|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
 Posted - 07/18/2001 : 14:20:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I may not love you like your kids, but I like to read your debates.
Why, Sir....how you DO go on. I'm blushin'.
My kids still love me. |
 |
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2001 : 14:20:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm sure Snake made that comparison because sheHE lives in a hot place and doesn't have air conditioning. I get crazy when I have to go to the Valley.
Huh! Where's the quote? You goina make me go back through all the posts to find it?
BTW, as I'm typing now, I'm wearing socks, it's so cold in my house. And not nude like I usualy am.
quote:
I have been shot, by the way. It's no fun at all. The child/man was really sorry about shooting me. He was really very sorry. It was an accident. The bullet hit my middle finger
Sorry to hear that Kil. Belive it or not that same thing happened to another friend of mine too.
quote:
I would much rather face a crazed person wielding a knife.
But in a strugle a knife can be just as deadly. Maybe even more so. As it can slash and make a worse wound on more places whereas a gun can miss easier or wound less tramumaticly.
VHEMT |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2001 : 15:29:01 [Permalink]
|
By referring to knives I was referring to the kids (and yes quite a few of them are kids) in the Phillipines who can handle a butterfly knife with precision.
Seems I'm aligned with Garrette on this issue of gun control. I beleive strongly in my right to protect myself. As a single woman working in downtown I would often have to walk to my car in the dark. Several times I found needles on my car. If someone approached me - you bet I'd give them my wallet. Not worth getting in an argument over it. However, if the threat escalated beyond robbery - then I would defend myself. And to suggest that I should be subject to the whims of whomever is frightening to me for extremely personal reasons.
As regards to mentally unstable persons, drunks etc. There are laws on the books to prevent persons with criminal records from purchasing guns from a licensed dealer. However, there are loopholes in these laws.
Owning a weapon is a great responsibility. One which I was taught early on. My mother was against the idea of my father taking my brother and I aside and discussing weapon. However, I know my father kept his service revolver handy, neither my brother nor I ever touched it. We'd both fired the weapon, there was no curiosity regarding its use. He took the same attitude with alcohol - neither of us drink to excess.
Unfortunately there is no test for those that might actually snap or become mentally unstable. It's a part of the risk we take to maintain the surety of our freedom.
Oh and as regards Columbine, the weapons were purchased illegally. The man who sold the weapon to Harris' girlfriend will spend 6 years incarcerated in Carson City CO. I'm not sure what happened to the girlfriend... They intended to use more than guns at Columbine - homemade bombs were found in the school kitchen. They didn't ignite otherwise things would have been much worse.
And on a final note - McVeigh didn't require a gun either.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2001 : 15:47:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
By referring to knives I was referring to the kids (and yes quite a few of them are kids) in the Phillipines who can handle a butterfly knife with precision.
Seems I'm aligned with Garrette on this issue of gun control. I beleive strongly in my right to protect myself. As a single woman working in downtown I would often have to walk to my car in the dark. Several times I found needles on my car. If someone approached me - you bet I'd give them my wallet. Not worth getting in an argument over it. However, if the threat escalated beyond robbery - then I would defend myself. And to suggest that I should be subject to the whims of whomever is frightening to me for extremely personal reasons.
As regards to mentally unstable persons, drunks etc. There are laws on the books to prevent persons with criminal records from purchasing guns from a licensed dealer. However, there are loopholes in these laws.
Owning a weapon is a great responsibility. One which I was taught early on. My mother was against the idea of my father taking my brother and I aside and discussing weapon. However, I know my father kept his service revolver handy, neither my brother nor I ever touched it. We'd both fired the weapon, there was no curiosity regarding its use. He took the same attitude with alcohol - neither of us drink to excess.
Unfortunately there is no test for those that might actually snap or become mentally unstable. It's a part of the risk we take to maintain the surety of our freedom.
Oh and as regards Columbine, the weapons were purchased illegally. The man who sold the weapon to Harris' girlfriend will spend 6 years incarcerated in Carson City CO. I'm not sure what happened to the girlfriend... They intended to use more than guns at Columbine - homemade bombs were found in the school kitchen. They didn't ignite otherwise things would have been much worse.
And on a final note - McVeigh didn't require a gun either.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell!
No arguements here. I'm all for closing the gun show loophole. I also grew up around firearms. My brother and I learned to shoot and firearm safety. As the admiral said in Space Above And Beyond, "The unloaded gun shoots loudest."
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2001 : 17:33:16 [Permalink]
|
I notice that the statistics for self defense involving a firearm 1)exclude homicides and 2)are a small percentage of the total crimes.
I really don't care if a single person managed to successfully defend themselves with a firearm. My feeling is that it makes no sense to need a gun for defense because other people have guns. If the other people don't have guns then no one would need them for defense right?
But offenders do have guns. Why? Because of the Second Ammendment. LOL Oh, they got the gun illegally, stole it etc. right?
Stole it because they are everywhere because of the Second Ammendment!!
I note the words about responsible people taking classes and storing guns correctly etc. But none of these people are the problem are they? I am concerned about the irresponsible people.
I am also not interested in drunk or insane people being able to do damage with objects rather than guns. That may be true, but take the guns from them and there is one less object for them to use.
Kil said some things that are extremely important in the use of guns.
They kill someone at a distance in an impersonal manner. It takes no guts and hardly any effort. Just flex that finger and there you go.
I do not blame guns for the crime, I blame them for exacerbating situations that might be bad without guns, but with guns end in fatality.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2001 : 22:22:16 [Permalink]
|
@tomic, I can go down to a street corner in downtown and obtain an unregistered, unmarked gun in a matter of minutes. Some of these things weren't stolen from legal gun owners. Criminals in societies where guns are banned are also able to obtain these weapons. The point isn't the responsible gun owner - its the criminal with a weapon.
If I'm walking to my car alone at night and I'm attacked - what chance have I of defending myself from a rape that not only threatens me at that moment but will threaten me for the next several years - especially if the attacker is HIV positive. Because I can't defend myself with any other means against this hypothetical lunatic I am meant to suffer for the rest of my life? In actualality I don't have a gun that I carry - I carry a tazer and police issue pepper spray. (My brothers a cop ok...the versions civilians can purchase are different - my understanding of it anyway). But I have owned guns and rifles both and have been trained in their use and safety.
Even the police in many instances are out gunned by the criminals. With fully automatic weapons.
It's my opinion that fully automatic weapons only belong in the hands of professionally trained military and para-military units (read the police). Though this seems a sticking point with the NRA - of which I am not a member, nor do I agree with them in entirety on many issues.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2001 : 22:29:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
@tomic, I can go down to a street corner in downtown and obtain an unregistered, unmarked gun in a matter of minutes. Some of these things weren't stolen from legal gun owners. Criminals in societies where guns are banned are also able to obtain these weapons. The point isn't the responsible gun owner - its the criminal with a weapon.
My point is that if guns had been more or less illegal all along then they would be much, much harder for criminals to get. But they have been easy to obtain for a couple hundred years and now we have a couple hundred million guns floating around, hence the need to protect ourselves from each other.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2001 : 22:30:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
...It's my opinion that fully automatic weapons only belong in the hands of professionally trained military and para-military units (read the police). Though this seems a sticking point with the NRA - of which I am not a member, nor do I agree with them in entirety on many issues.
It strikes me that this is an eminently reasonable position. I am much more concerned about the criminal on the street attacking me and those whom I care about, than I am about the hypothetical (far-fetched) possibility that I may need to defend myself against those "military and para-military units (read the police)". And I am frankly quite suspicious of those who feel they need to defend themselves against the government.
|
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2001 : 02:45:04 [Permalink]
|
The statistics of Gary Kleck are flawed for the following reasons:
- He used a far smaller sample size then the more accurate NCVS (12 times smaller)
- He's survey was based mostly in the Western and Southern states which have a higher proportion of gun ownership and use.
- His projection of the amount of gun defences was based on only 54 responses
- He didn't ask anything about the self-defence, only if it were used in self-defence (don't laugh, 48% of criminals who fire a gun claim they do it in self defence)
- Instead of going through peer review he went straight to the newspapers, magazines and talk shows, which is a common tactic of cranks
- If his results were correct then 80% of all roberies in the US would have been averted by a gun, desipte only 50% of houses having a gun (lol).
NCVS on the other hand has a very large sample size, is not centered on any location, has some of the best statistians in the US working on it and the latest methodlogy to prodvide valid results, a 97% participation rate and anonymity guranteed by law (meaning no matter what you tell them they can't release it, which does a good job getting rid of false negatives).
Why is it being blasted as untrustworthy, inept, ideologically driven, etc?
Because it offends certain political views.
As for more guns and bigger guns... For some reason I don't like the idea of the right to bear nuclear weapons.
Anyway 1886, US Supreme Court Presser vs. Illinois.
1939, US Supreme Court United States vs. Miller.
1976, US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Warin.
Research those, then try telling me the 2nd Amendment is interpreted to mean peoples rights without lieing.
You wouldn't be able to.
As for ability to kill, yes there are other ways to get the same advantages of guns but most of them require far more experience.
It is also instrutive to see how many attempted suicides succeed when using different weapons.
One finds that guns are the most likely to do so.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2001 : 04:30:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As for ability to kill, yes there are other ways to get the same advantages of guns but most of them require far more experience.
Go to any decent search engine and look up bombs. The one used by McVeigh was made from fertilizer. The ones planned by Harris and Klebold were both pipe bombs and those created from propane bottles. All the items to make these bombs are easily available over the counter - since they are constructed from mundane everyday materials. McVeigh, Harris, and Klebold all looked on the internet for the instruction on making these bombs. The only fortunate thing is that Harris and Klebold screwed up and the bombs didn't go off.
There are studies that have been done regarding communities where gun ownership is the law. These communities tend to have fewer violent crimes. (I will have to see if I can find anything on the one community here in the states that mandated gun ownership - their crime rate dropped.) Though as Garrette pointed out previously - Switzerland has a requirement that all men have an automatic weapon at the ready and they have a lower crime rate.
Has Australia's violent crime rate increased or decreased since banning private gun ownership?
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2001 : 05:24:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And many armies have scoffed at the abilities of their enemies. The Soviets scoffed at the Afghanis (yes, of course their weapons came from us, the anti-air stuff did, anyway; how does this support your argument?). The Brits scoffed at us. We scoffed at the Native Americans. We also scoffed at the Viet Cong (yes, yes, this is a VERY complex issue regarding political aims versus military aims and what constituted a battlefield victory, etc., etc.; we can go there if you like). Perhaps the best example: Germany and the Soviet Partisans in WWII. Did those partisans make a difference? You betcher sweet patootie they did, and with little more than old hunting rifles to start with and some crude home-made explosives.
The argument about the Soviet partisans is mistaken. John Keegan spent an entire chapter on the subject of partisans and irregulars in WWII in his book The Second World War, concluding, first, that the core of the Russian partisans were Red Army soldiers who had been trapped behind the lines of the German advance and were definitely not fighting with old hunting rifles and homemade explosives, and second, that although they were armed, trained and directed by the Soviet government they didn't really have a significant effect on the course of the war. They managed to harrass German communications to an extent, but the German communication lines were untenably long anyway. They managed to kill between 35,000 and 100,000 German troops, depending on who's doing the estimating, which is a drop in the bucket of German casualties. The effectiveness of the partisans can be gauged by the fact that the number of troops the Germans had to devote to security was a tiny fraction of those who were fighting the regular Red Army.
Irregular fighters are only significant if certain specific conditions of terrain, population, outside supply and the nature of their enemy are met. And even then, well, the French partisans on the Vercors plateau were well-armed, supplied by the Allies, led by professional officers and in a defensible place, but they were still massacred by the Germans.
The idea that any American "militia" could stand off professional troops willing to slaughter their own people for the sake of their masters' interests is a fantasy.
It is, because it isn't not, and that's the part that goes up. |
|
|
|
Kristin
Skeptic Friend
Canada
84 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2001 : 08:11:06 [Permalink]
|
How did this conversation go from 'mad dogs and englishmen in the sun' to the U.S. Second Amendment?
IMHO that (2nd amendment) doesn't have quite as much to do with illegal gun possession as simple intent. The people who want illegal guns are going to be able to get them anyways. Canada has very strict gun laws compared to the U.S.; yet almost every household here (locally) has guns, and unregistered ones at that (despite the recent country wide gun registrations). You need a permit to get gun ammunition now, of course, but I'm not sure how effective that is. There will always be someone recycling rounds. Even if we took all the guns away from all the criminals worldwide, destroyed every last one, what are the chances that someone isn't going to start making them again and just selling them to people who just distribute to criminals?
On only trained personnel having automatic weapons; my father spent time over in Zambia for work a few years ago, during the civil war in the Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire). The camp was 1 km from the border of said country. They had armed guards in all the work camps 24/7 with AK-47s, meant to guard them from the rebels crossing the borders (people being run off the road and killed for their company SUV's was disturbingly common; but that's another story) My father worked the night shift, and regularly came across those same guards _sleeping_. One night he'd had quite enough; he took said guard's ak-47 from him and kicked/rolled him into the fire he was sleeping beside. He woke up rather quickly :P Father then took the AK-47 and turned it in at the guard's station. He was told the next day by a different guard, that it was cruel to have done that to the young man, as being caught sleeping on the job would mean that he would be severely beaten as punishment. And so he was. But threat of punishment, threat of being killed by rebels (who would be more likely to kill an armed sleeping person first, I would think) and threat of people dying due to his negligence was not enough to keep him awake. How do we guard against these people?
Good judgement comes from experience: experience comes from bad judgement. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2001 : 22:56:28 [Permalink]
|
That is unfortunately sad Kristin. I often chased the armed guard out of the quonset hut in the Philipines since he would try coming in while we were taking showers. I don't think he would want to explain why he was shooting a Marine in their barracks when he should not have been inside in the first place. As for automatic weapons (I mean fully automatic) in the hands of civilians there's really no reason at this point for that type of armament in the civilian community. The police should not be outgunned by criminals - I think we remember some of the problems with a particular bank robbery in CA. (Snake can probably enlighten us since he's from somewhere close to that vicinity.)
Well trained personnel like the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marines should not be sleeping on post. If the OOD decides to knock their chair out from under them for sleeping on post that's their problem. There are differences in rules between the US armed forces and other countries.
I can understand his upset at the guards who are responisible for his safety sleeping on duty. I would be extremely upset also. But I've never slept on duty - despite jokes to the contrary.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2001 : 03:02:26 [Permalink]
|
Explosive? Yeah I can make them if want to although the effort required beforehand means they aren't used for spur of the moment killings like guns often are, explosives are usually only used for things that are planned.
The reason the Swiss rifle murder rate is so low is because the guns are strcitly controlled. However their handgun murder rate is quite high (they also have rather liberal handgun laws).
In fact in the US the places with the highest crime rates also tend to have the highest gun ownership rates.
In most countries where gun control legislation is introduced the gun crime rate goes down, but everything else is untouched.
A lot of people say that Australian murder rate went up after the semi-auto ban but the difference is insignifant (meaning a blip).
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2001 : 06:06:03 [Permalink]
|
Sorry this has taken so long, but I was composing my answer yesterday when I got booted and lost it all, then couldn't get back on the site.
So I tried to reconstruct the answer offline to copy onto the board. That means, of course, that some of the original momentum was lost and the unassailable brilliance and insight of my first draft is a bit dulled now, but oh, well. (If I did emoticons, I'd put one here, so I'll just say it: "That last line was a joke). Truth be told, though, it is harder to capture as much in a lengthy re-do, but I'll present it anyway.
First, though, one response from what I've missed in the interim:
quote:
In fact in the US the places with the highest crime rates also tend to have the highest gun ownership rates.
Not true unless you're counting the extrapolations about illegal gun ownership. And so long as we're talking this kind of subject, the group shown least likely to commit ANY type of crime in the U.S. are those who have been granted a license to carry a concealed weapon.
Now here's what I wrote yesterday (because I did it offline, there are few links, though the subjects I link to are easy to find with google).
Lots of stuff to address. This should really be broken down into different categories, so I'm going to arbitrarily do that in my response. No one is bound to stick by this, but it helps me get my brain around it, so here goes.
1. The effectiveness of ‘irregulars' or ‘militia' against professional military (not really central to the argument, but interesting nonetheless)
2. The Constitutionality of the ‘right to bear arms' based mainly, but not solely, upon case history, and covering these three questions:
a. Whether the right to bear arms is a collective right or an individual right
b. Whether the right is predicated on the individual's legitimate ties to a state-recognized militia
c. Whether the 2nd Amendment is recognized as defining a ‘fundamental right' and so is incorporated into the Due Process Clause (14th Amendment)
3. The effect of gun control and/or a ban on ownership on the general welfare.
---------------------------------------------
1. The effectiveness of ‘irregulars'….
quote:
The argument about the Soviet partisans is mistaken. John Keegan spent an entire chapter on the subject of partisans and irregulars in WWII in his book The Second World War, concluding, first, that the core of the Russian partisans were Red Army soldiers who had been trapped behind the lines of the German advance and were definitely not fighting with old hunting rifles and homemade explosives, and second, that although they were armed, trained and directed by the Soviet government they didn't really have a significant effect on the course of the war. They managed to harrass German communications to an extent, but the German communication lines were untenably long anyway. They managed to kill between 35,000 and 100,000 German troops, depending on who's doing the estimating, which is a drop in the bucket of German casualties. The effectiveness of the partisans can be gauged by the fact that the number of troops the Germans had to devote to security was a tiny fraction of those who were fighting the regular Red Army.
Irregular fighters are only significant if certain specific conditions of terrain, population, outside supply and the nature of their enemy are met. And even then, well, the French partisans on the Vercors plateau were well-armed, supplied by the Allies, led by professional officers and in a defensible place, but they were still massacred by the Germans.
The idea that any American "militia" could stand off prof |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
