Your views please

[Weird Harold]

Didn't I say something like this?

Cat

Yep, you did.

So did I.

Lisa said it better than either of us.

 

[SeaCat]

Maybe, but you aren't as nearly good looking so who cares?

Bwahahahaha

No argument here. I'm used to give children nightmares. Hell I've been told that pictures of me can make kids eat their veggies.

Cat

 

[rgraham666]

I stated my position fairly, accurately and without rancor.

I'm quite pissed that it got pissed on.

But honestly, I expected no better.

 

[Liar]

I would like to see some statistics concerning gun injuries/deaths by legally owned firearms possesed by legal law abiding citizens.

But I don't think there is any statistics on that.

So any laws concerning guns only applies to legal law abiding citizens, and any other statistics thrown out do not apply to them.

I would like to see illegal firearm laws strictly enforced. The kid with the pistol with the serial number filed off shouldn't be released to his momma the next day. The gangbanger with a stolen revolver shouldn't just get 10 days in jail. The convicted felon in possesion of a handgun should know he will get locked up for years just for having the gun. The laws we have for illegal possesion of handguns are crap, so why should we pass laws and strictly enforce them ONLY on the law abiding citizens?

Criminals have guns, they intend to take any money law abiding citizens have, rape thier wives and daughters, kill them all for a laugh and maybe spend a couple years in jail and do it all again.

I will be willing to seriously discuss gun control with anyone who can guarantee that said gun control will also be applied to criminals.

End of discussion.

Lisa, you seem to assume that supporting strict gun control for non-criminals equals supporting lax gun control for criminals. Sorry, but that's just plain fallacious.

One of the rationale in countries that enforce strict gun control is that if every Joe Schmoe doesn't have an arsenal at home, and every other store doesn't sell guns and ammo, there will be less weapons in circulation and less weapons for the criminals to get their hands on.

And guess what, it actually works. A weapon is much harder to obtain illegally, much harder to sell illegally and is treated like particularly "hot" black market goods, being traded very nervously by the bad guys. And on average, much fever firearms in the hands of criminals. Because people know that if they see a gun, it's most likely an illegal one, and they call the fuzz. Illegal guns are so rare that people are not afraid to get shot by a burglar - you're just as likely to get hit by lightning.

Now would that work in the US? Doubtful, because the situation is different, there are all those guns there already and you can't put the genie back in the bottle, so to speak.

But the idea itself is not all that idiotic, and it's NOT the same as being soft on criminals.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Didn't I say something like this?

Cat

Ooopsies, you did Cat.

I went back and seen it, I wasn't trying to take credit for your ideas, you stole them from me and posted them first while I wasn't lookin, he, he.

Anyways, what I meant to say, if I had seen your posts was:

"I agree with Cat on this thread."

Kiss, kiss.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Lisa, you seem to assume that supporting strict gun control for non-criminals equals supporting lax gun control for criminals. Sorry, but that's just plain fallacious.

One of the rationale in countries that enforce strict gun control is that if every Joe Schmoe doesn't have an arsenal at home, and every other store doesn't sell guns and ammo, there will be less weapons in circulation and less weapons for the criminals to get their hands on.

And guess what, it actually works. A weapon is much harder to obtain illegally, much harder to sell illegally and is treated like particularly "hot" black market goods, being traded very nervously by the bad guys. And on average, much fever firearms in the hands of criminals. Because people know that if they see a gun, it's most likely an illegal one, and they call the fuzz. Illegal guns are so rare that people are not afraid to get shot by a burglar - you're just as likely to get hit by lightning.

Now would that work in the US? Doubtful, because the situation is different, there are all those guns there already and you can't put the genie back in the bottle, so to speak.

But the idea itself is not all that idiotic, and it's NOT the same as being soft on criminals.

Yes Liar, of course I know that and would not dis-agree with that. If the guns weren't there you might could do lots of different things, and no idea is idiotic.

The guns are there, fact. The criminals in the US are about as well trained in law as most lawyers. They know if they kill all witnesses and victims they might get a few more years, if caught, but are less likely to be caught and convicted.

A robber used to rob a store and leave. Now they walk in and kill the clerk and then rob the store. Rob the pedestrian on the street and then shoot him dead so he can't testify, no witnesses.

If the guns weren't there is not an valid issue.

All I was saying is that here, now, the criminals will not be subject to any gun legislation. So any gun legislation is aimed at the legal law abiding citizens. I don't agree with what someone said that most people are stupid, but yes, there are a lot of stupid people. Most gun owners are not stupid, but many are.

Most criminals are not stupid, but most are armed and vicious and willing to shoot at the drop of the hat.

If illegal possession of guns by criminals is not enforced (and I don't mean the damn 10 day jail term for gangbangers doing drive-bys with uzi's) then I see absolutely no reason to discuss tighter restrictions on gun ownership and concealed carry permits for legal law abiding citizens.

Its not one or the other, or one view supporting another, they are two different issues. But the guns held by the criminals have to be taken away before I would be willing to say a law abiding citizen should have more restrictions.

But then, thats just MY OPINION (oh, and prolly Cat's opinion also)

 

[rgraham666]

As I said many years ago on another forum, "Guns can't fix the big problems. All they can do is increase the casualty rate."

 

[SeaCat]

As I said many years ago on another forum, "Guns can't fix the big problems. All they can do is increase the casualty rate."

Rob you are correct. Guns won't and don't fix the big problems. They never will. On the other hand I have yet to see any viable ways to fix the big problems. One would think that knowledge and education would do this but they don't. It is only the releasing of peoples hatred that will solve the problems.

Cat

 

[rgraham666]

But is the U.S. even trying to fix the big problems?

It seems to me, no. For the most part Americans seem to be happy with a country so dangerous that weapons are required for personal safety. If this means endemic violence at levels no other country in the developed world suffers, they regard it as a necessary price to pay.

That's your choice. I disagree with it.

 

[JagFarlane]

-sigh- I usually avoid discussions of gun control. Generally they spiral down into massive bashings by people whom are vehemently against firearms owners. But, so far this seems pretty civil, so here are my points.

1) I am a firearms owner. I am a member of the NRA. I was trained in firearms safety and usage by an Army Ranger. My firearms are securely locked behind steel. I have used firearms for the past 20 years of my life. I generally remain quiet on the subject, mostly because I have had people spit in my face, call me names, and otherwise act poorly to me because I own firearms.

2) Here are my beliefs: People can and do responsibly own firearms. However, people do not need full automatic firearms and do not need assault rifles. I do believe in allowing ownership of handguns, rifles, and shotguns.

3) People make a huge deal about how eliminating firearms ownership in the US would drop violent crimes. Comparing a country that makes it very hard to own firearms, with a similar population, that views itself as civilized, as well as has the people living in close proximity like many of our cities [which rules out Canada], I present UK violent crime rate vs US violent crime rate.
In 2006 there were roughly 3992 violent crimes per 100,000 citizens in the UK.
In 2006 there were roughly 474 violent crimes per 100,000 citizens in the US.
Here is where I got my information:
FBI tables
UK tables

4) I wonder if any of you have ever heard of a place, nicknamed "Guntown USA"? More than likely not. Its not a solution I think fits every town, but its worked for them. For the past 25 years every head of household has been required to own a firearm. Since then, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting, and the crime rate is now lower than it was in 1981.
Guntown USA

5) Background checks are performed by state police for every firearm purchased. The ATF and local police are present at firearms shows. Any conviction of assault, or domestic violence and the person is banned from owning firearms. This includes misdemeanors such as simple assault. For some states, you have to submit paperwork to request a license to purchase firearms, taking months for state police background checks. Some also require written testimony from residents in the same county [not related], and some require interviews with the town sheriff before the application is approved.

6) People will point to Columbine and VA Tech as reasons for gun control. To me, I find that one of the best preventative measures, would be concerned parents actually knowing their children. Thats something that truly concerns me, the falling apart of families in America. There are so many other things that could be prevented as well. As for VA Tech, the warning signs were there and were ignored by officials.

These, as I reiterate, are just my opinions and I thank you for taking the time to read them. Use them as you will, bash me as you will.

 

[rgraham666]

If I lived in a place where they told me I had to own a fire arm I'd tell them to drop dead.

How does saying you must own a weapon differ from saying you can't?

And Jag, I don't believe those figures for the UK. I'm too tired to go through all the tables at the moment, but they seem ridiculously inflated to me. And I distrust the impartiality of your source.

 

[JagFarlane]

But is the U.S. even trying to fix the big problems?

It seems to me, no. For the most part Americans seem to be happy with a country so dangerous that weapons are required for personal safety. If this means endemic violence at levels no other country in the developed world suffers, they regard it as a necessary price to pay.

That's your choice. I disagree with it.

I ask you, simply, where is your proof? If you wish to make statements like the one I have placed in bold, I ask you for proof of these statements. I have provided mine.

The statistics that I could find, on a quick search revealed this:
In 2001 Interpol reported these crime rates, per 100,000 people
US: 4161
Germany: 7736
France: 6941
England and Wales: 9927
Reported here

As soon as I can locate the numbers on the official Interpol website I will post them

 

[SeaCat]

But is the U.S. even trying to fix the big problems?

It seems to me, no. For the most part Americans seem to be happy with a country so dangerous that weapons are required for personal safety. If this means endemic violence at levels no other country in the developed world suffers, they regard it as a necessary price to pay.

That's your choice. I disagree with it.

Ahhh but is it my choice? I am merely one who has to survive in this highly disfunctional society. (And yes I believe I am allowed to call it disfunctional as I live here and am part of it.)

Cat

 

[Sandy_Fox]

I ask you, simply, where is your proof? If you wish to make statements like the one I have placed in bold, I ask you for proof of these statements. I have provided mine.

The statistics that I could find, on a quick search revealed this:
In 2001 Interpol reported these crime rates, per 100,000 people
US: 4161
Germany: 7736
France: 6941
England and Wales: 9927
Reported here

As soon as I can locate the numbers on the official Interpol website I will post them

VERY good stuff. Thanks.

 

[JagFarlane]

If I lived in a place where they told me I had to own a fire arm I'd tell them to drop dead.

Thats the beauty of freedom, living where you want to.

How does saying you must own a weapon differ from saying you can't?

Didn't I also say that this is not for everyone? Sheesh

And Jag, I don't believe those figures for the UK. I'm too tired to go through all the tables at the moment, but they seem ridiculously inflated to me. And I distrust the impartiality of your source.

Perhaps you'll trust this source then? Its an official Welsh webpage:

Wales, Northern Ireland, and England have highest violent crime rates

Rob, I also have this to say. I am at least providing statistics. You have not, and deny their sources. If you wish to argue with me, then so be it. But bring something to the table other than random thoughts that you have.

 

[JagFarlane]

VERY good stuff. Thanks.

Not a problem. Statistics don't lie, only people do.

 

[rgraham666]

Could some one help me out here, please?

I found some statistics but don't have the knowledge to make sense of them.

All I know is that according to Jag's statistics the UK is a horrible place to live, far more violent than the States. That seems at odds with what I hear from our UK contingent.

And another thing, Jag, if I posted statistics from an anti-gun site, would you believe them?

 

[epiphany65]

Could some one help me out here, please?

I found some statistics but don't have the knowledge to make sense of them.

All I know is that according to Jag's statistics the UK is a horrible place to live. That seems at odds with what I hear from our UK contingent.

The crux of the biscuit is that the stats. do not solely address gun violence, but even more importantly the UK stats. only address crime rates in general, while the US stats. count only violent crimes. So... you're comparing things like break and enter (for example) in the UK to only violent crimes in the US while neglecting to include non-violent crime in the States, so... of course the UK stats. are going to be higher when you include ALL crimes and only mention violent crime in America. Statistics don't lie, but people quoting them can have hidden agendas.

 

[Weird Harold]

The crux of the biscuit is that the stats. do not solely address gun violence, but even more importantly the UK stats. only address crime rates in general, while the US stats. count only violent crimes. So... you're comparing things like break and enter (for example) in the UK to only violent crimes in the US while neglecting to include non-violent crime in the States, so... of course the UK stats. are going to be higher when you include ALL crimes and only mention violent crime in America. Statistics don't lie, but people quoting them can have hidden agendas.

IIRC, The stats for breaking and entry in the US are included in the category of "violent crimes" If the UK and other European Stats are including non-violent "crimes" like embezzlement and fraud in their totals, then yes the numbers will be skewed.

Given the stats in question are from a "single source" I'd expect some degree of "normalization" so they can be meaningfully compared.

One of the problems I have with "gun crime" is that it is separated from other violent crimes -- "Assault with a Deadly Weapon" is "Assault with a Deadly Weapon" whether it's committed with a butter knife or a 105MM howitzer and to my mind, "gun crimes" are no more heinous than crimes committed with an impromptu club for a weapon. The intent of the criminal is to threaten, or do, deadly harm to his victim and it makes no difference to me just how "deadly" his "deadly weapon" is.

Rob asserts that the US doesn't appear to be doing much to address the "bigger problems" and he's entirely correct. Addressing the "bigger problems" would mean doing something more than passing more laws that only affect the previously law-abiding citizens. It would mean admitting that the direction legislation, law-enforcement and social services have taken for the last fifty years or so has been completely counter-productive.

It's much easier to play on the fears of people horrifiied by incidents like Columbine and VA Tech than it is to acknowledge that both cases happened in violation of existing laws intended to keep guns out of the hands of unstable individuals like the perps.

Until laws like the 10-20-life mandatory sentencing seacat mentioned are enforced, there is absolutely nothing that more anti-gun laws can accomplish except to create more criminals.

 

[NoJo]

I'd like to get a gun. I enjoy murdering people, but it just takes ages to do it with a knife and besides I have a touch of arthritis in my arms these days, so it's probably not doing me any good to swing and slash at them sometimes upwards of seventy or eighty times in a minute

 

[Weird Harold]

I'd like to get a gun. I enjoy murdering people, but it just takes ages to do it with a knife and besides I have a touch of arthritis in my arms these days, so it's probably not doing me any good to swing and slash at them sometimes upwards of seventy or eighty times in a minute

Nicely absurd, Joe.

[sarcasm]However, if you enjoy hacking and slashing at people, a gun is going to be very unsatisfying for you -- it's over with as quick as a quick slash of the jugular or thrust up through the solar plexus with a decent knife. [/sarcasm]

The reality is that someone who would "...swing and slash at them sometimes upwards of seventy or eighty times ..." a far mor ehorrific criminal than one who simply shoots their victim.

Perhaps that's because we, in the US at least, are sort of numb to another shooting in the news (usually with the descriptor "gang related" attached) that the bloody spectacle of seventy or eighty stab wounds is what it takes to horrify us.

 

[ishtat]

-sigh- I usually avoid discussions of gun control. Generally they spiral down into massive bashings by people whom are vehemently against firearms owners. But, so far this seems pretty civil, so here are my points.

1) I am a firearms owner. I am a member of the NRA. I was trained in firearms safety and usage by an Army Ranger. My firearms are securely locked behind steel. I have used firearms for the past 20 years of my life. I generally remain quiet on the subject, mostly because I have had people spit in my face, call me names, and otherwise act poorly to me because I own firearms.

2) Here are my beliefs: People can and do responsibly own firearms. However, people do not need full automatic firearms and do not need assault rifles. I do believe in allowing ownership of handguns, rifles, and shotguns.

3) People make a huge deal about how eliminating firearms ownership in the US would drop violent crimes. Comparing a country that makes it very hard to own firearms, with a similar population, that views itself as civilized, as well as has the people living in close proximity like many of our cities [which rules out Canada], I present UK violent crime rate vs US violent crime rate.
In 2006 there were roughly 3992 violent crimes per 100,000 citizens in the UK.
In 2006 there were roughly 474 violent crimes per 100,000 citizens in the US.
Here is where I got my information:
FBI tables
UK tables

4) I wonder if any of you have ever heard of a place, nicknamed "Guntown USA"? More than likely not. Its not a solution I think fits every town, but its worked for them. For the past 25 years every head of household has been required to own a firearm. Since then, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting, and the crime rate is now lower than it was in 1981.
Guntown USA

5) Background checks are performed by state police for every firearm purchased. The ATF and local police are present at firearms shows. Any conviction of assault, or domestic violence and the person is banned from owning firearms. This includes misdemeanors such as simple assault. For some states, you have to submit paperwork to request a license to purchase firearms, taking months for state police background checks. Some also require written testimony from residents in the same county [not related], and some require interviews with the town sheriff before the application is approved.

6) People will point to Columbine and VA Tech as reasons for gun control. To me, I find that one of the best preventative measures, would be concerned parents actually knowing their children. Thats something that truly concerns me, the falling apart of families in America. There are so many other things that could be prevented as well. As for VA Tech, the warning signs were there and were ignored by officials.

These, as I reiterate, are just my opinions and I thank you for taking the time to read them. Use them as you will, bash me as you will.

Your source for reliable UK information is a site devoted to support of the second amendment and which is paid for by gun adverts.

Here are some actual rates for homicide using a Gun.

USA 37.2 per million per year
Italy 16.6
England 1.1
Australia 4.4
Germany 2.2
Switzerland 5.8
Japan 0.2

I agree with some of the points you make particularly within 1 and 2 above but when you suggest that the level of violent crime in England is 7 or 8 times greater than USA that is clearly so absurd you damage rather than support your argument. You have a decent basis for your case but not the ridiculous numbers you quoted.

To be fair I got my numbers from Guncite which is also a site devoted to supporting the second amendment. However on this site they present the difficult numbers but then also present detailed arguments to support their contention that gun posession alone is not causal.

Sorry but I couldn't get the Guncite link to work.

 

[ishtat]

Not a problem. Statistics don't lie, only people do.

DDDDDDD

 

[john-the-author]

Fairly easy

1. no criminal record
2. pass competency and safety course
3. reasonable psychiatric screening, like a MMPI
4. "Shall Issue" when the above are passed.

Not bad. I might add something about substance abuse/responsible citizen issues--you know, if someone's shown to be an alcoholic, drug user, or a social jerk (oh, say, multiple moving violations)--that the right to own can be suspended.

Mental competence s/ definitely be a factor: the father of a good friend was seriously Alzheimer's, but he kept buying guns. At one point, they cleaned out 14 guns around the house. When he found they were gone, he went out and bought another, despite being unable to remember his name all the time. This is not right.

I always liked Bill Hicks' comment about guns: "In Great Britain, where guns are illegal, 14 people died as a result of gunshot wounds last year, while in the US--and you know how we feel about guns there--28,000 people. But there isn't a link between guns and gunshot deaths, and you'd be a fool and a Communist to say so."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I think we all agree that the owners need to have a license of some kind . . .

Oh?

Licensure provides a future tyrrannical government with a handy list of who to round up and what to confiscate.

Of course that could never happen here . . .

Oh?