16 of 17
16
Guns
Posted: 02 August 2012 06:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 226 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1191
Joined  2011-08-01
Rocinante - 01 August 2012 05:17 PM

Truth hurts, doesn’t it?

Sorry, I didn’t mean to inflict pain on you.  LOL

 Signature 

Free in Kentucky
—Humanist
“I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it.”—Edith Sitwell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2012 06:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 227 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2012-08-07

Gun ownership and hunting is common here and there are several shooting ranges for target shooters, which is what I am. Personally, I have no problem with responsible people owning firearms if used properly

drug and alcohol services

[ Edited: 10 August 2012 02:48 AM by Rachel Gawith ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2012 09:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 228 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5165
Joined  2010-06-16

Welcome Rachel.  Your statement is reasonable, however, the crux is,

responsible people owning firearms if used properly

.  The NRA is quite determined to prevent any restrictions that would assure that guns were only in the hands of responsible (I assume that includes mentally well adjusted) people.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2012 02:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 229 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11

In some states, it is easier to get a gun that it is to vote. In TX they will accept your gun license as proper voters ID, but not your student ID.  The difference??? the gun license holder is more likely to be a member of the GOP. I could take my brother (who has Down Syndrome) to a gun show, where he could legally purchase a firearm. Without a problem. This same brother cannot safely cross the two lane road running in front of our home.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2012 07:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 230 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

I don’t know why nobody in this debate seems to even think to look beyond the United States border to compare how other laws and statistics compare given similar economies but differing gun laws. In my country, Canada, we have not allowed the carrying of handguns for protection unless you have sufficient justification of fear to your personal security to do so. You are required to get a permit through the police for this. Your country on the other hand doesn’t.

The logical reason for the creation of the ‘right’ to bear arms legislation in your constitution is due to the historical fact that that very possibility enabled the American colonialists to rebel against the British in order to form the country in the first place. The clear idea is that should ‘the people’ (I guess we must presume the majority?...plurality?) should be able to have some capability to rebel against such possible future tyrannies or evil governments.
    But how realistic is this considering the power of your military and police whom we presume would most participate with their government authorities?

But even recognizing this or any other possible ineffective realities of such a law in practice, next, the major argument for keeping loose handgun laws is the claim that criminals who use them to do harm will get them regardless of any restrictions. It’s the presumption that criminals are innately destined to carry out crime regardless of their potentials to. If they need a gun, they’d find one whether they are capable of licensing one or not. In fact, they’d probably want an untraceable one anyway, right? And if they couldn’t get a gun, they’d opt for some other weapon, ... a knife, perhaps, or a homemade bomb.

Well, these all make reasonable sense. The question is, if it were really true, would these things likely occur or not. Comparative statistics between Canada and the U.S. clearly indicate that it is NOT the case:

In Canada in 2006, the overall average homicide rate was stated as 1.9 per 100,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada)[Note: the Wiki only had a 2006 chart]. In the 2007 [The Wiki for the U.S. chart is generated over many skipped years] report for homicide rate for the U.S., it is stated as 5.7 per 100, 000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States).

The gun statistics according to Roger Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine” was 0.484 per 100,000 for Canada and 3.601 per 100,000 for the U.S.. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States)

Also check out “Violent Crimes, Suicides, and Accidents in Canada” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada for how are system changed as our laws improved. You may have to read the earlier parts to discover which and when actual sets of laws were put in place. Note that the suicide rates only went down by 3% overall ( 1977 - 2003: -55% gun suicides + 52% alternate methods). But, believe me, even that 3% counts for something here!

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2012 02:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 231 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26

In the spirit of unrestricted free enterprise in the US, 3% is an acceptable loss…..

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2012 05:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 232 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
Write4U - 11 August 2012 02:57 PM

In the spirit of unrestricted free enterprise in the US, 3% is an acceptable loss…..

Yeah, but which 3%, ha, ha?

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2012 07:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 233 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26
Scott Mayers - 11 August 2012 05:08 PM
Write4U - 11 August 2012 02:57 PM

In the spirit of unrestricted free enterprise in the US, 3% is an acceptable loss…..

Yeah, but which 3%, ha, ha?

The peaceful 3% of the population which do not have or approve of guns. To the NRA, they are not potential customers, so what difference do they make to the NRA’s profit line? Better they go away, pesky bleeding hearts.

[ Edited: 11 August 2012 07:23 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2012 06:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 234 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1064
Joined  2007-06-20
asanta - 08 August 2012 02:54 PM

I could take my brother (who has Down Syndrome) to a gun show, where he could legally purchase a firearm. Without a problem. This same brother cannot safely cross the two lane road running in front of our home.

No you couldn’t.  There are legal restrictions in such a case.  Anyone selling a firearm in such a case would be breaking the law.  You have no idea what you are talking about.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2012 06:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 235 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1064
Joined  2007-06-20
Scott Mayers - 11 August 2012 07:36 AM

I don’t know why nobody in this debate seems to even think to look beyond the United States border to compare how other laws and statistics compare given similar economies but differing gun laws. In my country, Canada, we have not allowed the carrying of handguns for protection unless you have sufficient justification of fear to your personal security to do so. You are required to get a permit through the police for this. Your country on the other hand doesn’t.

You are just looking at two countries, the U.S. and Canada.  You could look at other nations, such as Israel and Switzerland, which have high firearms ownership rates, but relatively low homicide rates.  Or you could subdivide the 50 individual states in the U.S. and see that those with more gun control typically have higher crime and homicide rates than those with less strict gun control. 

Likewise you could look at dozens of nations where guns are strictly controlled or outright banned with high murder rates. 

The reasons for high homicide rates vary among nations due to a variety of cultural and societal issues.  But the notion that there is always a correlation one way or the other with gun control being the deciding factor is wrong. 

The notion that simply passing a gun control law will somehow cause crime or homicide rates to drop is magical thinking.  Liberals believe laws will magically have their exact desired effect(s) with little or no unintended consequences.  History has proven them wrong time and time again.  But since they are blinded by ideology, they rarely see the truth.  It’s pure emotion on their part when it comes to this issue.

[ Edited: 12 August 2012 06:08 PM by Rocinante ]
 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2012 09:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 236 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  765
Joined  2009-07-17
Rocinante - 12 August 2012 06:05 PM
Scott Mayers - 11 August 2012 07:36 AM

I don’t know why nobody in this debate seems to even think to look beyond the United States border to compare how other laws and statistics compare given similar economies but differing gun laws. In my country, Canada, we have not allowed the carrying of handguns for protection unless you have sufficient justification of fear to your personal security to do so. You are required to get a permit through the police for this. Your country on the other hand doesn’t.

You are just looking at two countries, the U.S. and Canada.  You could look at other nations, such as Israel and Switzerland, which have high firearms ownership rates, but relatively low homicide rates.  Or you could subdivide the 50 individual states in the U.S. and see that those with more gun control typically have higher crime and homicide rates than those with less strict gun control. 

Likewise you could look at dozens of nations where guns are strictly controlled or outright banned with high murder rates. 

The reasons for high homicide rates vary among nations due to a variety of cultural and societal issues.  But the notion that there is always a correlation one way or the other with gun control being the deciding factor is wrong. 

The notion that simply passing a gun control law will somehow cause crime or homicide rates to drop is magical thinking.  Liberals believe laws will magically have their exact desired effect(s) with little or no unintended consequences.  History has proven them wrong time and time again.  But since they are blinded by ideology, they rarely see the truth.  It’s pure emotion on their part when it comes to this issue.

Your argument was quite reasonable until the second sentence (and beyond) of the last paragraph ... Why include the ad hominem?

Take care,

Derek

 Signature 

“It is noble to be good; it is still nobler to teach others to be good—and less trouble.”—Mark Twain

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2012 10:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 237 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3024
Joined  2010-04-26

Guns = meh.

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2012 12:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 238 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2743
Joined  2011-11-04
Dead Monky - 06 September 2012 10:14 AM

Guns = meh.

Can we have your meh when we pry it from your cold dead brain?

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 September 2012 10:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 239 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1805
Joined  2005-07-20

2 dead, 9 wounded in Empire State Building shootings, police say

Well, the more crowded a situation, then the more dangerous firing a gun becomes, making it more certain that one will hit someone innocent, which is good reason to restrict guns from the popular areas.  In a populated area if you aim a gun horizontally, then there are people walking the street, driving in cars, sitting on the first floor behind windows.  If you aim for the second floor, then there are people sitting there too, and on the third, and fourth, and so on.  So try to aim down, no, there are people in basements, in NYC and other cities there are underground trains, and utilities underground, so don’t aim down either.  If you can’t aim up, horizontally, nor down, then where can you aim safely?

The police are supposed to be practiced professionals, the police near the Empire State Building were patrolling that area regularly, the area was familiar to them.  That spot is one of the busiest spots in NYC, and so very crowded with people and cars, a spot so busy that having guns there at all is a bad idea.  In that situation, the police’ bullets ricocheted off of some heavy planters, planters so heavy because they were meant to keep Al Quieda away from the Empire State Building, the news is hinting that nine of the eleven people were shot by police bullets.  The police fired sixteen rounds, in order to stop one armed person.

Was it all worth it, or not?

 Signature 

I saw a happy rainbow recently.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 September 2012 09:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 240 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11
jump_in_the_pit - 07 September 2012 10:23 AM

The police are supposed to be practiced professionals, the police near the Empire State Building were patrolling that area regularly, the area was familiar to them.  That spot is one of the busiest spots in NYC, and so very crowded with people and cars, a spot so busy that having guns there at all is a bad idea.  In that situation, the police’ bullets ricocheted off of some heavy planters, planters so heavy because they were meant to keep Al Quieda away from the Empire State Building, the news is hinting that nine of the eleven people were shot by police bullets.  The police fired sixteen rounds, in order to stop one armed person.

Was it all worth it, or not?

Imagine what would have happened if, as right wing nuts are fond of pointing out as a solution, there had been even one person in that Aurora, Co theater armed with a gun to shoot at the gunman in that darkened and frantic area.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
   
16 of 17
16