improtantly who can’t), how they are required to handle and store those guns (and the consequences for doing it wrong), where are the details of all circulating guns and gun owners registered, who enforces gun regulations, etc. etc.
Look at Germany: A 15 year old there shot a bunch of his classmates with his father’s gun. Result? The father is being prosecuted for manslaughter because his guns weren’t secure. Does that happen in the US? I doubt the NRA would let it.
“Look at Germany: A 15 year old there shot a bunch of his classmates with his father’s gun. Result? The father is being prosecuted for manslaughter because his guns weren’t secure. Does that happen in the US? I doubt the NRA would let it.”
I’d Vote for that. It is the responsibility of the Gun Owner to look after their weaponry.
I cannot fathom why you would stay in such an environment.
Custy comes from a culture that has been routinely disarmed as a matter of course.
And I thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for that.
From Musketballs to Meatballs :)
Oh, sorry Custador, I thought you were arguing that gun ownership itself was a bad thing.
Are you arguing that gun ownership is good as long as there are controls on it?
If so, then why were you defending Englands near eradication of gun ownership?
Horses for courses. In the UK, no guns is good because it works. In the US, it can’t work because it’s too late – however, I will concede that there are coutries where gun ownership is common and it works, but only because those guns are tightly controlled (and because their nightly news isn’t a Fox Fearmongering Fest).
Ill gladly agree to that point.
More full disclosure, Im a gun nut. I love to go shooting, and have a safe full of guns that most people would describe as ‘only good for killing people’.
What’s frustrating to me as a gun owner is, well, most of the other gun owners. Religious nutbags who plan on waging war against Obama’s Army. I like to go to gun shows, as long as I don’t have to talk to any of them.
I also split from most gun owners in the US on licensing. I would gladly support a drivers licence type system for guns. People should take a class, and get qualified to own them.
Maybe you already know this about the US – some states have stricter gun control laws than others. I don’t feel like I have to carry a gun in Massachusetts, even though police and criminals do. In the south, most states have looser laws and I’m not sure it’s really necessary for them to carry or own guns than it is in the north, but they can, so they do. I would like to see a breakdown on the statistics from states with tighter laws and no real gun culture and then from a state with more of a gun culture and looser laws, and see if gun states are more dangerous actually.
There is also a difference between people who own guns for protection and people who are avid hunters (although there is obviously overlap for gun enthusiasts). Some people do not own guns for protection but do enjoy shooting a deer or a duck sometimes, and that’s a different gun-owning culture than a prepared would-be vigilante. I have been thinking of getting an antique gun because they’re interesting and learning how to take care of it and use it properly, although I don’t plan to use it, and probably would keep it for display and unloaded. I grew up without guns, this is just something that piqued my interest recently, so I don’t know too much more about guns or gun laws in my state.
Kodie, there are breakdowns by state. Do some googleing and you should turn up quite a bit of data.
I live in Oregon. We have both low rates of gun violence, and very loose gun ownership laws. We also have low homicide rates. South of us is California, which has some of the tightest gun legislation in the US. They have a far higher crime rate.
Im going to say that the gun legislation is not correlated to a drop or a rise in violent crime. Its far to easy to get guns from the next state over.
Violence and crime are more closely tied to how a society treats the mentally ill, and how well social welfare programs keep people from hitting rock bottom.
There will probably always be crime and violence, but the clearest ties we see are in how we treat those at the bottom of our social structure. In Somalia, almost everyone is at the bottom, with a few powerful people on top. Crime is everywhere. In the Norway, Japan, Finland, and Sweden, they have solid social safety nets, universal healthcare and the gap between the wealthy and the poor is much narrower. Despite very different gun laws and cultures, these 4 countries represent the most violence free places to live on Earth.
Oh, and they are the most atheistic countries too, of course.
Good point! We don’t want to get shot because we know there’s no afterlife :D
Population density also factors in. California has far more people living shoulder-to-shoulder than Oregon does, which drives up crime rates across the board. If you control for all other factors, there seems to be a correlation between rates of gun ownership and violent crime, though obviously it’s very hard to make a watertight case.
As a British immigrant to America, I find it very disconcerting to see armed police*, and I don’t understand why “everyone has guns” makes people feel safer than “almost no-one has guns”. But while I personally prefer an unarmed society, I don’t think there’s any way America can get there from here, so I cannot support improved gun regulations. Still, it sometimes feels like I’m living in a country where everyone recommends smoking as a cure for lung cancer…
* It was equally difficult for me to be walking down Fleet Street and see the local Armed Response Unit sitting around outside McDonalds with their H&K’s in their hands, but that’s another story.
Thats the real problem with these debates that spring up when children die from gunfire.
All the old chestnuts get dragged out of the closet. People try to defend guns, people say without them we would be better off without them. Anti-gunners trot out US vs England, pro gunners trot out Sweeden and Finland, its the same old arguments over and over.
Honestly, BOTH sides make good points. Thats why Im in favor of gun ownership, but also in favor of mandatory licencing. But thats not the point either.
The real issue (and, not the issue today, since it was an accident) is WHY do people want to kill each other? I would want to live in a society where everyone is armed, and no one wants to kill each other, rather than in a society where no one is armed but everyone wants to kill each other. Getting to the root of why people want to kill is far more important than limiting the way they can kill.
Those atheist countries seem to have it figured out. Freedom to speak, assemble, and even to bear arms are fine, but you don’t have the freedom to let people die from lack of health care, education, or basic shelter and food.
If we can figure that out, it wont matter what weapons people have access to.
Psycho-God strikes again?
Ironic.
Look Out!
Gawd is packing heat.
Firstly @custador “the Queen protects us from tyranny”. Really??? Secondly to those who think that owning a gun is going to protect you from your government. Do you how much weaponry the U.S.government owns? That´s gonna be the shortest battle in history, and one i´d pay to watch. And thirdly, to those who think that owning a gun is going to protect you from a criminal. How many times out of 10 do think you are going to get the drop on someone who is pointing a gun at you, who has planned a strategy and is mentally prepared for violence?
Really. Strange but true.
So what if a) the tyrants (who would have all the propaganda tools at their disposal)convince the army rank and file that the ¨Queen is bonkers, so their oath is no longer valid? Or b) the Queen just goes along with the tyrants?
Burpy, unfortunately Thomas Jefferson’s idea of gun ownership wasn’t about the citizenry waging a war against the military. It wasnt about defending your home or property either.
Jefferson’s assumption was that government will always tend towards tyranny unless it is afraid of its populace. Whether its true or not is up for debate. England imposed tyranny on its subjects, as did France, Spain, Germany and many other countries. To break that tyranny required revolution or war.
The US also tyrannized its populace. They imprisoned Japanese during WW2, they slaughtered the native populace, they jail a large number of its citizenry, but they have avoided the collapse of the government. One of the factors that might contribute to the continued success of the US government might be the fear of revolt.
Those who believe that an armed populace prevents tyranny work on the assumption that humans are not intrinsically good. They assume that humans, if given the chance, will oppress and kill each other. And there is quite a bit of history to support their claims.
Things were a lot different back in Jefferson´s day, when army weapons were not much more sophisticated than those of the average farmer. Modern governments are not afraid of armed revolt by the populace (for an example of an armed populace fighting a modern army, look at the Palestinian conflict). That can be put down easily. They are afraid of the army changing sides, and we may see that very thing happen in Iran in the very near future.
Mythbusters did this. Their test results showed that bullets tumble on the way down, reducing their speed. The bullets that they fired straight up came down with less than lethal force. And yet we have a few cases every year where people are killed by falling bullets.
They should put out physics PSAs around New Years — if you fire a bullet in the air, it will come down with the same speed!
Pretty sure not… When a 5.56 round leaves the muzzle of an SA-80 it has a velocity of 952 meters per second because of explosive impetus, and immediately begins to slow down due to air friction; if fired vertically, when it begins to fall it starts from rest and accelerates at 9.8 meters per second squared until it hits terminal velocity, which is (if memory serves, I’m open to correction on this point) about 40 meters per second – making it very unlikely to penetrate the average human skull!
Correct Custador, assuming a straight up and down trajectory.
Most bullets fired in the air follow a parabolic trajectory, and can carry a good deal of their original momentum past the apex of their arc.
The US is more dangerous because there are a lot of damn violent criminals here.
The gun and bullet was NOT the cause of the death in this case. Read the article the bullet was fired by someone PLAYING with a gun somewhere and shot it into the air. The REAL cause is g0d wanting to get the kid. Since they were in church and praying then g0d could have protected the kid IF HE WISHED TO!!!! The gun & bullet where g0d’s instrument to call the kid to him.
This is not about gun control but about stupid people PLAYING improperly with guns. If you all are going to use this as an excuse to get gun control then start talking about removing the 2nd BIGGEST killer out of the hands of stupid people—-CARS!!! how about knifes??? rocks??? Make them all illegal!!!
Lived in england and the REAL reason they do not have the high violent crime is because the nature of the people and society IS VERY different from USA. To see this difference …
In new england drive thru a rotary and drive thru an area where cars are blending from 4lanes to one lane. Do the same thing in England. WOW what a difference!!!!! (at least in 1970) I drove from Banbury to London (~60mi) and never once stopped!! We ALL cooperated in blending and in rotaries, we were POLITE to each other, so slamming on the brakes because some arrogant schite just plows thru is rare. It has less to do with guns as with attitude.
Maybe it is just my upbringing in a gun free environment (Ireland) but I would be automatically suspicious of a person carrying a gun, and incredibly uncomfortable in a house with a gun. No matter who the person was…
Oh! forgot …. the 1st biggest killer in US is suicide. Guns are down near 3 or 4th.
CybrgnX, from the CDC website. I think you’re a bit off on your statistics.
Deaths and Mortality
(Data are for the U.S.)
Number of deaths: 2,426,264
Death rate: 810.4 deaths per 100,000 population
Life expectancy: 77.7years
Infant Mortality rate: 6.69 deaths per 1,000 live births
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 631,636
Cancer: 559,888
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
Diabetes: 72,449
Alzheimer’s disease: 72,432
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
Septicemia: 34,234
I think they did this on Mythbusters once… Apparently if you fire a gun at an angle (lets say 45 degrees), it maintains its ballistic trajectory instead of tumbling downward at terminal velocity, and is able to kill.
@ custador Ammo has been very hard to come by since Obama took office. I own several firearms, 12 gauge shotgun, .410 shotgun, .22 rifle, and a .40 caliber handgun. The handgun ammo is damn near impossible to find while .22 and 12 gauge has been easy.
My opinion on the gun matter is that if people want to commit crimes with guns (planes, bombs, or whatever) then try will find a way to do so.
I don’t have a problem with the people committing suicide they, too, would find a way. Also if some crackhead wants to put a few in his dealer then whatever, don’t go to places where that happens and you will be safe.
My biggest problem are the accident statistics, I store my guns unloaded and physically blocked from firing. It takes 15 seconds for me to unlock it, load it, and be ready to fire in an actual emergency.
The key to avoiding accidents is education, if you decide to own firearms within a household with children ten you need to teach them how to be safe (on top of locking them up good and tight, the guns that is lol). Just my 2 cents.
Ps sorry for the fragmented post, on my phone at work.
My dad owns a gun. To get a gun liscence in New Zealand a police officer visits your house to check that you have the requisite storage capability (which is two locks with different keys between guns and ammo), and makes a call about whether or not you are “fit and proper”. They interview TWO references and make you sit an exam. A gun licsence gives you permission to supervisor non-holders using it. Apparently theres about 1 gun per four people in this country.
Guns are for hunting; large game in the bush and rabbits on your farm. It’s normal for teenagers to try shooting rabbits at some point, usually supervised in a group. All hunting related gun deaths result in prosocution for manslaughter and will make the evening news every night for a week when they happen and another week when they eventually make trial.
Our police do not carry guns. The first time I saw a police officer up close with a gun (travelling overseas) I just about wet myself in terror. I like seeing the police out in the street at night. It makes me feel warm and fuzzy that here are people out here ready to get involved in a fight for me. We have the Armed Offenders Squad who have guns and tanks, who I imagine are very bored.
Our gangs do have guns (mostly legally I’d image, considering how impossible it is to smuggle a gun onto an island 4,000 miles from anything else), but gun-crime is rare. Last time there was a gang-related gun death in this country is caused a public outcry against guns but ESPECIALLY about the gangs. It didn’t help that it was 4 year old. But the focus of the outcry was NOT on guns. It was on the gang culture.
OK, serious question.
Americans, do you honestly, really truely think you’re in danger of “tyranny” from your government? Really? Honestly? Do Non-teabaggers think tyranny of the government is ACTUALLY a legitimate threat? In what way?
Ironically, the first time a man took power without a clear electoral mandate to do so was G W Bush – the right to bear arms didn’t stop that tyranny from happening, did it?
Korny:
Nope. I have no illusions that an ‘armed citizenry’ can stop a determined modern military. I’m far more likely to protest with a sign than run off into the woods with my rifle.
I own a gun because I am far more worried about the tyranny of heavily armed criminals who live less than a mile from my house. I live in meth cooking central. My city has more gangs than any other city in America, even LA. We are right smack dab in the middle of the drug pipeline that brings coke, meth, and pot from Mexico and delivers it to California.
We’ve already had several break in attempts, one by an armed drug addict while we were in the house.
Those are the tyrants I’m worried about.
Meth -cooking central? I thought that was Wasilla, AK.
Korny, honestly, I’ve always felt that civilization is on a knife edge. I am as far from ‘tea bagger’ as you can get. I’m for socialized medicine, licencing of firearms, strict government control over large corporations, strong environmental laws, etc.
During Katrina, lawlessness and murders were rampant. Any major environmental catastrophe can shut down a government. My personal preparations are along those lines. Not just guns (thats the least of my real concerns) I have a couple of months of food, water, first aid, firefighting equipment, and supplies to live if the local grid goes down.
And as far as Tyranny, all you need to do is read history. The last time we had a world war was less than 60 years ago. Human history is full of conflict, and I don’t see us leaving it any time soon.
The US is divided more deeply than it has been in many years, and nearly evenly divided. That itself is cause for alarm for anyone who’s studied human behavior and history. For academic studies, read the Maugrim experiments and the Stanford Prison experiment. Those two studies show that humans are naturally inclined to follow authority, and to demonize and abuse the other ‘side’. For real world examples, look at the histories of Bosnia and Rwanda. The people in those countries are biologically the same (outsiders cant look at a Hutu or a Tutsi and tell the difference) but to them, the ‘other’ is so radically different they need to be exterminated.
I have no illusions that my neighbors are much more enlightened (or myself for that matter) than any citizen of Bosnia, and are just as likely to commit atrocities under the same social pressures.
Look at how the members of this community here treat the tea baggers! We label them with a derogatory term, we generalize them all as idiots, we treat them exactly the same way that Franco demonized the opposition in the Spanish civil war! For the US to fall to the same insanity of those real world examples, all it would take is a deep economic depression and lack of resources. Disarming was attempted in all those real world examples too!
I fear the rounding up and ‘re-educating’ of the tea baggers, just as much as I fear the rounding up and re-educating of non-believers. Once we back someone into a corner, they will fight back. And we are backing them up. Secularization of the US is happening very quickly, and the pendulum is likely to swing back the other direction. I just hope we can change without violence, but if history is our judge, I have to use Thomas Jeffersons words. ‘If God is truly just, I tremble for the fate of my country.’
Just to clarify here:
You really truely honestly believe that forcible re-education camps (for *any* group) are a seriously honestly real possibility in America? Not a hypothetical what-if, bottom-of-the-slipperly-slope argument, dystopian future possibility. But actually, really truly a possibility?
I not trying to be obtuse, and I’m not being sarcastic. The idea absolutely boggles my mind and I’m trying to figure out whether this is a real, legitimate fear.
Do I think it could happen under our current administration? No
Do I think it could have happened under G.W. Bush? No.
Is it possible? Absolutely. Just ask any old Jewish man with a tattoo on his arm. Or survivors from Bosnia. Or people of Japanese decent who were locked in camps in the US. Or survivors of Rwanda. Or the children who lived through the Spanish revolution. These things all happened in the last 70 years, I don’t see how we have changed as a species in that short time.
You know, as much as I am a supporter of gun ownership rights, I don’t think we’re going to stop the re-education camps from happening with our Glocks and shotguns. Sorry. Being active in local and national politics is a much more powerful defense.
If only drug addled home invaders could be stopped with protest rallies, I wouldn’t even own a gun.
Ok. Well then the obvious question to me is, why do accept a system that you don’t trust? I’m not talking about people leaving, or being told to leave, because of opinions about Bush or whatever. I’m talking about taking real meaningful action to change a system you think could produce concentration camps.
And don’t even THINK about giving me that “Oh I’m just one person what can I do,” bullshit. If you don’t like the system, if you don’t trust the system, do something.
I wouldnt give you that answer Korny. Its not my modus operandi.
We ARE changing the system. I volunteer for elections, I talk to everyone I meet about things, I donate to charities that work for world peace, I’m educating my daughter and all her friends about how to work out problems without violence (and I’ve never hit my child, ever.) I’m also a member on our local school board (to do my part keeping creationism out of the class room)
And I vote. And I write letters. Gun control is not something I spend my time working on. I’m far more interested in improving our school system, and protecting free speech.
If you missed it up higher, I made this statement:
‘I would want to live in a society where everyone is armed, and no one wants to kill each other, rather than in a society where no one is armed but everyone wants to kill each other.’
I think its far more important to work on the causes of violence, rather than the tools. If we can create education, opportunity, and a good safety net for those who fall between, it will be far better than just working to disarm a violent disenfranchised society.
I just don’t see any evidence that we as a world have moved that far past the dictators and tyrants. Democracy is a brand new idea. (I dont count the Greeks or the Romans, they only allowed a minority of the residents to vote) . The founding fathers if the US called it ‘The Grand Experiment’, and that was barely over 200 years ago.
Look I’ve seen the Die Hard films … guns, you need them!
Only in case of Alan Rickman, and he has a magic wand these days so you’re still fucked.
He was always better with a rusty spoon … forget taking your eye out, he could take your heart out!
Gah, -1000 points for making me think of that terrible movie!
He was the only thing that made it bearable, frankly! “It’s DULL, you idiot! It’ll hurt more!”
First.
US is a terribly fucked up and paranoid country if the only way to feel safe is to go around wielding lethal force as deterrent.
Second.
Allowing guns starts an arm race between honest people and criminals.
More lethal force, more chances of deaths.
Please compare figures US vs EU.
Third.
You can’t compare gun regulations between different US states, unless gun-controlling states are able to stop weapons from entering at the borders, which I don’t think is the case.
Please also adjust for population density.
Fourth.
The “defending from tyranny” argument is a ridiculous strawman, you don’t establish a tyranny with weapons but with the media.
See Italy for an example in development.
It’s far easier to convince you that your government is good than start messing around with the army in the streets.
If you’re really worried about tyranny, fix your election system and improve the bullshit detector of your citizens.
The US shares a 2000 mile border with Mexico, where I could probably buy an unregistered gun with a six pack of beer. Even if guns were made totally illegal in the US, like say drugs are, they’d be flowing across that border in the hands of criminals in a heartbeat. Like, say, drugs do.
The EU has no analog to that, and is thus not a reasonable comparison.
If only criminals have guns you can tell a criminal real easily. There’s no legitimate gun owners to provide camoflage ;)
Er, really?!?!?! How many thousands of miles of border do we share with ex-USSR states? How many of those states are now effectively IN Europe – i.e. having almost zero border control? Then there’s the Balkan states like Serbia and Bosnia, plus Greece borders Turkey, who are pushing to join the European Union – and they share borders with Syria, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Iraq and Iran….
No disrespect Ty, but compared to that, Mexico and Canada are a sodding picnic!
Ok, Custador beats me on timing and actually remembering the details. :D
Yeah, that’s right, I didn’t think about that. I wonder, what are the gun violence stats like in those border countries with the former Soviet states? Do they have the same sort of drug and violence problems that southern US states have?
Well, ROC (“Russian Organised Crime”, the Russian Mafia”) have a presence in all of them, and their business is guns, women and drugs. Many of them have had revolutions in the last few decades – I have to assume that some of them at least have high gun ownership.
Um.. what do you think is on the other side of the border of the EU countries? Coz I’m not quite up-to-date on who is in the union and who isn’t, but I was under the impression the other side of the border was bunch of places that end in -Stan and are usually on the news because of bloodshed. Failing that, Russia. Not to mention the fact that the EU is only seperated from Africa by a body of water that’s been navigable for as long as people have been writing and is, in some spots, narrow enough that you can SEE the other side.
i live there. i see it every day from my house
Comparison is to be made between gun related deaths
About the border, probably now that everyone has guns, it’s better for you to keep them anyway.
Still, don’t sell it as what an ideal society should aim for.
Believe me Francesco, we are trying to improve the bullshit detector of our populace. Its a difficult, uphill climb.
Hell, have the population calls evolution ‘only a theory’, and probably couldn’t tell you what elements are present in carbon dioxide. But they will sure as hell tell you it aint contributin’ to global warmin’!
Perfect and lovely, thank you!
God didn’t shoot the little boy
True. You know, since mythical creatures don’t actually do anything.
Maybe not, but he’s still culpable.
A: Everything that happens is in God’s plan.
B: The boy was shot.
C: God planned for the boy to be shot, and then allowed it to happen.
4: God likes killing children.
V: Rick Warren is a puke, and the purpose driven life is a load of shit.
You are not a true believer!!! You are clearly denying a miracle!!!111!! Please proof that God did NOT shoot the kid!!
That’s a little unfair isn’t it … as we can’t know either way surely it’s got to be 50/50 and we should teach the controversy.
Well, you can teach the controversy at schools. In my church, I’m going to let everyone know that He did so, because I have Faith and I can feel it’s Truth :-p
Recently saw a bumper sticker that read “guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O’donnell fat”.
Kinda funny you have to admit regardless of one’s stance on gun rights.
I can imagine a terrorist boarding a plane with a bomb “Hey! Bombs kill people like XXX does YYYY!”
Good luck.
You could also make the point that the bomb didn’t kill them religion did. Take your scartacks and get lost.
So you want to legalise bombs?
Really? Don’t be stupid.
How is it stupid? You made the comparison! “Guns don’t kill people – people do – so don’t ban guns” and “Bombs don’t kill people – religion does – so…”
Don’t call me stupid because you didn’t think out your comparison well enough, Zack.
Personally I think we should all be allowed to have thermo-nuclear devices, after all it’s people that kill people not nuclear weapons …
Yeah, remind me again where in the constitution of the USA the word “arms” is defined as meaning “Tec-9s, M16s with underslung M4 grenade launchers, Mark 66 disposable rocket launchers and .50 calibre handguns”.
This is a BIG part of my problem with “arms”. A bolt-action 7.62mm hunting rifle is designed primarily to kill animals but can kill humans. An uzi is designed primarily to kill humans.
I had a conversation once where the argument got put as guns kill less people than cars therefore if cars are legal cars guns should be too. That’s where I got the well nuclear weapons should also be legal then as in the UK they have an excellent safety record. Of course the fact that cars aren’t designed to kill people is neither here nor-there. Also have you seen the amount of people that die from socks releated injuries … ban them I say!
“Personally I think we should all be allowed to have thermo-nuclear devices, after all it’s people that kill people not nuclear weapons”
Shure!
But I’ve got a Nuke-proof vest, do you?
“Yeah, remind me again where in the constitution of the USA the word “arms” is defined as meaning “Tec-9s, M16s with underslung M4 grenade launchers, Mark 66 disposable rocket launchers and .50 calibre handguns”.”
Strawman again.
Its defined in the same place where “Press” is defined as meaning TV, Radio, Internet and ect… and not just the original use of the word when Press meant pressing ink onto a paper.
It’s not a straw man, though, is it? When the constitution was written, “arms” meant a musket, which fires thirty yards and takes twelve years to load – Do you seriously think that the writers of the constitution, if they could see the state of the States thanks to that “right to bear arms”, they wouldn’t have been a bloody sight more careful about their wording?!
“Do you seriously think that the writers of the constitution, if they could see the state of the States thanks to that “right to bear arms”, they wouldn’t have been a bloody sight more careful about their wording?!”
Absolutely Not.
You stick to the history of your culture, and I’ll stick to mine.
K?
Absolutely Not.
I have to disagree. The framers had Shay’s Rebellion in their rear view mirror and the French Revolution right in front of them. I honestly think that if they realized the kinds of power they were putting into the hands of the mob, the second amendment would have been rejected.
When it comes down to the question of ‘What would the Founding Fathers say if they could see the US today’ I only have one reply, and I’m damn sure I’m right.
They would say “Holy Shit! Airplanes!!”
Nah, they’d watch Ann Coulter on Fox News and say “Holy shit! An animated corpse!”
“When it comes down to the question of ‘What would the Founding Fathers say if they could see the US today’ I only have one reply, and I’m damn sure I’m right.”
They might say that but first they would be thinking, “Why are there so many Darkies and Women in positions of power.
“I honestly think that if they realized the kinds of power they were putting into the hands of the mob, the second amendment would have been rejected”.
Considering that the 2nd amendment was essentially a preservational indictment of sorts against future empirical tyranny and oppression (the colonialists themselves being only a few generations removed) I dont believe there was anything, given the climate of the day, that could have persuaded them against affording such (basic and essential as they viewed it) firearm liberties to their own fellow revolutionists and countrymen.
Sometimes, the (revolting) historical issues of obssessive taxation, tyranny and remote rule go overlooked and under-appreciated in the political correctness of our (current) day, which paradoxically in some respects is beginning to bear (albeit more subtley) some similarities to their own circumstances which gave (eventual) rise to their quest for freedom at any cost. The heart of man is fit for freedom, not tyranny and he will often take great measures to ensure its full emancipation and realization.
The act itself, was a bold, dignifying and distinctive declaration of American empowerment and individualization.
Such a prohibition against the right to bear arms, in light of these criteria, would have been met with extreme suspicion on the part of the common citizenry toward the newly created “government” resulting in unwanted tension, discord and disunity from the onset which was frankly not an option at the time. Additionally, lest we forget, many had dwindling native american populations to possibly contend with and lived in outlying, agriculturally dominated environments.
Enforcement of firearms prohibition would have been entirely implausible, thank God.
Considering that the 2nd amendment was essentially a preservational indictment of sorts against future empirical tyranny and oppression
The problem is that I don’t really believe that is true. Oh, yes, Jefferson could talk and talk about freedom and self-defense. Jefferson could talk about a lot of things, but I don’t think he ever bothered with tiresome little things like consistency.
Jefferson was against a strong central government before the war, for it after the war, against it again when people he didn’t like were in power. Then when he came to power, he put into place the embargo act and turned the standing army against his own citizens, proving once and for all that the was opposed to every form of tyranny – except his own.
And of course, the embargo act was Madison’s idea. And Adams had his sedition act. They could all talk the talk, but their walk often looked more like a goose-step.
The bottom line is that the founders were fond of freedom for themselves and their class, but afraid of it in the hands of the mob. They were elitist b-stards – worse, they were elitists with classical educations. They knew how the mob had served as a club for every demagogue seizing power in Rome. They knew how the Republic had ended at the hands of a popular leaders like Julius and Augustus. That kind of faction control was exactly what Madison had been trying to avoid when he drafted the Constitution.
Maybe so, but could you imagine the upheavel an outright prohibition would have caused at the “mob” level? I really dont think they had much choice in the matter but of course our (current day) perspectives will always suffer some “out of element” bias, myself included.
All the best VorJack sir!
It’s like no one reads the constitution anymore…. Check some of nutns philosophy videos out. http://www.youtube.com/user/nutnfancy
So someone was on the roof correct? and fired a round through the roof? Cause just wtf wow if not, the terminal velocity of most bullets would not make it through a roof. Someone fire a 50cal wtf….. Either their roof was made of rice paper or someone was literally on the roof. Am i the only one who thought that?
scroll up dude.
Hmm, New Year’s Eve? Bullet comes through the roof? Attributable, if you believe this story, to one of the idiots who thinks it’s cute to fire his gun into the air to celebrate. Plus, of course a paper or canvas roof.
This is a very sad story. It is not uncommon to have a bullet go through the roof on new years. My step brother could have been killed on New Years 3 years ago when a bullet went through the roof of the Bowling Alley he was at and embedded into the hardwood floor near his foot.
If you scour the news, you will see a number of stories about bullets falling through roofs on New Year’s but this one is particular popular for a number of reason; a fatality involving a child combined with the fact he was in a church.
You want to know who ultimately wins the debate on gun control? Those with the guns, of course. *badum-CHING*
Nope, this guy wins by a mile!
/Snark
But, but… I thought there wasn’t any guns in England because it’s against the law to own them!
/snark
I was waiting for that :-)
Besides, did you see that guy? Someone that obese and aggressive HAD to be an american on vacation.
LOL! Clearly you have never been to Manchester – a city of fat bastards who are all convinced that they’re well ‘ard and mostly too stupid to be scared by teenagers with guns….
Aw common, Im half Canadian, and your all Brit, were due for at least SOME yank bashing.
Well, I didn’t like to say, but 45 of those 52 gun murders in Britain in 2002 were yank tourists…
You think this could have happened with a cricket bat, Sunny? Yeah, guns make your nation a much safer place, don’t they?
In Bizarro-Custador world, Serial Killers always use guns.
In the real world where Sunny Day lives, an individual who wants to murder a whole bunch of people in one session is likely to use a gun – but Sunny Day doesn’t give a shit.
The problem still boils down to would a particular country be better off with more gun controls or less? To me that has been the problem with most of this thread. The issue of gun controls can’t be boiled down to such a black and white answer of yes or no. Taking the above example, stricter gun controls may have stopped the above but that doesn’t mean that the overall death rate from gun crime will be reduced.
Oh and before you say, no I don’t agree with Sunny Day’s position but I don’t think it’s as easy as no guns = good or guns = bad.
I agree – I think if the US had never had guns after single-shot muzzle-loaders it would be a safer and better place today, but I know that’s assinine because they do have them. On the other hand, I genuinly and truly believe that just because guns can’t be banned there doesn not mean they should not at least be recorded and controlled. Old guns get siezed by the police from criminals over time, new guns only go to people who are trained, registered and responsible, those new guns all have ballistic signiatures recorded so that it’s easy to trace if they’re discharged in the course of a crime being commited, and slowly, slowly, slowly, fewer criminals will have guns but law abiding citizens can still have them if they’re responsible enough. Similarly, new gun sales restricted to semi-automatics and calibres .33 and below – slowly, over time, things like assault rifles and machine pistols get removed from circulation.
Of course, all of that can only work if at the same time there is huge investment in social security programs like universal healthcare – but at least the US seems to have a government in place that might actually do that kind of thing now.
And you have the nerve to accuse me of making straw-man arguments?
Ok guys in some countries gun control has worked and yes there should probably better controls here on how guns are allowed. Yes in some areas of the world gun control has worked and in others it has failed. I think it is more important to educate instead of completely outlawing guns. If you look at the murder rate in England in the early 1900′s when guns were legal you will find that the actual murder rate was smaller then now. Lets look at Switzerland and you find those with the guns have been well educated in both the handling and dangers of them. Look at Mexico and you find some strict gun control laws but because of smuggling you have a lot of guns there and the people that have legal ones are to far and few between to be a deterrent. I got most of this from wiki so if you want links let me know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei8OK4WdoW0
Hook’em Horns! (LRA???) ha
This thread seems to be winding down. I just wanted to say one more thing:
Thanks for a wonderful discussion! Ive tried to talk guns with other people, only to see it end in a shouting match where no one is listening anymore. People from both sides here may have used cherry picked statistics, anecdotes, appeals to emotion, and even a few ad hominems, but there was also quite a bit of nice clear logic, and people honest enough to cede a good point from their opponent. It’s refreshing to see people on opposite sides of a problem who are honest and willing to debate a serious subject.
It’s difficult to stick to the Socratic method, were all but mortals. It’s hard to put aside your personal bias, but I think most people here try to. I think we’ve shown one thing for certain, atheists are far better at listening than theists, the world it would be a better place if we ran it . Not perfect, not free from conflict, but definitely better. Thanks for the conversation.
Cheers, Revy.