Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 80 of 80
  1. TxDot's Avatar
    Posts
    892 Posts
    Global Posts
    916 Global Posts
    #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    by 'crime' I meant gun crime. I am suggesting that you can remove guns from the equation altogether.
    I'm a lot more scared of a criminal with a gun than without one. Restricting the availability of guns does also restrict the availability to criminals, I guess that's the part you don't believe.
    Well, prior to 9/11 we wern't afraid of box cutters. Actually we're still not afraid of box cutters per se but we are certainly more aware of how someone with the intent to kill can do so without having a gun.

    I just don't get why people are so focused on guns. Do you really think that if we outlaw guns that the criminal element of society is suddenly going to change their ways? The problem is that you're not thinking like a criminal (presumably because you're not one ) but like a law abiding citizen. I'm not arging that we don't need laws because we obviously do. I am arguing that the law in and of itself is not going to protect me from a criminal. My fellow citizen obeying the law will protect me from harm because in that situation there are no criminals (how's that for living in la-la land?).
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by TxDot
    Well, prior to 9/11 we wern't afraid of box cutters. Actually we're still not afraid of box cutters per se but we are certainly more aware of how someone with the intent to kill can do so without having a gun.

    I just don't get why people are so focused on guns. Do you really think that if we outlaw guns that the criminal element of society is suddenly going to change their ways? The problem is that you're not thinking like a criminal (presumably because you're not one ) but like a law abiding citizen. I'm not arging that we don't need laws because we obviously do. I am arguing that the law in and of itself is not going to protect me from a criminal. My fellow citizen obeying the law will protect me from harm because in that situation there are no criminals (how's that for living in la-la land?).
    I don't think they'll 'change their ways', but I do think you can stop them getting the guns in the first place. I'm focused on guns simply because there is more potential for harm than with a box-cutter - in a normal situation. Of course the words of the law can't protect us, but laws can have a real effect on availability of weapons.
    Let me put it another way, the legal definition of a 'law-abiding citizen' is one who hasn't been convicted of any crime. As I understand it it's not all that hard to get hold of a gun if you've got a clean slate in the US so let's assume I do so. Does someone then come round at regular intervals to check I still have that gun in my possession? Is there a limit on how many guns I can buy? Is there really anything to stop me from selling that gun on to a criminal? If the 'law-abiding' citizen can't get hold of the gun in the first place then that's one very quick and easy route for guns reaching the criminal removed.
    I'm not suggesting that anyone here would contemplate such an act, but it's not a hard scenario to imagine is it? Of course there are many other ways to get guns if you're a criminal, if there's loads available in stockrooms and shops all over the country then the task of getting hold of one must be that much easier, as evidenced by the level of gun crime in the US.
    Animo et Fide
  3. Theta's Avatar
    Posts
    98 Posts
    Global Posts
    112 Global Posts
    #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by DHAnderson
    I believe that fully automatic weapons pose a great danger to society and I do not see any compelling reason to own one. This leads me to favor a ban. Will this keep them out of the hands of criminals? Not totally, but it will in many cases, and it gives our government more charges against the criminal when they do have or use one.
    Fully automatic weapons were not covered by this ban. This ban only pertained to semi-automatic weapons, and high-capacity magazines.

    Fully automatic weapons are extremely expensive, and require special tax stamps - if your state will even allow you to possess one.

    Being a firearms examiner (forensic scientist) in a major metropolitan area in Arizona I can tell you that the ban did not increase or decrease the number of semi-automatic weapons used in crimes.

    The ban did nothing but affect law abiding citizens.
  4. Theta's Avatar
    Posts
    98 Posts
    Global Posts
    112 Global Posts
    #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    If you do extend the argument to crime you'll find that criminals have a much harder time getting hold of guns in a gun free society. The majority of gun crime in britain is committed with converted air-pistols (which are very unreliable and are literally single shot), for which reason we're going to ban that type of air pistol next.
    Regardless of which weapon the criminals choose to use in britain, the fact remains that violent crime, after the banning of firearms, has risen sharply after the ban.

    This is the case in all countries that have dabbled in the failed experiment that is gun banning. Australlia (which is ahead of britain - they are banning swords next), Canada.

    More people die from car accidents, smoking, and various other activites in the United States. In the states in the United States that have gone the other way, started issuing concealed weapons permits to any law abiding citizen, the effect has been most shocking for most law enforcement officials. Across the board violent crime rates have dropped more than in states that have not started concealed weapons permits. Bloodshed and shootouts in the streets aren't happening. But lawful uses of weapons to prevent violent crime is happening. Criminals fear an armed citizen much more than law enforcement.

    And an armed society is a polite society.

    Even if you don't like weapons, even if you hate them with every fiber of your being, you are safer if they are in the hands of the right people.
  5. Theta's Avatar
    Posts
    98 Posts
    Global Posts
    112 Global Posts
    #65  
    Referencing nuclear weapons..
    Quote Originally Posted by DHAnderson
    It was not an analogy, but an extension of your logic. If you can have a weapon because you want one and it is cool, why can't I have some other weapon because I want it and it is cool?
    In an earlier post you described the limits to free speech, a nuclear bomb clearly exceeds even the most avid supporter of the right to bear arms interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

    But if it were an "all or none" situtation, then based on the 2nd Amendment we'd be able to own nuclear weapons - or should be at least. The purpose behind the 2nd Amendment is to protect us from a tyrannical government. After what we faced in gaining our independance from britain, our founding fathers wanted to be sure that the citizens of this country would be able to overthrow our government if needed.

    And by the way, they also did NOT want a federal army. It was up to the states to provide an organized army, and it was up to the citizens to form a militia for "homeland defense".

    Quote Originally Posted by DHAnderson
    There is no test for owning Assault weapons based on one's ability to understand its safe workings, so why bring that in?
    Good point. There should be mandatory firearms education in public schools to address this issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by DHAnderson
    I'd appreciate if you could enlighten me on the multitude of uses for Assault weapons, outside of killing, and wounding of people (their primary design).
    I'd be happy to enlighten you. It's great when someone realised they lack information, and need education. Being a professionally trained firearms expert - who is also a civilian - I can teach you this with some authority.

    An assault weapon is, by definition a firearm that is capable of repeat fire with an effective range of 350 yards (give or take 50 depending on your source). That's it. That's what an "assault weapon" is. They have been overly demonized, depicted with black plastic stocks, and bayonnets (laugh a knife on the end of a rifle makes it "evil"). But these types of weapons are far less "dangerous" than your typical hunting rifle - some of which are capable of repeat fire in semi-automatic mode - because they have a far shorter effective range.

    Other uses include target shooting, collective (hey, if you can collect beanie babies, some people can collect firearms), investment (a good one too), and self-defense. While not ideal, a semi-automatic pistol makes for a good self defense item - especially for women - and some of them were banned.

    Banning guns will not magically make all guns dissapear. Just as prohibition did not make all alcohol instantly dry up either. Criminals will always be able to get ahold of firearms, or manufacture improvised ones.

    If your only concern is reducing "gun crimes", then banning guns could reduce "gun crimes". It has been proven all over the globe that banning guns has little (normally the opposite) effect on reducing violent crimes.

    I know it's not what you want to hear. It really doesn't make sense on first glance, but it's true.

    Banning drugs has not reduce the "drug problem" in the United States, just as the 1994 "assault weapon ban" did NOT reduce violent crime in the United States.

    Now that the ban has expired there will not be bloodshed in the streets. You are no more at danger now, then you were Monday morning. If anything you are safer, because now in my concealed pistol I carry, I have more rounds to prevent violent crime with now that magazines can carry more than 10 rounds.
  6. Theta's Avatar
    Posts
    98 Posts
    Global Posts
    112 Global Posts
    #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    As I understand it it's not all that hard to get hold of a gun if you've got a clean slate in the US so let's assume I do so.
    That's correct, because in the United States, owning a firearm is a right, not a privilege, so the government must prove why you should not own one.


    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    Does someone then come round at regular intervals to check I still have that gun in my possession?
    No, that would be a form of gun registration which, as we learned from britain, Australlia, Canada, Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, and the People's Republic of California, is the first step towards gun control.[/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    Is there a limit on how many guns I can buy?
    No. Why should there be? If you legally own firearms, and use them responsibly, why should there be a limit?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    Is there really anything to stop me from selling that gun on to a criminal?
    Yes. That's illegal. And as soon as you sell a firearm to a criminal you are yourself a criminal. And once a criminal is found with a firearm, there is a trace put on the firearm, and working backwards the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobbacco, Firearms and Explosives, will eventually find out you sold a firearm to a criminal. You will be prosecuted, have your firearms confescated, and worst of all, have your right to own firearms removed.


    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    If the 'law-abiding' citizen can't get hold of the gun in the first place then that's one very quick and easy route for guns reaching the criminal removed.
    This is true. It would be a "quick and easy" route removed, but not the only route. Now you have an armed criminal class, and an unarmed citizen class. A few bad apples have in effect ruined it for the rest of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    I'm not suggesting that anyone here would contemplate such an act, but it's not a hard scenario to imagine is it? Of course there are many other ways to get guns if you're a criminal, if there's loads available in stockrooms and shops all over the country then the task of getting hold of one must be that much easier, as evidenced by the level of gun crime in the US.
    Yes, they do use guns in this country. They use other weapons in other countries. The only difference is that as a law abiding citizen of this country, I still have my right to own a firearm.

    Just because guns were "designed to kill people" doesn't mean that most firearms are used in that way. The percentage of firearms in the United States used to kill or injure people is much lower than the percentage of automobiles that kill or injure people. True that the automobile was not "designed to kill people", but it's used far more effectively to kill and injure than firearms in the United States.

    In the United States firearms are the single most legislatively controlled object by far. More regulations have been written to control who uses them and how than is needed. What is needed is to prosecute people who abuse firearms in this country.

    I've said it before, but once more so that maybe you'll check and see I'm correct. After britain (and other countries) banned firearms, the violent crime rates rose much more dramatically than the violent crime rates in the United States - which is still a relatively open gun society. Your argument is logical, I give you that, but it fails in actual testing. Please reform your hypothesis, and come back to us. While you are at it, look at violent crime rates in regions of the United States that now allow concealed weapons permits to be issued to a large population. You'll find violent crime rates dropping, with no increase in "gun crime". Not what you'd expect, but you can't argue with the facts.
  7. #67  
    Just one or two quick points - as I pointed out a page or two back shooting someone who is breaking in to your home or who is mugging you is an illegal use of firearms here, so allowing people to keep guns would increase illegal use in our crime statistics, not decrease it. This is important to realise when thinking which actual figures go into making up the stats.
    Violent crime has indeed risen in Britain, but linking it to a ban on firearms is quite strange. It's been going up for years - although it is still in reality very rare. It's been going down this year (according to the government website), so explain that one! The only people I've ever heard link it to a ban on firearms are Americans - and obviously you're remote from the situation, it's just not an issue here.
    Animo et Fide
  8.    #68  
    Wow Theta, nice work!
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  9. #69  
    The most interesting point is regarding drugs. These are illegal in the UK just as they are in the US and there is still a massive problem. It's possible to really go off at a tangent here but I'll try to stay focused. Clearly making something illegal doesn't neccesarily stop it happening. There's a whole area of discussion right there.
    There are two reasons for having a law. The first is that it's morally right and the second is that it is wanted by the majority to control the minority. Moral laws include equal opportunity legislation and majority laws include anti-noise pollution legislation. Obviously it's not really possible to get a law passed which doesn't have considerable support in any case, and it's difficult to divide the law up that neatly. However it's clear that effectiveness isn't a primary criterion. A law being ineffective can be a reason for it to be repealed, although that hasn't happened in regard to drug legislation because there are moral and majority arguments for keeping it.
    It is clear that in this country there is an overwhelming majority in favour of gun control and, in my view, a strong moral case too. If you argue that it's ineffective you need to prove your case pretty strongly to overcome those. Arguing that violent crime has increased since the legislation does not demonstrate any link as gun ownership was at a very low level before then and there has always been a law against carrying weapons in the street. Guns weren't used here as a deterrent against crime before Dunblane happened. The law isn't designed to stop people protecting themselves, it was already illegal unless your life was under threat - this means that you can't shoot someone just for breaking in (as demonstrated in the Tony Martin case). The law is clearly designed to stop people possessing guns and then committing massacres with them. That kind of crime isn't committed by your typical criminal, it's committed by ordinary people who go off the rails. Stopping ordinary people getting guns therefore helps stop that.
    Animo et Fide
  10. #70  
    "Does Sen. John F. Kerry really own a "Communist Chinese assault rifle," as he suggested in an interview in the latest edition of Outdoor Life magazine?"
    http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewCulture....20040917a.html
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  11. Theta's Avatar
    Posts
    98 Posts
    Global Posts
    112 Global Posts
    #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    Just one or two quick points - as I pointed out a page or two back shooting someone who is breaking in to your home or who is mugging you is an illegal use of firearms here, so allowing people to keep guns would increase illegal use in our crime statistics, not decrease it. This is important to realise when thinking which actual figures go into making up the stats.
    Violent crime has indeed risen in Britain, but linking it to a ban on firearms is quite strange. It's been going up for years - although it is still in reality very rare. It's been going down this year (according to the government website), so explain that one! The only people I've ever heard link it to a ban on firearms are Americans - and obviously you're remote from the situation, it's just not an issue here.
    Linking gun control with violent crimes is the only way to see if gun banning "works". The point of gun control (according to those who profess it) is to prevent people from killing people - a violent crime. If guns are outlawed in a country, and the "gun violence" rate drops, but the overall violent crime rate stays the same, or increases (as dramatically as it did in britain, and the other failed gun-grabbing countries) then the gun ban had no REAL effect.

    And using a gun to shoot someone who is breaking into your house here is not *always* legal in the United States either - although it should be, because it is justified and morally correct. I can't help it if your country has screwed up statistics.
  12. Theta's Avatar
    Posts
    98 Posts
    Global Posts
    112 Global Posts
    #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    The most interesting point is regarding drugs. These are illegal in the UK just as they are in the US and there is still a massive problem. It's possible to really go off at a tangent here but I'll try to stay focused. Clearly making something illegal doesn't neccesarily stop it happening. There's a whole area of discussion right there.
    There are two reasons for having a law. The first is that it's morally right and the second is that it is wanted by the majority to control the minority. Moral laws include equal opportunity legislation and majority laws include anti-noise pollution legislation. Obviously it's not really possible to get a law passed which doesn't have considerable support in any case, and it's difficult to divide the law up that neatly. However it's clear that effectiveness isn't a primary criterion. A law being ineffective can be a reason for it to be repealed, although that hasn't happened in regard to drug legislation because there are moral and majority arguments for keeping it.
    It is clear that in this country there is an overwhelming majority in favour of gun control and, in my view, a strong moral case too. If you argue that it's ineffective you need to prove your case pretty strongly to overcome those. Arguing that violent crime has increased since the legislation does not demonstrate any link as gun ownership was at a very low level before then and there has always been a law against carrying weapons in the street. Guns weren't used here as a deterrent against crime before Dunblane happened. The law isn't designed to stop people protecting themselves, it was already illegal unless your life was under threat - this means that you can't shoot someone just for breaking in (as demonstrated in the Tony Martin case). The law is clearly designed to stop people possessing guns and then committing massacres with them. That kind of crime isn't committed by your typical criminal, it's committed by ordinary people who go off the rails. Stopping ordinary people getting guns therefore helps stop that.
    Thankfully in the United States we have a constitution which prevents the majority from controlling the minority with amoral laws. I might not agree with every "personal freedom" issue that is upheld by the courts, but I am thankful that there are safeguards here that prevent a "moral majority" from dictating my society.

    The percentage of guns used in a "massacre" is so exceedingly low, that it is irresponsible to blame the gun, and punish those lawfully gun owners. If, as you say, the reason for the ban was to prevent "massacres" then the solution is much simpler. As proven in recent years here, an armed public quickly stops a "massacre" from happening. The solution is not "no/less" guns, but rather more guns. This is why "massacres" happen in places like school yards, because it is illegal for people to have weapons at schools. So criminals know they can take a firearm to schools, and be safe themselves - because law abiding citizens won't take a weapon to a school.

    And before you ask, yes. All teachers should be required to carry firearms in schools. Not so that they are protected from the children, but so that my child is protected from criminals bent on a "massacre" - be it with a firearm, explosive, knife, boxcutter, or bat.
  13. #73  
    Guns have not in recent history been used in the UK for 'protection'. That is why linking the two is wrong in the UK. The ban was brought into effect after a man who was a law abiding member of a gun club went on a rampage in a school in Dunblane and killed 17 kids.
    I don't think anyone objected to the ban on the grounds of preventing crime, not a single person. Some objected on the basis of their sport being banned. The link to crime prevention just doesn't exist here in people's minds, and given the past use of guns here before the ban I don't think you can make any statisical link either.
    Animo et Fide
  14. Theta's Avatar
    Posts
    98 Posts
    Global Posts
    112 Global Posts
    #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    Guns have not in recent history been used in the UK for 'protection'. That is why linking the two is wrong in the UK. The ban was brought into effect after a man who was a law abiding member of a gun club went on a rampage in a school in Dunblane and killed 17 kids.
    I don't think anyone objected to the ban on the grounds of preventing crime, not a single person. Some objected on the basis of their sport being banned. The link to crime prevention just doesn't exist here in people's minds, and given the past use of guns here before the ban I don't think you can make any statisical link either.
    But the point of this thread is the expiration of the assault weapons ban in the United States. The ban was put in place here to reduce violent crimes, and it has not done do, and it has not done so in other countries around the world.

    Since it was a failed experiment, it was allowed to sunset, and because of some of the other silly additions to the ban on assault weapons, the United States is now safer for the expiration.
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    there are certain nations that have such significantly lower statistics regarding murder by guns.
    what is it about these nations that create an environment that motivates less violence?
    socio-economic structure? balance of wealth? equality of education and opportunity? freedom with less laws? more laws? history of the country? cultural mix? more or less opportunity to succeed? media?
    crime. its just a guess, but many without the means and opportunity to advance in the nation's society turn to crime to survive. they turn to guns to grease their wheel and allow them to carry out their crimes whether it be thru theft, drugs or violence.
    so guns are the ballgame. now, law-abiding citizens, to protect themselves, turn to guns as well - some to assault weapons depending on their perception of the level of threat.
    when the socio-economic structure is kept status quo and these criminals have no other options but crime, the habit of crime with guns is propogated.
    and then the vicious cycle - crime & self-defense.... and on and on.
    is it possible that if a nation had more of a balanced level of opportunity for all on every level, would we decrease the need for guns for crime? or would we have it just the same?
    Its a decent guess but.... Equal opportunity does not translate to equal sucess! Grandpa used to say "You can't water an empty pot long enough to make it flower." You're forgetting about the biggest factor in sucess. MOTIVATON. Without it you've got nothing. Motivation can overcome lack of opportunity, but opportunity cannot overcome lack of motivation. Thats just a simple fact! The nowhere else to turn argument is bogus and its a huge problem with our legal system. Its used to excuse crime, and it hasn't been lost on criminals. They understand this crutch all to well!

    I think that if a country with less crime even exists, then its probably becuase they have stiffer punishment and don't have to put up with the bleeding hearts (they know who they are ) protecting criminal rights.
  16. #76  
    Hey Woof....
    Since these guns are non issues...
    I wonder if the type of gun you picture in your avatar was to turn up at a presidential campaign rally how the Secret Service would feel about it being there??

    I am sure it would turn out to be a big "HIT"!
    Not!!!!!!!

    BTW, for those of you keeping score at home, I thought violent crime was down over the past decade?? I must have been mistaken...
  17.    #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by TrySpammingMe
    Hey Woof....
    Since these guns are non issues...
    I wonder if the type of gun you picture in your avatar was to turn up at a presidential campaign rally how the Secret Service would feel about it being there??

    I am sure it would turn out to be a big "HIT"!
    Not!!!!!!!

    BTW, for those of you keeping score at home, I thought violent crime was down over the past decade?? I must have been mistaken...
    Good sense tells me not to fall for this but I cant resist. I could take a piece of wood shaped and painted like any gun to a presidential rally and the Secret Service would react exactly the same was as they would if it was a bazooka. Anything that even looks like a weapon with be dealt with quickly and severly.

    That fact pretty much deflates any point you were trying to make. Nice try though.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by TrySpammingMe

    BTW, for those of you keeping score at home, I thought violent crime was down over the past decade?? I must have been mistaken...
    Violent crimes with "assault" weapons have not declined over the last decade. However, violent crime in general is down over the last decade, and by some strange coincidence several states have adopted the concealed carry permit over the last decade as well.
  19. #79  
    The method used to record crime, and in particular violent crime in the UK has changed a couple of times. These changes date from 1998 - when the alleged increase in crime dates from. Comparison to years before that simply doesn't work.
    http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page107.asp
    Animo et Fide
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by TrySpammingMe
    Hey Woof....
    Since these guns are non issues...
    I wonder if the type of gun you picture in your avatar was to turn up at a presidential campaign rally how the Secret Service would feel about it being there??

    I am sure it would turn out to be a big "HIT"!
    Not!!!!!!!
    I wasn't going to post in this thread because I feel 2nd amendment debates to be mostly pointless, bujt I just have to jump in after reading this post. Would the secret service be happy to see me pop up with a 5 shot revolver at a presidential appearance, seems they jumped on Hinckley real fast when he tried to do Reagan with a 22lr.

    OOPS, I didn't read woofs post when I made my post,sorry for basically repeating what you posted woof, carry on with the debate
    Last edited by kamizuno; 09/20/2004 at 04:11 AM.
    garinballbarin
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions