Badnarik "Gun Control Means Being Able to Hit your Target"

[ajwps]

Originally posted by MrMarbles
Then get rid of all the guns. No guns, no bad guys with guns.

When guns are outlawed then only outlaws have guns.

 

[MrMarbles]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
WRONG.

All you have to do is look at England and Australia to see what the effects of banning guns is. Their violent crime rates have gone up significantly because possessing a gun is a crime. Thus, criminals have/use guns because they know it is against the law for an average Brit/Aussie to fight back with a gun, and so the criminals have the upper hand.

If everyone is armed, or there is a chance that everyone may be armed, crime decreases significantly. Case in point: Kennesaw, GA, passed a law mandating that all heads of households own a firearm. Violent crime in Kennesaw since that law was passed has decreased dramatically. And for good reason - would you rob a house or rape a woman when it's ver likely that there's someone in that house with a gun?

Gun control disarms citizens - it does not protect them.

Crime went up in England and Austrailia over the past decade? Is this related to gun control? No.

Crime in england did spike in '95, but has since drop down to the '81 level. Obviously gun control had no real affect in crime. It just makes day to day living a little safer.
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page54.asp

In Aussie land, crime has barely moved since '95. Homicide has actually dropped a bit.
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/ABS%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/08238ef609c9178eca256b35001967d0!OpenDocument

Gun control did not affect crime, that is a social matter. Gun control dose affect the amount of un-needed violence.

Why would you want to own a device, that's soul perpose is to destroy life?

 

[MrMarbles]

Sorry, bad link for Aussie.

http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/aust/australia.html

Here ya go.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Gun control I think is misconceived, because yes, only criminals will have guns.

However, I cannot fathom how everyone owning a gun will help improve safety in a community. Do you honestly believe criminals will be deterred? It would be fantastic if we could give only those who are responsible guns, but that doesn't work.

Rifles and hunting weapons are fine in my opinion. They have a purpose, but concealed weapons? They have one use, and one use only.

The US, however, has a gun culture and I can't see them giving it up anytime soon. It's a law issue from what I can see, it's a cultural instution. Even though Canada has more guns per capita than the US, we don't share the same draw towards them in terms of protective use.

However, unfortunately, your Americans guns have a nasty problem of seeping themselves into other countries such as my own. According to the Candadian Police Association half of all handguns brought to our country and used in crimes are from the United States. Add to that 64% of our firearm crimes are using handguns and 31% of homicides and 33% of robberies involve firearms. So it's not hard to see that US firearms play a very significant role in Canadian crime. And let's not even start with Latin America....

My solution? Any crime committed with a gun automatically doubles the sentence, pure and simple and if I had my way, I'd halt domestic production of handguns. The model works well in Canada and it'd work even better for us if the US was on board.

Sources:
http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/general_public/news_features/other/crimedata.asp
http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/research/pamplets/pdfs/focus-en.pdf

 

[pegwinn]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Gun control I think is misconceived, because yes, only criminals will have guns. Correct

However, I cannot fathom how everyone owning a gun will help improve safety in a community. Do you honestly believe criminals will be deterred? It doesn't deter all criminals. But a significant percentage are deterrred by the possibility of getting shot. Someone wrote that "An armed society is a polite society". If you enter my home against my will, there is a good chance you will not exit alive.It would be fantastic if we could give only those who are responsible guns, but that doesn't work.

Rifles and hunting weapons are fine in my opinion. They have a purpose, but concealed weapons? They have one use, and one use only. Yes, to draw and fire on your attacker. Texas has a concealed carry law. I personally think it helps to ensure no one accosts my wife in public.

The US, however, has a gun culture and I can't see them giving it up anytime soon. It's a law issue from what I can see, it's a cultural instution. Even though Canada has more guns per capita than the US, we don't share the same draw towards them in terms of protective use.

However, unfortunately, your Americans guns have a nasty problem of seeping themselves into other countries such as my own. According to the Candadian Police Association half of all handguns brought to our country and used in crimes are from the United States. Add to that 64% of our firearm crimes are using handguns and 31% of homicides and 33% of robberies involve firearms. So it's not hard to see that US firearms play a very significant role in Canadian crime. And let's not even start with Latin America....

My solution? Any crime committed with a gun automatically doubles the sentence, pure and simple and if I had my way, absolutely, a very good idea. incarcerate the violent. I'd halt domestic production of handguns. How about cars. Cars cause more deaths than guns. Do we stop making them as well.The model works well in Canada and it'd work even better for us if the US was on board.

Sources:
http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/general_public/news_features/other/crimedata.asp
http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/research/pamplets/pdfs/focus-en.pdf

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by MrMarbles

Sorry, bad link for Aussie.

http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/aust/australia.html

Here ya go.

Here ya go: Looks like non-registered guns were responsible for over 90% of all weapon related crime.

From your Aussie sight

http://www.aic.gov.au/library/cinch/subjects/gun-abstracts.html

The licensing and registration status of firearms used in homicide
Mouzos, Jenny
Canberra : Australian Institute of Criminology, 2000. 6p. bibl, graph, table / ISBN 0 6422 4162 7; ISSN 0817-8542 (Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice; no. 151)
The licensing and registration status of offenders and firearms used in homicide were examined using data held as part of the National Homicide Monitoring Program. The findings of the report showed that since 1997 licensed firearm owners were not been responsible for over 90 per cent of firearm related homicides. Most firearms used to commit homicide were not registered and their owners not licensed.

 

[MrMarbles]

Originally posted by ajwps
Here ya go: Looks like non-registered guns were responsible for over 90% of all weapon related crime.

From your Aussie sight

http://www.aic.gov.au/library/cinch/subjects/gun-abstracts.html

Argh! Of course criminals aren't going to register their guns. I'm not for regulated gun control, i'm for no guns at all. No guns, no unneede gun deaths.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by MrMarbles
Argh! Of course criminals aren't going to register their guns. I'm not for regulated gun control, i'm for no guns at all. No guns, no unneede gun deaths.

And how exactly do you plan to take the guns away from the criminals (who have no respect for the law anyway), let alone those of us who follow Heston's Creed (that you'll take my gun from my cold dead fingers)?

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by MrMarbles

Argh! Of course criminals aren't going to register their guns. I'm not for regulated gun control, i'm for no guns at all. No guns, no unneede gun deaths.

Take every gun out of the world just like you would like to see occur. Then you soon would have dynamite or Ricin poison to kill hundreds and thousands of people by insane people or terrorists.

But you would have no guns to stop the murder of tens of thousands who will die because their is no one to end the life of a couple of madmen.

Not to mention knives, bludgeons or simply electricity to kill. But alas, no guns to stop them.

Would that be satisfactory to you????

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by MrMarbles
Argh! Of course criminals aren't going to register their guns. I'm not for regulated gun control, i'm for no guns at all. No guns, no unneede gun deaths.

So your basically for instituting martial law and removing all guns from society, and restricting personal freedoms to the extent that no black markets could exist? That's living in prison dude.

 

[dilloduck]

Target shooting is a sport in the olympics, for god's sake. People who want to take away guns are usually the ones who don't know how to use one and are afraid of what they would do with a gun if they had one !

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by MrMarbles
No guns, no unneede gun deaths. [/B]

So would you then agree with the following statements:

No Swimming pools, and unneeded drowning deaths.
No knives, no unneeded stabbing deaths.
No cars, no unneeded automobile deaths.
No bicycles, no unneeded bicycling deaths.

More people in the US are killed each year by swimming pools, knives, cars, and bikes than by guns. So I'm assuming that, in the name of safety, you would be willing to outlaw these four things as well.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

I love guns. I just recieved my concealed carry permit today. In my state, Indiana, the process is streamlined. $20, one interview, that's it. How many flaming liberals like me do you think are packing a 7.62, 25 Takorev? Not nearly enough. George Bush is a wuss on gun rights. He and Kerry are in the same boat. Just another reason for me to dislike Bush. I don't get why the NRA supports him. They shouldn't support him this year, and let it be a wake up call to the political establishment.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
I love guns. I just recieved my concealed carry permit today. In my state, Indiana, the process is streamlined. $20, one interview, that's it. How many flaming liberals like me do you think are packing a 7.62, 25 Takorev? Not nearly enough. George Bush is a wuss on gun rights. He and Kerry are in the same boat. Just another reason for me to dislike Bush. I don't get why the NRA supports him. They shouldn't support him this year, and let it be a wake up call to the political establishment.

You are very consistent: You say, "He and Kerry are in the same boat. Just another reason for me to dislike Bush."

So you like Kerry because he took a photo op on a hunt with his hunting pants on. You will really like him on gun control if Kerry by some dramatic change in the law of gravity gets into office.

You ask, " I don't get why the NRA supports him."

May be this Magic City Morning Star article will help you understand.

http://magic-city-news.com/article_1685.shtml

The NRA. The National Rifle Association waged a powerful campaign against Al Gore, and may have been the deciding factor in a couple of swing states. To neutralize their attacks in 2004, Senator Kerry has released video footage of himself, shotgun in hand, on a hunting trip. The NRA’s CEO, Wayne LaPierre, is not swayed: "If you thought the eight long years of the Clinton/Gore administration’s war on firearms owners’ rights were oppressive, they would pale in comparison to what John Kerry would have in store for us if he captures the White House and evicts President George W. Bush in November." Mr. LaPierre’s loyalty to Mr. Bush is well-founded; the NRA (as opposed to gun-owners in general) may never have another friend in the White House like they have now. To this administration, a citizen’s reading habits and medical records should be open to government scrutiny - but even terrorists have the right to privacy when it comes to firearms.

 

[MrMarbles]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
So would you then agree with the following statements:

No Swimming pools, and unneeded drowning deaths.
No knives, no unneeded stabbing deaths.
No cars, no unneeded automobile deaths.
No bicycles, no unneeded bicycling deaths.

More people in the US are killed each year by swimming pools, knives, cars, and bikes than by guns. So I'm assuming that, in the name of safety, you would be willing to outlaw these four things as well.

Swimming pools aren't designed specifically to kill people.

Without cars society, in at least NA, would crumble, and aren't designed specifically to kill people.

Bicicycles aren't designed specifically to kill people.

Knifes, well it will be knid of hard to eat meat without out one, but NA society dose eat to much anyway, so sure, outlaw knives.

Target shooting is a sport in the olympics, for god's sake. People who want to take away guns are usually the ones who don't know how to use one and are afraid of what they would do with a gun if they had one !

Target shooting is the lamest excuse for a sport.

Your right, i don't know how to use one, or what I might do with one, just like most people who own one.

So your basically for instituting martial law and removing all guns from society, and restricting personal freedoms to the extent that no black markets could exist? That's living in prison dude.

Where do you get martial law from?

Take every gun out of the world just like you would like to see occur. Then you soon would have dynamite or Ricin poison to kill hundreds and thousands of people by insane people or terrorists.

We already have dynamite and Ricin, why aren't terroeists using them now? They are much more affective then guns. Wait, maybe this 'terrorist threat' everyone is afraid of, maybe it was cooked up by your gov't to keep you all in line. 9/11 was the best thing to happen to the current administration since sliced bread.

But you would have no guns to stop the murder of tens of thousands who will die because their is no one to end the life of a couple of madmen.

Plus, I just don't want average joe to own a gun, you would still have police and the army to protect you. Besides the average street cop in england don't carry guns, and there is'nt thousands of people dying on the streets there.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by MrMarbles
Swimming pools aren't designed specifically to kill people.

Without cars society, in at least NA, would crumble, and aren't designed specifically to kill people.

Bicicycles aren't designed specifically to kill people.

Knifes, well it will be knid of hard to eat meat without out one, but NA society dose eat to much anyway, so sure, outlaw knives.



Target shooting is the lamest excuse for a sport.

Your right, i don't know how to use one, or what I might do with one, just like most people who own one.



Where do you get martial law from?



We already have dynamite and Ricin, why aren't terroeists using them now? They are much more affective then guns. Wait, maybe this 'terrorist threat' everyone is afraid of, maybe it was cooked up by your gov't to keep you all in line. 9/11 was the best thing to happen to the current administration since sliced bread.



Plus, I just don't want average joe to own a gun, you would still have police and the army to protect you. Besides the average street cop in england don't carry guns, and there is'nt thousands of people dying on the streets there.

Lame excuse?? There are many kinds of guns designed for many different purposes. Your argument if flawed when imply that guns are only designed to kill people. There ARE some guns designed for self defense. This is the right that you are seeking to take away. How I chose to defend myself is MY right. If I chose to use this right irresponsibly, there are laws in place that will punish me. It is impossible to calculate how many lives could have been saved if the victim had a gun to protect himself with.

9/11 a plot by the administration to control the US citizens? Prove it or you owe them a HUGE apology!!

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by MrMarbles

Swimming pools aren't designed specifically to kill people.

But if a person drowns in a swimming pool by accident or a gun fires by accident then logic would say that both should be eliminated from everyone's use.

We already have dynamite and Ricin, why aren't terroeists using them now? They are much more affective then guns. Wait, maybe this 'terrorist threat' everyone is afraid of, maybe it was cooked up by your gov't to keep you all in line. 9/11 was the best thing to happen to the current administration since sliced bread.

Or maybe terrorists are using these weapons as we speak. Embassies, police stations, churches, synagogues, restaurants, clubs for events, roadsides, highjacked airlines, exploding automobiles and many other things are specifically designed to blow up and KILL large numbers of people without using one single gun. Once I saw a gun come off a table and turn toward a lady and then the gun simply fired and killed her. (NO GUNS FOR ANYONE).

Plus, I just don't want average joe to own a gun, you would still have police and the army to protect you. Besides the average street cop in england don't carry guns, and there is'nt thousands of people dying on the streets there.

You said that you didn't want any guns manufactured even for a police force or a standing army. What made you change your mind? Do you know how many gun related crimes exist in England vs. the United States? See graph below...

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/

Guns make it easier to kill and injure people. Therefore, it is obvious to the most casual observer that reducing the prevalence of guns will reduce the prevalence of death and injury.

But, what about people who aren't just "casual observers"? As with many issues, if a person cares enough about the issues of violence and liberty to actually make the effort of getting all the relevant facts about gun possession, things are no longer so obvious. And there are a lot of really technical facts related to the costs and benefits, to us all, of private citizens possessing firearms.

As with other matters, the only way to clarify in the midst of a lot of confusing facts is to put in some effort to analyse the facts, and correlate them, and understand them. When one understands, it all becomes clear again.

This site is for people who care enough about violence, life, death, liberty and slavery to put in the effort to get the facts about guns—and then understand them. If you don't care enough to learn, please have the decency to avoid doing things that might eliminate the ability of others to protect themselves, their families, their neighbors, and you—or might steal the liberty of our descendants.

 

[remie]

mrmarbles writes

"Target shooting is the lamest excuse for a sport."


Something you obviously have not tried. I requires the hand eye coordination of a surgeon and the breathing control of an opera singer.

 

[MrMarbles]

You said that you didn't want any guns manufactured even for a police force or a standing army.

No i didn't, i said i didn't want any guns, I did not specifically cite wanting the polcie or army to go without them.

Lame excuse?? There are many kinds of guns designed for many different purposes. Your argument if flawed when imply that guns are only designed to kill people

Sorry, they are only designed to destroy life.

Something you obviously have not tried. I requires the hand eye coordination of a surgeon and the breathing control of an opera singer.

With those skills, why waste your time shooting, why not become a surgeon or opera singer?

But if a person drowns in a swimming pool by accident or a gun fires by accident then logic would say that both should be eliminated from everyone's use.

But when you use a gun, someone dies, or is permantley inbjured, if you swim in a pool, with proper diligence you probably won't get your brains blown out.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Of course guns kill. They protect us by killing criminals and other assorted scumbags. There is a postive side of guns, though you libs hate to admit it.