Quote :

"it would be nice if we got rid of cancer and aids too"

It would

4/18/2007 4:26:47 PM

Quote :

"Scuba Steve - Then you must be implying that we are a society of criminals, since we statistically have a much higher rate of crime than all other Western countries."

More or less, yes. Although our rate of murder is still only 4 times that of England and Wales, relatively high, but not absolutely high by historical standards.

Quote :

"Scuba Steve - You are ignoring the crux of my post. Since we have statistically much higher violent crime committed with handguns than any other Western country, then proliferation of handgun violence is a direct causal factor of the crime we are trying to prevent."

And you are ignoring the crux of one of my previous posts wherein I clairvoyantly refuted your fallacious argument before it was even posed.

Quote :

"Megaloman84 - USA Murder rate for 2005 was 5.6 per 100,000 If 66% of those murders are gun related, then 34% are not gun related. That 34% is still 1.9 per 100,000. The fraction of our murders that don't involve guns is still higher than the entire English/Welsh murder rate. Unless you are prepared to contend that the availability of guns to law abiding citizens causes them to go crazy and stab, bludgeon, strangle and poison each other to death, I think its clear that our problem is that we have a lot of motherfuckers trying to kill each other, not guns per se."

4/18/2007 4:40:23 PM

Quote :

"Since we have statistically much higher violent crime committed with handguns than any other Western country, then proliferation of handgun violence is a direct causal factor of the crime we are trying to prevent."

I thought it was impossible to assert causation. Granted there seems to be a strong correlation according to the numbers you've posted.

But here's what I want to know; out of all these crimes in the US that involve the use of a firearm, how many of those involve the criminal using the weapon as opposed to the victim using the weapon (in self-defense, presumably), or even crimes committed by armed police officers? It might seem like nit-picking, but it's very easy to skew the statistics when you don't ask these sorts of questions.

4/18/2007 5:03:19 PM

Quote :

"my mom is a great example of an anti gun liberal who knows nothing about guns or the statistics involved"

How many times has someone made a link to an article that uses John Lott's research to argue for the pro-gun position?

4/18/2007 5:22:00 PM

While we're on the subject of the black market in illegal arms, I just recently read an interesting book on the subject that I found in D. H. Hill.

We talk about stolen handguns that end up on the black market. Often the assertion that's made is that if handguns were harder to legally acquire, there would be fewer of them available to steal, and the supply of handguns on the black market would be restricted.

This isn't necessarily the case though. After all, drug dealers aren't out there peddling stolen heroin that's been diverted from legal channels into the black market, there are no legal channels for heroine, or many of the other illegal drugs commonly used for recreational purposes.

Likewise, insurgents in the middle east, Balkan factions, African rebels, and rogue states aren't stocking up on stolen American handguns, they're acquiring serious military hardware.

The former defense minister of Croatia is once reputed to have complained that arms were costing him 3 times more through legal channels than what he could get them for on the black market.

Virtually any weapon imaginable can be acquired illicitly. All the way up from small arms and light weapons to tanks, planes and artillery pieces. This hardware is simply diverted by corrupt third world officials (nominally making the purchase from first world defense contractors for the legitimate military and police need of their country) to its actual purchaser in exchange for a sizable kickback. There is no shortage of officials in a wide variety of countries willing to serve as a front for these straw purchases for a reasonable fee. What's more, the first world governments turn a blind eye while publicly condemning the practice, because they want to retain the ability to use the black market to funnel arms of all sorts to people that they can't be seen publicly funneling arms to.

In short, criminals will never lack access to arms. Gun bans will only disarm the productive, peaceful people on which they prey.

4/18/2007 6:29:10 PM

Quote :

"Virtually any weapon imaginable can be acquired illicitly. All the way up from small arms and light weapons to tanks, planes and artillery pieces."

just wait and see what happens if they pass a strict gun ban here

(shit hitting fan)

4/18/2007 8:01:25 PM

Anyone declared to be mentally ill and a threat to themself and/or others should NOT be able to purchase a firearm.

4/18/2007 8:56:03 PM

^I agree. One should also have to take a class in order to buy a gun. In my opinion. Hey we do it with drivers licenses. Granted that wont stop shit like this from happening, there simply is no way to stop crazies. This is our suicide bomber...no matter what you do, you cant stop them all.

4/18/2007 9:00:29 PM

Quote :

"Then you must be implying that we are a society of criminals, since we statistically have a much higher rate of crime than all other Western countries."

We are a society with many more criminals and much more diversity (and hence conflict) than other western countries. Many countries with extremely low crime rates have extremely homogeneous cultures as well. No suprise there, the less difference in opinion, the less conflict.

Also, as a society, we tend to glorify criminals in popular culture, seek to rehabilitate rather than punish criminals, discourage anything that smells of religion or morals from the public sector, promote a "if it feels good it is good" culture, discourage personal responsibility and also have extremely high rates of family conflict. In short, there's a lot of fucked up shit that happens in our society and not a whole lot of grounding for the kids to balance it against, so it doesn't suprise me that we would as a society have more criminals.

Quote :

"I still think that we would have much less violent crime if handguns never existed."

So it is your assertation, the the very existance of a hand gun will cause a person who is normaly completely unwilling to comit a violent crime, to suddenly comit a crime, merely because the gun is in his hand?

And you wonder why we have such a crime rate. "Your honnor, the gun made me do it."

Quote :

"Anyone declared to be mentally ill and a threat to themself and/or others should NOT be able to purchase a firearm."

They already can't.

4/18/2007 9:02:43 PM

^Watched the news lately?

4/18/2007 10:00:25 PM

http://boortz.com/nuze/200704/04172007.html

For those that are truly interested... Take the poll..

4/18/2007 10:00:57 PM

Taken from WRAL talkbalk forums:

Quote :

"I think we should ban murder to, so people will stop murdering. Oh that is already banned. How is that working out!"

I'm a realist when it comes to gun control. While the altruist in me believes that guns are universally evil things that humanity as a whole would be better for doing away with them, I also realize that this isn't going to happen and there's no way to effect that kind of change in a country like the united states. In general I usually find myself opposing most gun control initiatives because they seem so asinine, half-baked, or blatantly flawed as to be laughable wastes of money.

That being said, why do I hear so many pro-gun rights advocates spout garbage like this? Is there someone at the NRA who's dumb enough to think this kind of analogy is of any use? By this reasoning, murders should not be illegal as the ban on them is apparently ineffective. Since murders being committed despite the laws against them seems to be the poster's argument against gun control, this is the only conclusion they allow. Come on now, this tripe doesn't serve to create any real discourse. It insults the people you're trying to convince and makes the people repeating it look like morons.

There's plenty of good arguments against gun control, don't use the incredibly stupid ones.

4/19/2007 8:09:24 AM

^

4/19/2007 8:29:49 AM

Quote :

"They already can't."

Virginia law (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) requires that a person attest to the fact that they have never been involuntarily committed or something along those lines. There is no waiting period, so there is no way to check this. Cho HAD been involuntarily committed in 2005, but simply lied on the form, which is all it takes to get around the Virginia system.

Is it reasonable to have in place a system by which they can verify this information, or would you prefer that, upon asking somebody if he is crazy, to take him at his word?

4/19/2007 10:27:54 AM

Quote :

"Virginia law (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) requires that a person attest to the fact that they have never been involuntarily committed or something along those lines. There is no waiting period, so there is no way to check this"

wrong


federal law requires a 7 day waiting period to acquire a permit to purchase a handgun (background checks, then the sheriff of your county of residence has to sign off on it) then you pay for each permit

then when ANY firearm is sold federal requires you to go through the instant background check at time of purchase

4/19/2007 1:06:55 PM

I actually clicked on this thread to comment on that very subject, then saw that you set it up for me by posing the question.

For all of my dislike in general for gun control, and for my support to expand concealed carry rights, I think that is a real and legitimate crack in the system that should be dealt with, and handled yesterday.

I don't think that you should be forever barred from purchasing a gun if you've ever been involuntarily committed or displayed other signs of mental disorder, but a common sense approach to this should be taken, and this inadequacy should be dealt with immediately.

Also, this should be linked to the federal "instant" background check, and certainly not just applied to concealed carry applicants.

[Edited on April 19, 2007 at 1:10 PM. Reason : sdfafd]

[Edited on April 19, 2007 at 1:17 PM. Reason : this should also apply to both long guns and handguns]

4/19/2007 1:09:19 PM

Quote :

"federal law requires a 7 day waiting period to acquire a permit to purchase a handgun "

No it doesn't. There used to be a waiting period many years ago, before instant checking through NICS was fully implemented.

Was he actually involuntarily committed? This would've disqualified him, but my local news last night said that he had gone along with it so that it wouldn't be considered involuntary.

4/19/2007 1:14:56 PM

NICS is for long guns.

I can personally attest to the waiting period for handguns since I've purchased permits within the last year.

4/19/2007 1:16:50 PM

No, NICS is for all firearms transactions through an FFL. The waiting period is built into North Carolina's purchase permit system. I remember having to go through it for my first handgun purchase. Didn't have to go through it for my latest one because my CHP counts as a NICS check and circumvents the state purchase permit requirement.

{edit}

Ok, my mistake. After checking, a North Carolina handgun purchase permit, or a North Carolina CHP, substitute for a NICS check in the purchase of a handgun. Since one or the other is required under NC law, I guess it is correct to say that NICS is only for long guns in this state. My mistake.

[Edited on April 19, 2007 at 1:34 PM. Reason : typed before I thought]

4/19/2007 1:24:18 PM

Nice save

4/25/2007 9:29:24 PM

Quote :

"Security and Liberty by Ron Paul 4-25-2007 The senseless and horrific killings last week on the campus of Virginia Tech University reinforced an uneasy feeling many Americans experienced after September 11th: namely, that government cannot protect us. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group still can cause great harm. Perhaps the only good that can come from these terrible killings is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families. Although Virginia does allow individuals to carry concealed weapons if they first obtain a permit, college campuses within the state are specifically exempted. Virginia Tech, like all Virginia colleges, is therefore a gun-free zone, at least for private individuals. And as we witnessed, it didn’t matter how many guns the police had. Only private individuals on the scene could have prevented or lessened this tragedy. Prohibiting guns on campus made the Virginia Tech students less safe, not more. The Virginia Tech tragedy may not lead directly to more gun control, but I fear it will lead to more people control. Thanks to our media and many government officials, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a national news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and rugged individualism. Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security? I fear that Congress will use this terrible event to push for more government-mandated mental health programs. The therapeutic nanny state only encourages individuals to view themselves as victims, and reject personal responsibility for their actions. Certainly there are legitimate organic mental illnesses, but it is the role of doctors and families, not the government, to diagnose and treat such illnesses. Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons "

4/26/2007 1:26:15 AM

This is a hammer--it is a tool. I can use it to build a house for the homeless or I can use it to bash someone's brains in. The choice is mine--no law can make that choice for me.

A gun is a tool, too. The analogy is simple and true.

4/26/2007 5:19:22 AM

^I think where you lose people with that argument is that guns are tools that don't have much other purpose than to kill or destroy. Guns aren't hammers or can-openers. They don't quite have a "benign" purpose. There isn't really anything else you can use them for that would involve the creation of something greater.

Don't misunderstand me, it's true that they are tools, and it's true that it's up to the user to decide whether or not that tool is "properly" used. A gun will not decide to fire on its own; it must have user input. But guns are tools of a very dangerous type, whose only real purpose is to inflict damage. You can't drive nails into wood with guns (well maybe you could, but that would be a really stupid and dangerous thing to try ).

4/26/2007 7:22:44 AM

Quote :

"But guns are tools of a very dangerous type, "

Guns, especially handguns, are tools of self defense. If an individual decides to use these tools to attack others, that is no reason to take these tools away from everyone else...who are using them only for self defense.

4/26/2007 9:10:01 AM

I love all this tool talk. A Gun is an object that can kill a person as quickly as an emotion can change. This is what makes a gun different than other tools. If you have a hammer, you have time to think before you beat some one to death. A gun is one small finger movement. One flash of anger and oops. Guns are different than other tools regardless of what purpose they can serve.

4/26/2007 9:36:17 AM

Ha! "I'm glad I only smashed her head with a hammer a few times. If I had a gun, something bad might've happened."

4/26/2007 9:42:43 AM

We should have the freedom AND responsibility to protect ourselves with guns. If someone uses a weapon irresponsibly, what is the justification in stripping away more of the freedom from the responsible ones?

4/26/2007 9:47:32 AM

And there goes the point -->

Shooting someone can end up being one of those knee jerk reactions or momentary thought of anger. Bashing someone's head with a hammer is rarely knee jerk and requires sustained anger.

4/26/2007 9:51:21 AM

I believe we have a privilege to carry weapons. But with any privilege there are rules and standards that must be met. Example, obtaining a drivers license.

4/26/2007 9:56:17 AM

Here in NC we have the 7 day waiting period + background check at the time of permit application, and if you buy through a dealer (not a private party) they typically do the NICS background check as well, so you have
1. 7 seven day wait
2. Background check w/ your local sheriff
3. NICS national background check

I don't know if the dealer HAS to do the 2nd check, but the last handgun I bought, they did.

4/26/2007 10:04:16 AM

Quote :

"we have a privilege to carry weapons"

Is self defense a privilage or a right?

4/26/2007 10:10:14 AM

Quote :

"Guns, especially handguns, are tools of self defense. If an individual decides to use these tools to attack others, that is no reason to take these tools away from everyone else...who are using them only for self defense."

I'm not disagreeing with you, believe me. I don't think that guns should be taken away from all people due to the irresponsibility of a few. But let's not kid ourselves when we use the "a gun is just a tool" argument. In my experience, at least, I've never been able to convince anyone that a gun is a mere tool that can be used for both good and evil. Anything can be used as a weapon, but at least most other tools have other purposes aside from being a weapon. A gun is a weapon of both self-defense and offense, but it is always a weapon nevertheless. From that point of view, I think that's most people's base-line objection to guns.

4/26/2007 10:58:47 AM

Quote :

" Is self defense a privilage or a right?"

Self defense with a gun is a privilege. Just like traveling in a vehicle is a privilege. You can walk without a license but not drive. See the difference. You can defend your self without a gun...

4/26/2007 11:29:28 AM

^
We libertarians are not big fans of licensing.

Gov'ts are infamous for using the excuse of protecting of the populace in order to restrict freedoms and rights of all sorts.

We should be prosecuted for our crimes, not for what we own.

4/26/2007 11:35:03 AM

^^^ A gun is a weapon, it is meant to kill. That is a grave power, but it can be used both to defend and to aggress. If that power is used to defend life, then that is a "benign" purpose, as you put it.

Quote :

"Shooting someone can end up being one of those knee jerk reactions "

I fully understand the gravity of the power I hold when I have a gun, and I am absolutely, 100% confidant of my ability to control my own actions. I have no apprehension whatsoever that I will ever use a gun against another without a damn good reason. Furthermore I trust the vast majority of all people to behave equally appropriately with guns.

There are people I do not trust, and who should not be trusted with guns, it is precisely because of these (relatively few) people that the rest of use need to retain access to guns and other weapons.

It must be miserable living your life with the belief that everyone around you is about to suddenly fly off the handle at the slightest provocation.

[Edited on April 26, 2007 at 11:46 AM. Reason : ^^]

4/26/2007 11:46:07 AM

Quote :

"Shooting someone can end up being one of those knee jerk reactions or momentary thought of anger. Bashing someone's head with a hammer is rarely knee jerk and requires sustained anger."

I wonder how many victims of domestic abuse died or were seriously injured in a "momentary thought of anger". Violence and force are violence and force. Whether it's with a gun, or hammer, or board, or stick or fist, we need to stop making excuses for the people that abuse others. Fit of anger or not, you're assaulting, you're attacking, you are choosing to visit harm upon another individual. If you can not reasonably be trusted to control your anger and that will cause you to lash out and kill someone in a knee jerk reaction, you shouldn't be trusted with a car, a gun, a knife or your own freedom. But only one of those items do people talk about taking away from everyone, premptively, just because a few people can't handle the responsibilities that come with their freedoms.

4/26/2007 12:01:30 PM

Quote :

"That is a grave power, but it can be used both to defend and to aggress. If that power is used to defend life, then that is a "benign" purpose, as you put it."

Maybe "benign" wasn't the right word, then. I agree with you that defense of one's life or the lives of others is a good cause, but as you pointed out a gun is a weapon and nothing else. I think that's what puts off lots of people from guns. The fact that they can't really be used for anything else is too much for a lot of people to handle.

I too am aware of the power that I hold in my hand whenever I handle my piece. I'll do what I have to when put in the wrong situation, but I hope that I am never confronted with a situation where I have to shoot someone. But I do not "fear" guns. I have respect enough for their power to know better than to play around with them like they're toys, but that can hardly be called fear. I know that my gun can't be used for anything else than to kill, but that doesn't stop me from owning one. But there's plenty of people who think that it's simply not worth it, that there's no point in having that kind of power around if they never intend to use it. And some people think that nobody should be entrusted with that sort of power (except for the po-po and military, of course, but let's ignore that for now).

You can stab a bitch with a kitchen knife, but a kitchen knife also has many other useful purposes. There aren't too many every day, house-hold uses for guns. I think that's what scares a lot of people. While other objects can be used as weapons, most people don't even think about it. When they see a kitchen knife, they see a means to prepare tonight's chicken and vegetables, not a means to commit homicide. But when these same people see a gun, all they see is an instrument of violence and destruction, and they'd rather not assume the responsibility for something like that.

Quote :

"Shooting someone can end up being one of those knee jerk reactions"

You could easily say the same thing about a lot of other objects such as hammers. Guns aren't the only choice of murder weapon, you know. In the heat of the moment, if you want to hurt or kill somebody, you will use whatever happens to be available.

[Edited on April 26, 2007 at 12:21 PM. Reason : blah]

4/26/2007 12:19:43 PM

^Again with the Guns are the same as hammers.

So lets get this out. Anything can be used as a weapon. No argument.
Guns are a unique type of weapon. A weapon that has dramatically changed history. Guns are a different more dangerous type of weapon.

also, we are talking about self defense, not murder. And person, with a gun, who is afraid for there life is a scary prospect.

4/26/2007 12:38:42 PM

Jesus Christ n00b, did you even read my post? I never said "guns are the same thing as hammers."

4/26/2007 12:43:07 PM

^^^^Your post has a hint of anger to it. maybe your posting privileges should be removed. It sounds like your thinking of an abusive father in a white t-shirt. I'm not sure this would benefit that much from gun control. I'm talking about issues similar to road rage, which happens often. In a situations like these the use of a guns is vastly different then the use of a blunt object. Most people can run from blunt objects or try to defend themselves. Its hard to run from a gun.

As far as taking away freedoms, I believe you have the privilege to own a gun. But, just like any other privilege there are rule and standards that must be maintained.

4/26/2007 12:54:07 PM

There are already rules and standards for owning a gun. Leaving aside the question of which ones are reasonable and which are not, the main point of this thread is whether or not more laws and rules will be added, the necessity and effectiveness of those laws, etc.

4/26/2007 12:56:54 PM

Quote :

"It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and rugged individualism."

Oh shit, it's a tradition! We can't get rid of a tradition, like the american tradition of black slavery.

4/26/2007 1:11:34 PM

This is a machete. In Rwanda, tools just like this killed hundreds of thousands of people--it's about choices.

Quote :

"An estimated 500,000 Tutsis were systematically slaughtered—mostly with machetes—by extremist Hutus in 1994."

http://www.genocidewatch.org/news/RwandaTutsiWitnessAtGenocideTrialHopedForDeathByBulletsOverMachetes29March2007.htm

Note well the wording in the link: "Rwanda Tutsi Witness At Genocide Trial Hoped For Death By Bullets Over Machetes."

[Edited on April 26, 2007 at 1:30 PM. Reason : .]

4/26/2007 1:28:08 PM

Quote :

"Oh shit, it's a tradition! We can't get rid of a tradition, like the american tradition of black slavery."

Slavery was a "tradition" that wronged people, and having since realized that we've given it up. Self-reliance and rugged individualism don't really harm anybody. Your argument does not work here. Please try again.

4/26/2007 1:34:58 PM

let alone its a tradition that happens to be explicitly defined in the constitution

4/26/2007 1:40:17 PM

No one in this thread seems to be actually arguing for stricter or less strict gun control laws. Much less details about them.

4/26/2007 1:54:47 PM

Quote :

"Self-reliance and rugged individualism don't really harm anybody."

Depends on what you mean by "harm" not depending on others creates an economically inefficent system which I would describe as harmful.

4/26/2007 1:55:59 PM

and theres also a thing as relying too much on others...see welfare recipients, among others, for reference

4/26/2007 2:01:41 PM

^^ He wasn't suggesting that an individualist doesn't interact in economic and other senses--it is largely a matter of agency. Apparently, you've been suckling on the societal teat for so long that you don't even recognize the meaning of the word "individualism."

[Edited on April 26, 2007 at 2:06 PM. Reason : .]

4/26/2007 2:06:21 PM

dunno about you guyz, but I've been sucking the societal teat for some time now.

4/26/2007 2:17:28 PM