# Do Firearms Cause Murder...



## Cryozombie (Dec 22, 2003)

This is from an Article Sharp Phil linked in another thread.  I happen to strongly agree with it, and wanted to share it



> I can understand people having a visceral feeling about firearms, and they have the right to have those feelings. Yet their feelings shouldn't infringe upon my right to have a gun. Besides, gun ownership, in my opinion, doesn't impose the danger that firearms critics charge. I don't believe possession of a firearm correlates with violent crime. We have some 50,000 legal firearm permit holders here in a single county where I live. If there was a direct link between firearms and violence, then this place should have long since been the scene of carnage. This simply is not the case."
> 
> New York Supreme Court Justice David Boehm


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 22, 2003)

Agreed with strongly as possible. But there are those who will advocate that guns need to be placed into the hands of the law and the law alone. Others will advocate that guns need to be outlawed-altogether. 

That deadly hunk of metal and moving parts is only deadly when someone picks it up. And it's only as deadly as the person using it.   Outlaw the persons who have shown irresponsible use of said weaponry and leave the rest of us in peace.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 22, 2003)

No, but they sure as hell make murder and theft easier, while doing nothing for self defense.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Dec 22, 2003)

If a person decieds to commit a crime or to kill someone  they will find a way Gun, axe, ball bat, stone, window glass the list is as endless as what a person can put their hands on.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 22, 2003)

Yep. Those drive-by axe murders...those moments in which somebody throws a piece of glass and it goes through the wall and through the next wall and into some child...those long-range Presidential assassins with their window-glass...those bank robberies committed with penknives...

Major social issues.


----------



## Ceicei (Dec 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *No, but they sure as hell make murder and theft easier, while doing nothing for self defense. *



Huh?  There are more incidents of guns being used defensively than offensively (as in crime).  However, you won't see as many in the news--because, frankly--they aren't as newsworthy as a murder or a massacre.  That is where we are disproportionally, by the media, given the idea that guns are used more for ill purposes by criminals upon innocent people or on victims. 

- Ceicei


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 23, 2003)

Yes I think guns can actualy cause murder. There are people so fascinated by guns that they actualy cary them around and challange people to mess with them. Sure you can say it just that person and not the weapon itself; however, I think we all know people that are like this. Look at the martial arts. How many fight stories have you had related to you where you actualy started sympathizing with the guy they are telling you they "had" to beat up? I know a guy that would pull his gun and hold it at peoples heads at parties. Some people should just not be given the godlike power to end life at the push of a button.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *Yes I think guns can actualy cause murder. There are people so fascinated by guns that they actualy cary them around and challange people to mess with them. Sure you can say it just that person and not the weapon itself; however, I think we all know people that are like this. Look at the martial arts. How many fight stories have you had related to you where you actualy started sympathizing with the guy they are telling you they "had" to beat up? I know a guy that would pull his gun and hold it at peoples heads at parties. Some people should just not be given the godlike power to end life at the push of a button. *



One of the things I like about teaching martial arts is that you are giving people the gift of disciplined power.  With my knowledge, I could possibly kill someone, yet the time it took to develop the power and the medium in which it was developed filters its usage.  Guns, on the other hand, are technological deviced that you can buy cheaply and quickly.  A user is standing on the backs of the scientists who created the concepts without a true understanding of just what the technology can do.  It is possible to develop disciplined usage with hand guns.  The process is long and ardous though.  My father spent year teaching us respect for the power of a gun and it was years before I was finally allowed to own one myself.  In my opinion this very much was part of my martial arts training.  

Imagine this.  We live in the Matrix.  We can download martial arts directly into our minds in a cheap five minute session.  You can pay 100 bucks and suddenly have the skills of a Master and none of the training.  How much damage could this person do?


----------



## Spud (Dec 23, 2003)

Guns don't kill people. People with mustaches kill people. 

:rofl: 

I'm sorry, that's just been stuck in my brain looking for an outlet all week.


----------



## Spud (Dec 23, 2003)

Good descriptions upnorthkysosa. That drew a parallel that I was looking to find in my thoughts on this issue. 

Admittedly Im very two faced on this issue I feel confident in my judgment and ability to safely handle and store my firearms and I exercise the 2nd amendment guarantees provided in the Bill of Rights. But I think most of my neighbors are too stupid and irresponsible to be afforded those rights. 

Then again I think most of my neighbors are too stupid to breed, operate cars or vote. Ouch. Im a little cynical today. Uhm Merry Christmas everyone.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Spud _
> *Guns don't kill people. People with mustaches kill people.
> 
> :rofl:
> ...




No It is the Evil Twin with the Van Dyke that kills people.


Seriously, Guns alone do not kill people. Yes the power and range of a gun does make it much easier to kill someone on purpose or by accicdent. Yet, when people had Stones and/or Spears and/or swords, murder occured and people would ambush the person and stab them. The poinard and the foil were designed for easy stabbing motions that could easily fit between pieces of armor. This combined with the improvement of Firearms, made impractical to wear armor. The benefits did not even come close to the negatives then.


Why is there a Commandment about Thou Shall Not Kill?
Why in the old laws was there an Eye for an Eye, meaning if you killed someone you were killed?

Becuase, humans as social creatures have decided that it is not good or productive for humans or society to have killings just going on. (* Special discompensation was given and still is for times of war *) So, there will always be 'Bad' people in society. They will use what ever weapons are at hand to do their negative acts.

Education and understanding of what is right ethically are the best defenses for the future.

Just my opinion


----------



## OULobo (Dec 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Yep. Those drive-by axe murders...*



Without guns they'll just run you over instead.



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *those moments in which somebody throws a piece of glass and it goes through the wall and through the next wall and into some child...*



Without guns the baby dies in the block fire started by an arsonist.



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *those long-range Presidential assassins with their window-glass...*



Without guns they just poison polititians



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *those bank robberies committed with penknives...*



Without guns they just write a note that says, "I have a gun, this is a robbery."


They'll find a way with or without guns.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Dec 23, 2003)

Inanimate objects possess neither volition nor intent.  Blaming those objects for the actions of people is like blamnig _Dungeons and Dragons_ because little Billy has a hard time separating fantasy from reality.

Yes, there are people who are mentally unstable who will be drawn to things they will then misuse.  There are people wandering about who should not own guns.  These are the same people who should not be driving cars, teaching in public schools, or preparing and serving food in restaurants.

The weak-minded and the hoplophobic seek to rearrange the characteristics of the physical world such that those who wish to commit harm to others will still wish to do so, but will be physically unable to do so.  This is quite impossible and infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens, who have the inalienable right to protect themselves and their families.

In states that permit private citizens to carry concealed weapons, firearms permit holders commit crime at greatly _reduced_ rates than the public at large.  (Crime statistics from Florida, for example, which enacted shall-issue CCW permit legislation relatively recently, bear this out.)  The fact is that legal firearms owners are among the _most_ law abiding and the _most_ responsible segments of society.

Firearms do not "cause" anything.  Only _human beings_ are capable of taking goal-directed action.  *Responsibility for individual action begins and ends with the individual.*


----------



## OULobo (Dec 23, 2003)

Well, said.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *Inanimate objects possess neither volition nor intent.  Blaming those objects for the actions of people is like blamnig Dungeons and Dragons because little Billy has a hard time separating fantasy from reality.
> 
> Yes, there are people who are mentally unstable who will be drawn to things they will then misuse.  There are people wandering about who should not own guns.  These are the same people who should not be driving cars, teaching in public schools, or preparing and serving food in restaurants.
> ...



I basically agree with this statement.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 23, 2003)

And if we're gonna throw cause-and-effect statistics at it, countries with strict gun laws--England and Japan are the obvious examples--have about 1/1000 our murder and violent crime rate. 

The essential problem, as was mentioned, is that guns give morons instant power. No discipline, no training--nothing, just power. Martial artists should understand that.

And if you think having your country flooded with arms is just our haappy, innocent exercise of rights, think again. Our country is flooded with arms because corporations like Noronco (Chinese owned) and Colt (American owneed) market them to make money.

I was around guns all the time as a kid. You know the big difference between now and forty years ago? Then, guns were mostly just tools. Certainly, any reader of "Field and Stream," knew about the fancy, and was interested. But now, most people who rant about gun rights aren't ranting about good hunting, or good self-defense. It's my distincct impression that they don't want a good shotgun for birds, a good Marlin or Remington or Ruger for deer and elk. They don't want a good 12 or 14 gauge pump they can load with birdshot and keep in the house just in case. They don't even look forward to the day they can save up and get a good little Parker or Purdey shotgun for skeet and grouse. Those aren't the arms they want to bear.

Be honest with yourself. We're talking a Glock. We're talking a cut-down AR. We're talking a street-sweeper, why shouldn't I have one? We're talking combat handgunning courses for weekend warriors. We're talking sniper school. We're talking I NEED an MP-5, I NEED the Stoner System, I NEED a laser sight. Christmas is upon us. We're talking let's pretend we're warriors, let's get ready for Armageddon, which we know is coming we read those Tim LaHaye books.  

Be honest with yourself, even when you respond to this and start yelling. Nobody I ever heard is talking about taking away your hunting rifle. Nobody's talking about taking away your shotgun. Nobody's talking about taking away your tools for hunting and home defense and hobbies and target shooting.

We're talking about taking some of the toys away. That said, I too would prefer a world in which adults made responsible decisions, and did not walk down the street with a gun because it made them feel safer.


----------



## Ceicei (Dec 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *We're talking about taking some of the toys away. That said, I too would prefer a world in which adults made responsible decisions, and did not walk down the street with a gun because it made them feel safer. *



Evidently you've never had your home broken into and threatened with rape?  You've never worked in a store that was robbed?  You've never been mugged?

There are criminals out there that have no regard for any laws.  Reality is, there are places where you cannot really walk down the street safely.  A functional gun may make a difference between life and death in self defense.

BTW, crime statistics for England has increased partly because of their gun bans.

- Ceicei


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 23, 2003)

> And if we're gonna throw cause-and-effect statistics at it, countries with strict gun laws--England and Japan are the obvious examples--have about 1/1000 our murder and violent crime rate.




Yes...but to contrast that; Canada has more lenient gun laws then many of our states and municipalities, yet there crime rate is much less then ours in a similar way.

I don't think our crime rate is the fault of gun laws. More so  it is the fault of the culture of fear and violence that we have created.

PAUL


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Spud _
> *Guns don't kill people. People with mustaches kill people.
> 
> :rofl:
> ...



Oh geez, well I guess I'm a murderer since I haven't shaved my moustache since 91' (trimmed it but not shaved)... ( I know you were just kidding... so was I):asian:


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ceicei _
> *Evidently you've never had your home broken into and threatened with rape?  You've never worked in a store that was robbed?  You've never been mugged?
> 
> There are criminals out there that have no regard for any laws.  Reality is, there are places where you cannot really walk down the street safely.  A functional gun may make a difference between life and death in self defense.
> ...


 Have you ever worked in a place that had an employee kill everyone he could find? You know the secerateries you always flirted with. Well I have. It happened after I left but It happened. I wait for it to happen everytime we fire someone where I work now. We can play the have you ever game all day.
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 23, 2003)

Dear Ceicei:

Piffle.

In the first place, I can virtually guarantee you that I've lived and worked in far more dangerous places than you've ever seen. Newark in the 1960s. Phoenix in the 1970s. Compton in the 1990s. Never yet seen a situation in which I would've needed a gun, and one would've been useful. Never talked to anybody who thinks it would've been who wasn't a cop--wait a minnit, one guy. He backed a loony out of his house at 3 AM with a shotgun, and as a result came damn close to getting shot by the cops. It's fantasy otherwise, or I'm the luckiest guy on the planet.

Next, I suggest you pull the crime stats for England. Yes, they're up a bit, largely because of guns smuggled in from America. However, you might want to look at the numbers. They are miniscule, compared to ours. "Up," means what--another ten assaults, nationwide?

If you want to get into this cause-and-effect jazz, OK. But you're stuck with the facts that our murder and violent crime rates have been dropping for the last ten years--during precisely the period in which the NRA is claiming that more and more gun laws are taking our civil liberties. Looks like the gun laws work, eh? (Actually, a big chunk of the reasons are simple demographics.)

And again--people aren't talking about a gun for targets, or hunting, or even home defense. It's la-la land stuff, don't you think?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Dec 24, 2003)

> And if we're gonna throw cause-and-effect statistics at it, countries with strict gun laws--England and Japan are the obvious examples--have about 1/1000 our murder and violent crime rate.



Violence is culturally determined, not determined by the availability of weapons.  Most of the nations with very strict gun control rates had vastly lower rates of violent crime *BEFORE* they enacted their current laws.


----------



## khadaji (Dec 24, 2003)

> Violence is culturally determined, not determined by the availability of weapons. Most of the nations with very strict gun control rates had vastly lower rates of violent crime BEFORE they enacted their current laws.



Avalibility also factors in when people who will be violent choose their weapon.  Culture has a stronger pull, but avalibility also has a pull as well.  Both are determined factors.  

Guns, also provide a greater level of leathality then other methods of murder.  

Also independent of murder, it provides a much greater risk of accidents.  

My sister lived in Los Angoles for several years.  She would always hid in the bathroom of her house, or leave town for New Years, because so many people would shoot guns in the air to selibrate the new year.  I have seen the bullet marks in the roof of her house.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by khadaji _
> *Avalibility also factors in when people who will be violent choose their weapon.  Culture has a stronger pull, but avalibility also has a pull as well.  Both are determined factors.
> 
> Guns, also provide a greater level of leathality then other methods of murder.
> ...



New Years and JUly 4th are days I avoid certain cities as well, as the weapons are out and being fired randomly. Yet, in one of these ethinic area, outside of these days you will here them complain about the guns in the criminals' hands and also how violent it is here and it is not so back where they come from. (* Where they migt have a current war going on for the last year upto 30+ Years. *) (* Also where the government would just walk into their house and kill people, yet it alwys better back _home_ *)

I just smile and say you can always go back home cousin.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Dec 24, 2003)

These areas do not suffer from greater _availability_ of weapons, however.  New York City and Washington, D.C. have some of the strictest gun control in the United States, yet they suffer from extraordinarily high murder and violence rates.

Firearms do _not_ cause violence.  Their availability does _not_ contribute to rates of violent crime.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *Violence is culturally determined, not determined by the availability of weapons.  Most of the nations with very strict gun control rates had vastly lower rates of violent crime BEFORE they enacted their current laws. *



Also a very good point!


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 26, 2003)

Violence is "culturally determined?" I'll be damned...that sounds like something other than individual choice operates when people make decisions...wait, wait don't tell me...I'll bet this happens because of communistliberals, right?

But nonetheless, I quite agree. When you have a culture in which people confuse owning a fancy handgun or AK knockoff with safety, with rights, with masculinity, there's going to be gun violence.

Then too, we have corporations and "the media," that have been flooding us with messages about Gettin' A Gun...

I repeat: if I thought I needed a gun to protect myself, I'd buy a good shotgun and/or move away.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *
> 
> I repeat: if I thought I needed a gun to protect myself, I'd buy a good shotgun and/or move away. *



I guess, when you are so Wealthy that living in an "affordable neigborhood" isnt a requirement this is a great option when crime comes to your area.  Move.

Oh but perhaps I need to get overeducated and allow the Brainwashing of some Hippy Berkley professor make me braindead but get me a moderatly good job, so I can AFFORD to move someplace with less crime.

Nah.  Id rather just buy that shotgun and retain my ability to think for myself, and see the facts as they are presented to me, as opposed to how I want to believe they are.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 27, 2003)

Ok.  Sorry about the above post.  It makes my hackles rise whenever someone tells me to move because gangs have moved into my neighborhood and I am worried about crime.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 28, 2003)

Sigh. I repeat: a) I pretty much guarantee that I've lived and worked in worse neighborhoods, and...oh, what's the use. 

Live by the sword, die by the sword.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Sigh. I repeat: a) I pretty much guarantee that I've lived and worked in worse neighborhoods, and...oh, what's the use.
> 
> Live by the sword, die by the sword. *





If you live in the worst place to live in the USA or in the 10th worst place, either place is bad. You do what you have to do.

If you can, and want to then moving is an option. If you do not want to move then stay.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 28, 2003)

And, "you do what you have to do," is an excellent example of the kind of cliche that is a good chunk of the problem. Sorry, Rich, but I didn't tell anybody else what they should do. And, I have indeed noticed that there are poor people. However, it seems to me that offering people guns instead of a halfway-decent place in which to live (and spare the further cliches about, "welfare," and, "handing people everything," because this is not what I'm talking about: I'm talking about giving everybody an equal opportunity under the law) is exactly the sort of "help," that we are at present stuck with. 

I repeat: I have lived, and worked, in a lot of crappy neighborhoods. And I still haven't seen a situation in which a gun would've helped anybody who wasn't a police officer. If anybody thinks they're gonna get your Peacemaker out in time to stop a mugger, they're almost certainly fantasizing. What will happen is that you get yourself shot, or you....oh well. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

REAL self defense would rest on social justice. But then, that costs money, it's  ideologically unacceptable to many, and it isn't very sexy.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *
> REAL self defense would rest on social justice. But then, that costs money, it's  ideologically unacceptable to many, and it isn't very sexy. *



Check out the new thread...


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Sigh. I repeat: a) I pretty much guarantee that I've lived and worked in worse neighborhoods, and...oh, what's the use.
> 
> Live by the sword, die by the sword. *



I don't doubt the fact you have lived and worked in worse neighborhoods than mine, as mine is relativly tame as far as violence goes.  Lots of Vandalism, street gangs on the corners who occasionaly throw things at passing cars, or strike them with bats.  Robberys too...  But a desire to live as safley as you choose to shouldnt be dictated by someone else's standard of saftey.  Someone from The Cabrini Green Housing Development in Chicago might think my neighborhood was totaly safe, while someone from the Barrington subburb (Home to many Sports and Media celebritys from Chicago) would say it was a totaly unsafe ghetto.   Who is more right to decide HOW dangerous it is? The Ghetto Person? The Rich Person? Or ME, who lives there?

Also I would challenge your statement that you "Cannot get your gun fast enough to defend yourself" 

Tell that to all the people who have successfully defended themselves using a firearm.  PERSONALLY I think it comes down to training.  

I could recount a story myself, about having someone enter my home and before they were thru the sliding Patio doors my weapon was out and ready.  (they could not see me thru the blinds) It turned out to be someone I knew, looking for me, and, because I KNOW WHAT I AM DOING WITH A WEAPON, I did not "accidently" shoot my friend.  But had they been an intruder, I was ready to do whatever I needed to, which kind of "shoots down" (no pun intended) your VERY BROAD theory that "you cant get your gun in time." 



> _*Originally posted by rmcrobertson *_*If anybody thinks they're gonna get your Peacemaker out in time to stop a mugger, they're almost certainly fantasizing. What will happen is that you get yourself shot, or you....oh well. Live by the sword, die by the sword.*



Cant the same thing be said of ANY type of "combat training" if you simply dont know what you are doing?

"If anybody thinks they're gonna get off a jumpkick in time to stop a mugger, they're almost certainly fantasizing. What will happen is that you get yourself beat down" 

"If anybody thinks they're gonna get a knife out in time to stop a mugger, they're almost certainly fantasizing. What will happen is that you get yourself stabbed" 

I will stand by my belief that if you TRAIN with your firearm, in preparing, drawing, SHOOTING, and of course, knowing WHEN NOT to draw and shoot...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 28, 2003)

Can you actually name anybody who has "defended themselves," with a gun, who was not a cop? Anybody you personally know, whose impressions you trust? What EXACTLY was the situation?

The Cabrini Green projects, famous in part for, "Candyman," were torn down some years ago, if memory serves.


----------



## Ceicei (Dec 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Can you actually name anybody who has "defended themselves," with a gun, who was not a cop? Anybody you personally know, whose impressions you trust? What EXACTLY was the situation?*



You make it sound like as if gun self defense never happen or that they were fantasies...

I do personally know a few that have been successful with their defense in using a gun, and these weren't your "wannabe cops" nor were they the society paranoids.  They were regular people that had bad situations happen, not necessarily because of their actions or of where they are.

You ask "What EXACTLY was the situation?"   Would the sharing of their stories make any difference in your mind?  You already seem set in the idea that people shouldn't need to have guns for self defense.  Are you going to try to second-guess what could or should have happened with their situations, considering that their choice to use a firearm often had to be decided very quickly?  The choice of using deadly force is not to be taken lightly, and the friends I have are trained with their weapon of choice.  They understand the responsibilities, and were aware of the legal issues that could and did occur from these situations.

To decide whether a person should or should not have a firearm as their choice of self defense is best left to the individual.

-- Ceicei


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 28, 2003)

Yes, knowing exactly what happened would indeed make a difference. 

And incidentally, I certainly didn't claim that people I've never met wanted to be cops. If you must take offense, take it because of my suggestion---hell, I pretty much came out and said it--that this gun business has a lot more to do with men's ideas about being men than it does with self-defense.


----------



## Ceicei (Dec 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Yes, knowing exactly what happened would indeed make a difference. *



I am wondering how this would make a difference to you?  It is still a story to you about people probably unknown to you....  would knowing their situations change your perceptions?  

I'm sorry if I sound cynical, but perhaps you are due more credit than what I'm giving you.



> *And incidentally, I certainly didn't claim that people I've never met wanted to be cops. If you must take offense, take it because of my suggestion---hell, I pretty much came out and said it--that this gun business has a lot more to do with men's ideas about being men than it does with self-defense. *



Uhuh.... not always.  I happen to be female....and into martial arts and also a gun owner.

- Ceicei


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 28, 2003)

It is odd that anyone would avoid giving such details--changing names, of course, to protect people's privacy--when such details would offer such a good argument against what I'm arguing. It makes me suspect that there aren't any such details.

Here's my gun control compormise. As of New Year's, all men are prohibited from carrying or owning any and all handguns. All women are required to carry them.

I still say that the fascination with guns has more by far to do with male fantasy than with practical necessity.


----------



## Jmh7331 (Dec 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *...Be honest with yourself. We're talking a Glock. We're talking a cut-down AR. We're talking a street-sweeper, why shouldn't I have one? We're talking combat handgunning courses for weekend warriors. We're talking sniper school. We're talking I NEED an MP-5, I NEED the Stoner System, I NEED a laser sight. Christmas is upon us. We're talking let's pretend we're warriors, let's get ready for Armageddon, which we know is coming we read those Tim LaHaye books.
> 
> Be honest with yourself, even when you respond to this and start yelling. Nobody I ever heard is talking about taking away your hunting rifle. Nobody's talking about taking away your shotgun. Nobody's talking about taking away your tools for hunting and home defense and hobbies and target shooting.
> ...



I am an avid (addicted) hunter.  I also used to shoot competitively on a Glock team.  Your mention of an AR, "street-sweeper" and MP-5 lead me to believe you have bought in to the media hype about "assault" weapons.  I won't get into that but I will say my .30-06, 12 Ga, and .44 mag (all used for hunting) are more powerful than the aforementioned weapons.  I have a concealed-carry permit for NY and PA.  I don't carry because I don't have a need to but I am thankful for the right.  I do believe there should be more training for those that carry.  I don't know anyone that is worried about getting their "toys" taken away, most of the people I know are worried that taking away "assault" weapons is just a stepping stone for getting rid of all guns. - Just my thoughts.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 29, 2003)

Well, I suspect we agree in many ways. My point was that weapons used for hunting are one thing--because they require some actual skill--but that the toys for boys are our problem, in part because they don't require any.

As for, "buying into the hype," I'd argue that it isn't me who has done the buying. But then, I once heard a long conversation between a minister and a SWAT sniper in which the minister was "asking for advice," about getting a gun for home defense--and I use quotations because the cop spent ten minutes or so trying to a) talk him out of getting a gun at all, since he had no experience, b) talk him into getting a plain shotgun, because they're easier to use and much safer, c) talk him into getting an old revolver like a police .38, because the minister didn't like option a or b, d) give up, because the upshot was that the minister brightly announced, "I'm thinking about a Glock, because I heard they're good."

I grew up around hunting. Got no objections--because, with rare exceptions, actual hunters are not even remotely the problem.


----------



## Ceicei (Dec 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *It is odd that anyone would avoid giving such details--changing names, of course, to protect people's privacy--when such details would offer such a good argument against what I'm arguing. It makes me suspect that there aren't any such details.
> 
> *



Oh, these situations exist and the details are available...

Your tone of "prove it" for the sake of arguing is what turns me off.  I am not obligated to prove anything.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 29, 2003)

There's no, "tone."  I just like to see some sort of documentation, I'm perfectly willing to take your word for it, and I get curious when documentation is constantly avoided--since, as I wrote, about all I could respond with would be: "Oh. Didn't know that."

My suspicion is that it's urban myth. Simplest way to refute that is to offer some evidence.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Technopunk _
> * The Rich Person?
> *



Techno I spell my Name with an 'a' not an 'e'. 

Yes this was and is off topic and  I meant it to be a point of humor in this serious discussion. I apologize. :asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Can you actually name anybody who has "defended themselves," with a gun, who was not a cop? Anybody you personally know, whose impressions you trust? What EXACTLY was the situation?
> 
> The Cabrini Green projects, famous in part for, "Candyman," were torn down some years ago, if memory serves. *




My Grand Father, whois dead now, as in a wheel chair my whole life. He had a CCW for NY. He had a few cases of bad boys in NY and also while traveling out west. In one case, my Grand Mother was in the store, he had choose not to go in his wheel chair as it would take longer to load up then to have my Grand Mother to just go in and come back out.

A bunch of punks started to kick and hit his car. He asked them to stop. They continued. He Obtained his 45, and asked them again to stop. One pulled out a bat and came at him and his window. He just placed the 45 in his hand on the dash, and told them to back off. They did, and he put away the gun.

Yes, it is illegal to brandish a weapon.

Yes you should run away. Although by the time this started his option was to run over one of the bad guys to get away. Not until the bat was obtained and the threat made to him, was force required. Because all other damage was property damage. My Grand mother came, and they called the police, for a damage report to the car. The explain the use of the Weapon, and wait for the police to determine what was to happen. The police checked his CCW permit from NY (* Paper Copy on him *), and they took the report and left him and my Grandmother to continue with their vacation.

And Yes, Robert, given the situation of the wheel chair and being trapped in the car, this is not what you are looking for. Yet, this one data point.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 29, 2003)

Actually, Mr. Parsons, it seems to me that that was precisely what I was looking for. Among other things, it seems to me that your granddad was right, from what you describe. 

It's probably obvious at this point, but of course what I'm arguing is that the situation you're describing is not the one that most folks who think they should have a gun on 'em at all times are talking about.

Thanks.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *
> Here's my gun control compormise. As of New Year's, all men are prohibited from carrying or owning any and all handguns. All women are required to carry them.
> *



Here's my comprimise.  Lets ban all handguns, and then see IF the crime rate increases.  If it does not, the ban can stand.  If it does, EVERYONE gets carry privliges. 

OR...

Lets bad all handguns, but give me the right to own Armor and protective gear equivalent to or better than the new special stuff the military has, and allow me to carry any other weapon I choose.  (i.e. Sword, club, shotgun, etc.)

Oh yeah, and in either case, free medical treatment for any gunshot wounds recieved, or funeral and death benifits for my family if I am killed by a criminal with an illegal firearm, since banning them prevents crime.

(Only fair when keeping in mind that it didnt stop the guy in chicago that recently killed 8 of his former co-workers with an illegal handgun. )


----------



## angrywhitepajamas (Dec 29, 2003)

As some one with no gun experience, I would have to admitt my opinion is to leave the firearms for law enforcement and hunting.  But that  does not solve the fact that where there is a will there is a way, and eventually someone will use those firearms improperly.  Possibly with fatal results.  Having an arsenal of "nonleathal" options does not help either as most can be lethal, (with the notable exception of skunk stench).  But as for neighborhood violence, you just have to choose which type that you would prefer and or equipped to deal with.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Dec 30, 2003)

As luck would have it, I'll be addressing the concepts of firearms, "gun control," and the woeful lack of _martial_ competence in martial artists who support firearms prohibition in a coming issue of _MartialTalk Magazine_.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 31, 2003)

Monday Night in a Chicago Suburb, an assailant broke into a home and threated the family therein. The owner of the home fired and struck the intruder twice with his handgun, and saved his family. 

It was all over the news tuesday, Im sure I can find an article on line about it. When I do I will post the link.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 3, 2004)

And on a Side note...

As I stated before, Chicago has a Ban on Firearms, and now they are the murder capital of the United States.

Are the two items related?  No Idea.  But I find it coincidental and Ironic.


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 3, 2004)

I read an interesting article yesterday on the Fox News website.  Here is the link for it.  It discusses the media bias of printing certain types of gun stories (death or criminal use of guns) over other stories (defensive use of guns).  Any opinions about it?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107274,00.html

- Ceicei


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 4, 2004)

I think it was a good article. I think the author is correct, you won't read about most gun defenses in the mainstream media. But I hope there was a lot more mention in the local papers where the events happened.

It's just not what sells a paper anymore, nor does it further the larger media's 'unspoken' political favorite.

Too bad I guess.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 4, 2004)

Just let me see if I understand this correctly. We're being asked to take the unbiased viewpoint of Fox news, owned by Rupert Murdoch, as a corrective to the usual bias of the leftist media?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jan 4, 2004)

Yeah, I mean, that guy must spend all day on the phone telling his reporters what to think.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 4, 2004)

Ah. So Rupert Murdoch--who, by the way, I seem to recollect has a very long-standing history of dictating editorial policy for the increasing number of news outlets he has come to control over the last thirty years--doesn't interfere with the news, but the Liberal media is all run from some central office. 

Makes perfect sense.


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 5, 2004)

I think this piece was only offered up as an example of 1 larger media outlet not afraid of showing the other side of the gun issue.

Not as a "See? Liberal media is always biased" jab. There's a difference between Op/Ed and News. Just as there are differences in editorial policies, just look at Jayson Blair's work.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 5, 2004)

Ah. So the argument is that Fox News, unlike say CBS, is, "not afraid," that Fox News, unlike say the "New York Times," is always honest because they would never hire the likes of Jayson Blair, that Fox News, unlike say the "Washington Post," never confuses editorial and news policy.

I see. Remarkable that Fox News would be taken as an exemplification of news division independence, journalistic integrity, and objectivity, but I see what you're driving at.

What were the figures on self-defense with guns again, and their source? And those many particular examples of individuals defending themselves with guns...when can I see those? So far, I've only seen one here.

Thanks.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Jan 5, 2004)

I am not an advocate of gun ownership, but here are some statistics.  They're a little dated (about 10 years old).

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief

Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and
Firearm Theft

April 1994, NCJ-147003

Revised 9/24/02 th

Full text with tables available from:
Bureau of Justice Statistics Clearinghouse
800-732-3277 (fax number for report orders and mail list signup
only: 410-792-4358)
Box 6000
Annapolis Junction, MD. 20701-0179

By Michael R. Rand, BJS Statistician

In 1992 offenders armed with handguns committed a record 931,000 violent crimes.  Handgun crimes accounted for  about 13% of all violent crimes.  As measured by the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the rate of nonfatal handgun victimizations in 1992--4.5 crimes per 1,000 people age 12 or older--supplanted the record of 4.0 per 1,000 in 1982.  

On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property.  Three-fourths of
the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent
crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor
vehicle theft.

...

Males, blacks, and the young had the highest rates of handgun crime victimization, 1987-92

...

*Males were twice as likely as females to be victims of handgun
crimes, and blacks 3 times as likely as whites.

*Young black males continued to be the population subgroup most
vulnerable to handgun crime victimization.

For males age 16-19--
    The rate for blacks (40 per 1,000 persons)
    was 4 times that of whites (10 per 1,000).
For males age 20-24--
    The rate for blacks (29 per 1,000)
    was 3 times that of whites (9 per 1,000).


...

*Offenders fired their weapon in 17% of all nonfatal handgun crimes
(or about 2% of all violent crimes).  In 3% of all handgun crimes,
the victim was wounded.  The offender shot at but missed the victim
in 14% of all handgun crimes.  Victims did not report if offenders
had tried to hit the victim or missed intentionally.

Self-defense with firearms

*38% of the victims defending themselves with a firearm attacked
the offender, and the others threatened the offender with the
weapon.

*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon. 
Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects
of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime
circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims'
injury outcomes.


About three-fourths of the victims who used firearms for
self-defense did so during a crime of violence, 1987-92 

...

*In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed or armed with weapons other than firearms.  On average between 1987 and 1992, about 35% (or 22,000 per year) of the violent crime victims defending themselves with a firearm faced an offender who also had a firearm.  (Because the NCVS collects victimization data on police officers, its estimates of the use of firearms for self-defense are likely to include police use of firearms.  Questionnaire revisions introduced in January 1993 will permit separate consideration of police and civilian firearm cases.)  

Offenders shot at victims in 17% of handgun crimes, 1987-92


WhiteBirch


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 5, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> * And those many particular examples of individuals defending themselves with guns...when can I see those? So far, I've only seen one here.
> 
> Thanks. *



Funny... I have seen two in this thread.

But Ok, my man, here ya go... Ignore em if you choose.

Mother Defends Children Against Robbers 
http://www.10tv.com/news/archive/010204local6746.php?story=010204local6746

Homeowner shoots burglar in the face 
http://www.rochesterdandc.com/news/0104LS2R1FR_news.shtml 

Admittedly, this guy used a .22 caliber rifle, but that is a "self defense with a gun" that isn't a shotgun.

Clerk shoots would-be robber 
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/pittsburgh/s_172999.html

Oh, and the one I posted earlier in this thread, I could only find the follow up story to...

Wilmette Homeowner Won't Be charged For Violating Gun Ban (IL)
http://www.nbc5.com/news/2736699/detail.html?z=dp&dpswid=2265994&dppid=65172

I can come up with a larger list if you like, or are you willing to believe it happens now?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 5, 2004)

Please read more carefully: I never argued it didn't happen, I simply asked for facts.

Thanks for the DOJ stats; I was particularly pleased to see that the writers were extremely careful about a) misinterpreting the data; b) the limits of their data; c) some of the gender/ethnic skewing in the data. ("Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects
of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime
circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims'
injury outcomes.") Very nice, especially since the quotes from news broadcasts, being purely anecdotal, are virtually useless to establish national statistics and trends.

Is it true that the NRA is claiming 2 million uses a year? I'm asking because a) I haven't looked them up, and b) the stats suggest something on the order of one-twentieth of that, since the 87-92 average was around 80-90 thousand/year, and apparently crime rates, particularly for violent crime, have been in steady decline over the last ten years or so.

Thanks for the discussion; it's interesting.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jan 5, 2004)

Hoplophobes are rarely moved by facts.  Those of you who subscribe to MartialTalk Magazine may enjoy my lengthy piece on this very issue in the January edition.  Then again, you may not.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 5, 2004)

"Hoplophobes." Fiddlesticks.

Axly, Phil, I assume you didn't mean me. I've been around guns since aabout 1959 or so, and I'm quite receptive to facts. I simply ask that they more or less BE facts, and I tend to try and avoid being swayed by anecdotal evidence reported third-hand from TV news.

I do find it interesting when folks eagerly accept selected factoids from the very news outlets they often claim are saturated with liberal bias, and I remain interested in what would appear to be some considerable differences betweeen the government statistics and the NRA's claims.

As always, thanks for the conversation.


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 5, 2004)

Seems the "government statistics" are not published often enough, if the last report was 10 years old.

The NRA researches this yearly.

I seem to recall a hunting magazine that would monthly publish a page called the armed citizen, loaded with cases of people defending themselves or thwarting a crime. I think it may be American Rifleman, but I'm not 100%.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 5, 2004)

Ah. So it's your contention that since 1992, even though the rates of violent crime have been supposedly been dropping, the NRA is correct in claiming that the number of people defending themselves with a gun has increased from 83,000 per year to two million,  an increase of some twenty-five times.

Just FYI, have you ever needed a gun to defend yourself, or personally known someone who did? Such an increase would certainly suggest that you would've, or personally known someone who did. May I ask what the circumstances were? I do happen to know one guy, from about six years ago...he darn near got shot by the LA County Sheriffs himself, since they found him holding a shotgun on some guy who'd climbed in his window at 3 AM...

Thanks in advance for the info.


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 6, 2004)

I do not beleive that is their claim. I'll search their site and see what I can find, but whatever it is, I think it can be trusted. Guns do not stop only violent crime, but burglery, trespassing, etc. Gotta keep apples with the apples here.

As for me, I have not needed a gun to defend myself, nor has anyone in my 'gun nut' family.


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 6, 2004)

A friend forwarded this editorial to me today.  It is interesting, but must consider the fact this is on a pro-gun website.  It does give statistics.  What I do wish is the article could have direct links to the source, although the source is identified.

Statistics are nice; however, I've learned years ago, interpretation of statistics have often been manipulated to fit the agenda of certain groups of people.  I would rather look at the numbers--the hard data--and to see what and how the survey was conducted.  This, again, is information based on data from 10 years ago.  

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/hagin_20040105.html

I will look to see if this information (hard data) is available somewhere on the internet for us to examine.  Maybe there is more up to date information that could be located.

- Ceicei


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 6, 2004)

In the first place, the above post labels its source, "opinioneditorial," but also correctly notes that the data itself would be useful.

In the second...hmmm. Neither you nor your family nor your friends. Odd, given the two mil figure. 

I do know somebody who's LOADED a gun once, because SWAT had some clown cornered in her neighborhood after a home invasion robbery (where, incidentally, another gun would only have got everybody shot), but she's worked in Compton for about thirty years, and this was the only time...


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 6, 2004)

From nraila.org:



> Survey research during the early 1990s by criminologist Gary Kleck found as many as 2.5 million protective uses of guns each year in the U.S. "(T)he best available evidence indicates that guns were used about three to five times as often for defensive purposes as for criminal purposes," Kleck writes. Analyzing National Crime Victimization Survey data, he found "robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all." (Targeting Guns, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997)




Looks like that number was early 90's as well.

Also:



> American households that have firearms: Approx. 45%


(Forced registration may soon prove this to be higher)

With nealry 300 million people in the U.S. (soon to be topped by the overflow of illegals) and 60-70 million handguns in the country, 2.5 million defensive uses per year may be quantifiable.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 6, 2004)

Sorry, I don't consider the NRA to be an unbiased source: very much au contraire, there.

And again--if they ARE right, how come you don't know any of these people?

And just to raise one other issue--in their statistics, were there any considerations of what I suspect are the many cases of people who claimed later that they needed that there gun, but objectively speaking didn't? And consideration of the type of yahoo who drives around with a little something stashed under the seat, and jumps out waving after a fender-bender?


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 6, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Sorry, I don't consider the NRA to be an unbiased source: very much au contraire, there.
> 
> And again--if they ARE right, how come you don't know any of these people?
> ...



The NRA just posted the stats. I don't know if the criminologist is a member though. But let's do some math, because a million of anything is a lot.

2.5 million uses / 50 states = 50,000 uses per state
50,000 uses / 365 days = 137 uses per day per state

I don't recall much from 1990, I was in HS still, but I'm sure the number has gone down with the amount of violent crime. Maybe that's why I don't know any of them personally.

As for bias, I'm sure a lot of orgs picks the stat's and polls that favor their cause. National statistics are going to have more error than local ones. At least they posted the date at which the number was taken, and don't post is as representative of what's going on today.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 6, 2004)

Ah. So CNN is a hopelessly-biased leftist source of, "news," but the NRA is an objective, unbiased organization that simply offers unvarnished fact. I was wondering.

Again: in some thirty-five years of being around various Bad Places, I have never yet been in a situation where a gun was either warranted or of the slightest use. In that time, I have spoken to TWO people who employed guns--one loaded a pistol and kept it out just in case, never even jacked a round into the chamber let alone took the safety off; the other backed an unarmed intruder out of the house and nearly got shot himself by the cops. Everybody else I've spoken to who's used a gun, or even taken one out against a person, was a police officer.

Seems like the odds would've caught up with me by now, at 2 million plus a year. Maybe I should get that Lotto ticket, next time...


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 6, 2004)

Yea, that's it. Are the voices coming back again? I'm lost as to where your statements come from. Certainly not my correspondence.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 6, 2004)

No need to resort to subtle invective, MM. Those voices are your own; I believe you've written on more than one occasion that CNN was hopelessly biased, and I'm simply repeating the same argument--asserting that, "The NRA just posted the stats," compares directly to noting that CNN does not make the news.

However, I remain interested in your response to my basic contention--that with all them folks out there protectin' themselves, a few more of us should be able to offer personal experiences...

It is my contention, in fact, that a very great number of these, "necessary," self-defenses were in fact either a) unnecessary and unnecessarily dangerous, or b) reported by the very people who were in fact the problem in the first place. I'd like to see the actual figures and their analyses.

I grew up, partly, in farmin' and fishin' and huntin' country. Most grown men owned rifles and shotguns. Nobody displayed them, and nobody talked about how much they hadda have 'em. 

I suppose the counter-claim is that the world has grown far more dangerous--to which I would answer that American cities are a helluva lot less dangerous now than they were back in the nineteenth century.


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 6, 2004)

Well, I have listed ABC, CBS and NBC, but I don't believe CNN. Some of their reporters make me squeemish, but I do sometimes turn to it after I've been entertained by FOX. After all, that's all these companies can really do is entertain rather than provide good journalism.

I'm not sure who you're expecting on this board to provide experiences, but theres 1 or 2 noted hunting/rifle magazines out there that do publish these events monthly.

Unnecessary? Well I guess that's all relative. Firing a gun at a dog could be one example of what does get into those stats. Just as valid as the next I would wager. Woulda been a nice pill for those dogs that mauled the girl in SF.

I guess some people will never see the need for guns. Other will blame them for the world's problems. A few will actually use them responsibly.


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 6, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *In the second...hmmm. Neither you nor your family nor your friends. Odd, given the two mil figure. *



*So what are you looking for?  *Are you trying to find out whether *ANYONE* has used a gun defensively?  Are not news/articles and even a few experiences already noted by others in this thread enough to indicate that defensive use does happen?  It isn't made up fantasy that guns can be used defensively.

I never said that I didn't know anyone who used a gun defensively.  I mentioned to you before that I chose not to share stories with you because I am not sure what your whole point with this is...  You continue to deride me just because I didn't offer to tell experiences.

I will proceed now to tell you these experiences, take what you feel of any value from them.

A few years ago, my co-worker from the college where I teach, Mr. B.E., there were burglaries/robberies going on in his neighborhood.  People were getting really nervous, because the latest burglary at the time involved an assault on a homeowner by the burglar.   

One night, Mr. B.E. was awake, reading a book, as he couldn't sleep.  He heard breaking glass downstairs.  His wife and children were still asleep.  He got up, grabbed his shotgun, and went to the bedroom door.  He could hear the person coming up on the stairs.  Mr. B.E. didn't open the door.  All he did was rack his shotgun.  The footsteps stopped then retreated.  He heard a few more glass fall (the guy went back through the window).  Nothing else happened from this incident, although he did file a police report to notify about the break-in.  The burglar/robber eventually was caught.  Considering this same individual had assaulted another homeowner a few days prior to breaking into my friend's house, the shotgun sound stopped another potential assault incident.

Here is another one, but this technically isn't really a defensive story as the wife never got to use her revolver:

Three houses down from me, in 1996, the family is known for domestic violence.  Police go over there frequently.  One day, the husband returned (he had been separated a few weeks then from his wife) and brought a rifle with him (which is illegal, because he has a restraining order against him and by law, cannot have any firearms).  He threatened to blow up a propane tank with it.  The whole neighborhood was cordoned off with a four block perimeter, and none of us could go home.  The police, sheriff, and FBI, SWAT teams were there.

We had a ham radio in our blue Geo, so we turned it on to the police frequency to check what was going on.  My husband, my two kids, and I were standing next to the car, just waiting for the standoff to end (it was five hours). 

Their kid, Chase, was finally allowed to leave his family home (a buddy of my second son).  There were a lot of negotiations that weren't going anywhere.   The wife had a revolver hidden with her, but didn't use it against her husband.  I'm surprised nothing more happened from that as he finally surrendered and left the house.   She said later on that she would have tried shooting him if he made a move to injure Chase, but once Chase got out, she didn't worry anymore about what would happen if he shot the propane tank or if he shot her.

There are a few more of my friend's gun experiences I could share, but one of them is in the middle of a legal process  trying to determine whether his use of the gun was defensive.

- Ceicei


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 6, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Ceicei _
> *
> One day, the husband returned (he had been separated a few weeks then from his wife) and brought a rifle with him (which is illegal, because he has a restraining order against him and by law, cannot have any firearms).
> 
> - Ceicei *



Ceicei,

Not is all states, does a Restraining Order automatically prohibit a person to own a gun or to use a gun for hunting or for thier job if it is required.

Yet, there has to be a normal reason to have the firearm in the first place.

Glad everyone survived
:asian:


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 6, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Rich Parsons _
> *Ceicei,
> 
> Not is all states, does a Restraining Order automatically prohibit a person to own a gun or to use a gun for hunting or for thier job if it is required.
> *



In Utah, it is, so that's why I clarified that.

Yes, I'm glad everyone survived...  

The only question I had was what would have happened if the propane tank was shot?  Would it have just leaked, or would it go up in a fireball?  Considering that the tank is pretty thick, could a shot from the rifle even penetrate it?  

- Ceicei


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jan 6, 2004)

I'll repeat:  Hoplophobes are rarely moved by facts.  Neither are pompous fools.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 6, 2004)

I'm sorry, Phillip, I don't quite understand what you're contributing to the discussion. Could you explain?


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 7, 2004)

I give up.

Robert could break into my house with a gun, and I could shoot him in self defense and he would still argue it never happened.

I'm out.


----------



## Seig (Jan 7, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Can you actually name anybody who has "defended themselves," with a gun, who was not a cop? Anybody you personally know, whose impressions you trust? What EXACTLY was the situation?
> 
> *


Sure. Me.
I had an incident occur about 6 months ago when Tess and I moved into our current house.  The house had been vacant for over a year before we moved in.  We had been there about 4 days, I was leaving for work.  There was a drug deal going on right in front if my house, directly under my bedroom window.  The people involved, all 4 of them, were not talking quietly or even attempting to disguise what they were doing.  I told them, "Fellas, how about taking out from under my window."  They resonded with an obscenity an a threat.  I told them, "I'm not asking."  The one closest to me then told me to "take [my] white *** back in the f'ing house before I died."  He then reached into his pants and started to turn around towards me.  I unholstered my 1911 .45 ACP from my shoulder rig and pointed it at them.  I quite calmly told the speaker that if he completed the turn, he was dead.  Fortunatley, I did not have to fire my weapon, but if I had to, I would have.  I am not a police officer.  I live in a questionable neighborhood and have lived in far worse, I am originally from SouthEast DC.  My parents left the city when I was young and moved me to an area where the Clan was active.  I also live in an area where a great many people carry firearms.  The police encourage people to get the CCW because they are at 30% strength!!!  You must be able to defend yourself, the police will not always be able to get there in time.  I have a good many friends that are police, they feel that I am more competent with a weapon than many of there co-workers.  Not only have I demonstrated my ability and willingness to use a weapon, but I have also demonstrated the responsibilty not to.  I have trained my wife to use firearms, do I think she should be a gun fighter?  No.  Do I leave the house at night feeling better that she has a shot gun and a pistol within arms reach?  Yes.


----------



## Seig (Jan 7, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Rich Parsons _
> *Ceicei,
> 
> Not is all states, does a Restraining Order automatically prohibit a person to own a gun or to use a gun for hunting or for thier job if it is required.
> ...


I do not know the exact wording but, here's a little edification.  According to federal law.  If you have been charged with domestic violence, you are suspended from being allowed to own/carrya  firearm until disposition of the case.  If you are convicted, you loose all firearms rights.  This also applies to Police Officers.  Several lost their jobs when the law was passed three years ago.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 8, 2004)

Again, I'm afraid that some of you folks need to read what you're arguing against. If you will do that, you will find that a) I have said absolutely nothing against legitimate uses of guns, b) I advocated keeping a shotgun in the house if you feel it absolutely necessary (said this repeatedly, by the way), c) I merely asked for facts and personal anecdotes, d) I not only noted that a friend or two had used the damn things, I several times mentioned cops. Oh yeah, e) I discussed growing up around guns. How this means blindness, I can't imagine--well, actually I can; it's conditioned reflex.

I also note that one of the "uses," mentioned above involved a husbaand waving a rifle around--I don't exactly think of that as legit. I also think that after some thirty years of having the country flooded with guns, well, there are very likely to be more creeps out there with guns.

And, I stand behind the statement that there are a lot of people out there, unfortunately, for whom, "the right to bear arms," means the right to behave irresponsibly.

Again I note an interesting contradiction: some of the folks arguing for unlimited gun rights and squaking about the Constitution are the very folks who are arguing AGAINST an equally-important right, the right to free speech, on the grounds of some war or threat or "need to support the President," or some such. 

Your argument seems to be that rights have to be balanced against other rights--fair enough, and exactly my point. Why in this case? Because to quote another poster,

"A few will actually use them responsibly."

And one other thing I stand behind: a saner society would fund the cops adequately, offer better education and health care and neighborhoods, and quit flooding kids' little heads with the promise of easy cash and quick power--if not out of the goodness of its heart, ceratinly as a rational means of self-defense.

Because, folks--in the end, you will NEVER be able to pile up enough weaponry to make yourselves safe. It's a losing proposition--more and more guns, more and more armed people, and none of you feel any safer, do you? Nor will you want to live in the society that results.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 8, 2004)

Robert is right.  More guns will only result in more death.  Social justice is the best way to make our society safer.


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 8, 2004)

I know plenty of people who think that more guns in society would make them feel safer. Actually about 4 million NRA members feel this way.

If the bad guys knew that the good guys were carrying, they'd think twice.

If the guns were gone, it's open season.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Jan 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *If the bad guys knew that the good guys were carrying, they'd think twice.*



I think it would make them smarter and quicker so that they have you before you have the opportunity to use your gun.  They would be more careful to jump you and more likely to shoot if they thought you were reaching for your weapon.

Are guns needed?  In some cases, but generally they 1) aren't loaded for immediate use (for safety) or 2) aren't available for quick enough access when needed (in a purse or closet).

I'd be interested in comparing the use of guns for self defense with the accidents that have happened with them.  I hear media stories all the time about how someone shot their son when he came home at 3:00am trying to not wake up his parents or the 5 year old who shot his sibling playing cops and robbers.

I care that people carry guns because of the deadly violence that *might* ensue.  People attack each other now for stupid reasons like stealing parking spaces.  Their victims typically walk away with bruises and scrapes.  If they had guns handy, one of them probably wouldn't walk away at all.

To me they sound like a good idea, protecting the weak and all, but it's not usually the weak that get them.  Too many people get them to support their self-esteem, showing them off like they're puffing up their chest; they have "the power."  That's the kind of person I'm nervous about.

WhiteBirch


----------



## OULobo (Jan 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by lvwhitebir _
> *I think it would make them smarter and quicker so that they have you before you have the opportunity to use your gun.  They would be more careful to jump you and more likely to shoot if they thought you were reaching for your weapon.
> 
> Are guns needed?  In some cases, but generally they 1) aren't loaded for immediate use (for safety) or 2) aren't available for quick enough access when needed (in a purse or closet).
> ...



Not to attack Mr. Birch here, but these seem like classic media ploys to scare the public into complacency. 

While some organized criminals will become quicker and more shrewd in their attacks, the average thug or mugger will most likely not have the motivation to step up their attacks. The average violent criminal is lazy and opportunistic. They are not looking for a fight or resistance, they are looking for quick and easy. CCWs take away many quick and easy targets. 

The cases of inaccessability of firearms when they are needed (locked up or unloded) are examples of people who aren't using common sense in terms of protecting their home. 

The media stories of children getting guns or of accidental shootings are often outdated, sensationalized, exaggerated and among some of the rarest of occurances. 

Examples of confromtations where guns are used and there is no call for lethal force boarder on urban legend. I have yet to see a police report or news report from any state that can be cited. That is not to say they don't exist, just that they are rare and if a blatant example did occur, you can be sure the anti-gun groups would've gotten a hold of it and sensationalized it just as much as the child accidents. 

I do agree with the idea that the majority of the people who attain firearms do it for the machismo factor, but again there are brandishing laws in many CCW states that stop any behavior of these people that could have an effect on the average unarmed citizen. 

You will have to excuse my pro-CCW stance, but my state is currently enacting CCW laws and it has brought many opinions to the forfront and caused a polarization of beliefs.


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *And one other thing I stand behind: a saner society would fund the cops adequately, offer better education and health care and neighborhoods, and quit flooding kids' little heads with the promise of easy cash and quick power--if not out of the goodness of its heart, ceratinly as a rational means of self-defense.
> 
> Because, folks--in the end, you will NEVER be able to pile up enough weaponry to make yourselves safe. It's a losing proposition--more and more guns, more and more armed people, and none of you feel any safer, do you? Nor will you want to live in the society that results. *



Even with enough cops out there (or with more hired), they will certainly not be there *BEFORE* crime happens (unless we have a way to predict where and when).  If we're lucky, they may get there *WHILE* it happens.  Most of the time, the police arrives *AFTER* the crime occurs.  Who do we rely on for protection if it is not the police?  They are not everywhere.

Better education, better health care, better neighborhoods?  Gangs and drugs exist even in affluent places.  Better social programs?  Sure, we need them; however, these programs will never be able to take care of every person who is in need.  There will always be someone who is overlooked or has "slipped through the cracks".  

There will always be someone who decides not to take advantage of education, someone who cannot afford health care, someone who cannot move out from where they live to a better place, or someone who rejects the needed help of social programs.  There will always be someone who will violently take action against another and cause harm.

To believe a utopian society can happen without any crime is just a dream and *not reality*, although it is a goal all of us can strive for.  It is possible to have crime-free locations; reality is these areas eventually will have some sort of crime happen.

Criminals have become more bold.  They usually seek for "easy pickings" where they are not likely to be challenged or hurt during their crime.  Even then, they sometimes are willing to take risks--but it is a known fact that if criminals think there is a possibility of getting hurt, they usually take their activity elsewhere.

I'm not going to set aside my gun just because "it's not necessary" in today's society.   I'm not setting it aside because "the cops are there to help" as they may not make it on time.  I'm not putting the gun away in the hope that a criminal will not be armed.  I would be a fool if I, as a lawful citizen, put away my gun when criminals out there do not put away their weapons.

You ask for less guns?  I ask, whose guns?  When *ALL* criminals agree to never ever pick up a weapon again and never attack anyone, that will be the day when I will put down my weapons too and will no longer need martial arts for self defense.

I will make sure that I am prepared.  Is that paranoia?  I don't sit around fearfully thinking I'm going to be attacked, but I will face the challenge if this happens.  I believe in self defense.  That's why I take martial arts and own a gun.  I make sure I am legally certified to have/own weapons, do my firearms training on a consistent basis, keep updated with local laws, and drill into my mind the responsibility of when and when not to use them.

I don't have a gun just to "make me feel better."  I have a gun to even the odds and insure that I am alive and able to care for my family.  I've already had my home broken into and had a rape attempt against me before I learned martial arts and owned a gun.  

Whether or not any other law abiding citizen chooses to have weapons or any form of self defense does not matter to me.  That's their perogative.  What matters to me is that criminals out there do, and these are the people I prepare myself and my family with defense.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 8, 2004)

Again, I must ask that you re-read. Neither I--nor anyone else on this thread--has argued for the abolition of all guns. Neither I--nor anyone else on this thread--has argued that the cops would solve all problems. And neither I--nor anyone else on this thread--has argued for some pie-in-the-sky, "utopian," society. You're making up arguments that are easy to counter, then countering them.

What I'm arguing for is a saner society. That certainly won't solve every problem there is--but in addition to the minor moral considerations, it will considerably lessen the risk. That's all you can do, after all--lessen the risk. Nothing will maake you perfectly safe--guns won't no matter how much you pile 'em up, and martial arts won't. They can only lessen the risk.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *I know plenty of people who think that more guns in society would make them feel safer. Actually about 4 million NRA members feel this way.
> 
> If the bad guys knew that the good guys were carrying, they'd think twice.
> ...



I just wanted to quickly comment that I believe that it is absurd to think that if every man or woman over 18 carry a firearm, that the world would be a safer place. I think that everyone from time to time executes poor judgement; and I think that too many people execute poor judgement far too often. I believe that if everyone carried, we might have some major problems on our hands. Luckily most people don't carry.

Plus, to say that everyone carrying a gun would deter criminals is false. Not only is there no evidence to back up this claim, but it doesn't corroborate with the evidence that we do have. Evidence and statistics have shown us that "consequence" does not deter crime. This means that criminals are not being detered by jail time, death penalty, or the idea of getting SHOT by their victims for that matter. Criminals can be ruthless, are also not as dumb as we take them for, and can be very determined to commit their crimes, regardless of the odds. So, if we made it a law for every man woman and child to be a trained firearm user, and took guns away from all criminals, guess what? Criminals would find smarter and more ruthless ways of committing their crimes.

having said all of that, I am more to the "right" of center on this issue in that I think that people whould have the right to own and carry whatever they want. I believe that our right to bear arms is an important right that we have as americans. Yet, I still don't buy the arguement that the streets would be safer if everyone carried guns.

 :2pistols: :mp5: :bazook:


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *What I'm arguing for is a saner society. That certainly won't solve every problem there is--but in addition to the minor moral considerations, it will considerably lessen the risk. That's all you can do, after all--lessen the risk. Nothing will maake you perfectly safe--guns won't no matter how much you pile 'em up, and martial arts won't. They can only lessen the risk. *



As long as we both understand that risks exist, absolute safety is impossible and cannot be guaranteed, and that it is prudent to determine our own self-defense, then I am in agreement with you.

- Ceicei


----------



## Mr.Rooster (Mar 17, 2006)

Guns do not kill people.  People kill people.
Outlaw people, or maybe at least perhaps Liberals.


----------



## Lisa (Mar 18, 2006)

Mr.Rooster said:
			
		

> Guns do not kill people.  People kill people.
> Outlaw people, or maybe at least perhaps Liberals.



Why?:idunno:

I know many Liberals who believe in the right to carry.


----------



## Mr.Rooster (Mar 18, 2006)

True enough, not all Liberals are anti-gun just as not all conservatives are pro-gun/carry.  The majorities though seem to be obvious enough, to me anyway.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 18, 2006)

I think it's a mistake to align gun control with being anti-gun, though I understand why people do so.

I don't think it's unreasonable keeping the legal sale of firearms under restrictions which would keep ex-cons, mental patients and disabled persons from purchasing them.  Will they be procured on the street? Sure. Is that an excuse for letting them be sold legally? No.

Believing in these restrictions is not the same as being anti-gun.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 18, 2006)

Mr.Rooster said:
			
		

> Guns do not kill people.  People kill people.
> Outlaw people, or maybe at least perhaps Liberals.


Seems to me that criminals would be a greater threat than Liberals in this discussion.  Aside from that, as you've acknowledged, pro/anti gun doesn't necessarily follow party lines.  So, rather than make it a right/left discussion, how about we carry on talking about the issue itself?

My feelings on this come down to a couple of points.  I'll preface by reminding everyone that, where I come from, the only ones carrying guns right now are the cops and the crooks.

1. Only people qualified to carry should be allowed to carry.  These qualification standards should be rigorous, and the bar set quite high.  We need to keep public safety the primary consideration.

2. In a society where the only ones carrying are cops and bad guys, we rely on the cops to keep us safe from the bad guys.  The problem with this is that public safety (from firearms) is then a function of how many dollars are allocated to policing.  I can see the argument that this is an unreasonable standard for personal protection.  For example, in this thread about use of force, it's clear that people are afforded the right to use whatever force is reasonable and necessary in order to protect themselves.  I can't think of any other equalizer to the gun of a bad guy than the gun of a good guy (wielded responsibly).

3. Greater effort in reducing illegal weapons on the street needs to go hand in hand with allowing the public to carry.  People need to remember that being allowed to carry in public is premised on granting good guys an equalizing force to that of the bad guys.  Reduce the need, and the public interest is best served.

So, in summary, I think that having members of the public able to carry is a good thing for society as long as there are bad guys out there with guns, as long as it is well regulated.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 18, 2006)

Since this thread has revived, I just wanted to point out that I was basically wrong in some of my previous statements I made a couple of years ago (wow...old thread). Statistics do show that crime rates rise in societies where firearms are banned, which would imply that having the right to legally carry is a crime deterrent. It is not so much that every law abiding adult in society must be issued a firearm, it is more that by having the right to self-protection and the right to carry potential criminals have to think twice about taking advantage of people.

I will say, though, that from my perspective it is exciting to me to be able to update my opinion when more research is made evident to me. To look back at something I said 2 years prior and know that my views have evolved says to me that I am learning. I take the same approach with training, which keeps me on the cutting edge of effective methodology. But I digress...

Just thought I would point that out because this is an old thread with new eyes, and opinions should tend to evolve if we are doing the right thing...

Paul


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 18, 2006)

I talked to a guy from Fairbanks Alaska, a few years back, about guns and violence, since just about in Fairbanks carries a gun and there is a lot of drinking there as well. And there did not appear to be a whole lot of gun violence there. 

He said that no matter how much you drink you always know the other guy can shoot back.

I am neither saying I am for or against gun control, I just thought it was an interesting perspective


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 18, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I think it's a mistake to align gun control with being anti-gun, though I understand why people do so.



I don't disagree with that in theory, but I'm of the opinion that in practice, _many_ people support gun control issues that border on anti-gun, or are close to it.


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 20, 2006)

I just finished reading _On Killing_ by Dave Grossman yesterday. I highly reccomend it to anyone involved in martial arts. In the early sections he goes through some interesting stuff about the parts of the brain and how they react in terms of learning and conditioning that is very relevant to anyone involved in teaching people to survive a violent attack.

But the bulk of the book is about how people can be conditioned to overcome their natural reluctance to take another's life. And the last part is devoted to the impact on society as a whole.

He points out that people are worried now about kids bringing guns to school. But kids have always lived around guns. There were more guns in the homes of kids in the past, and yet it is only now that we are so worried about the problem that we are putting metal detectors at the entrances to school.

He says the question is not where kids are getting the guns, but why _now_ they are doing things prior generations would not.

I can't condense a 300+ page book here, so I really think people should get the book. But his co-author on his later book, Loren Christianson (who is registered here BTW) wrote the following piece that kind of deals with a lot of the same points.

http://www.lwcbooks.com/articles/Kidskillarticle.html

Read the above article and ask yourself what we would need to do to change the situation. Some of what he writes about has a bearing on the first ammendment. Can you imagine the ruckus that would explode if any politician dared to try to take on some of these things in a meaningfull manner? I myself would have a huge problem with the idea.

Grossman also points out all the other factors that makes American society so prone to violence now as compared to in the past. We have increased the amount of people behind bars about four times since the 70s and that seems to be the only reason the figures are actually not that bad. The worst offenders are out of circulation for now.

People in this thread have tried to point to Japan as a country that does not have guns and has less murders by guns. They try to say that a lack of guns means less gun violence. But you don't have to worry about things like people trying to attack you with a knife in comparison to the US. How does a lack of guns explain the lower number across the board of violent crimes? It doesn't. There are a lot of factors involved in the problem. And any US politician that tries to even bring up some of them will get raped in the media and have to find a new job.

You want an example? I can tell you that in Japan the norm is that a woman stops working and stays at home after she has child. Contrast that with America. Do you think that people are going to sit still while someone even tries to raise the issue of there maybe being a link?

Oh, and the cultural thing with some sub cultures of America is just another death trap for anyone willing to touch it. You would be called a racist as if it were fact even if you are a member of that race.

And can a politician really show to the voters that he has done something against violence and school shootings by tackling all the various issues that _really_ have an impact? 

So instead of dealing with all the numerous factors that make up the situation, the best route for the politicians to do after yet another school shooting is to require having a trigger lock sold with firearms. Gee, I feel so safe.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 20, 2006)

I'm reading that book right now as well, Don. I'd love to discuss it more with you, but, I just started! 

You cited a cultural difference between Japan and the US ... Am I correct in reading your post to say that acceptance of socially guided roles and social status in the Japanses culture (as opposed to the rejection of oppression of any sort including it's inflictor) is responsible, in your eyes, for a lower crime rate?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 20, 2006)

> just wanted to quickly comment that I believe that it is absurd to think that if every man or woman over 18 carry a firearm, that the world would be a safer place.


 
You can think it's absurd, but it's statistically supportable.  When citizens are armed for self-defense, they are more safe, not less safe.  Anyone who believes otherwise is evading reality and substituting his or her wishful thinking for reality.  What's more, if you support gun control you are not a "martial" artist at all.

*Guns, "Gun Control," and "Martial" Artists*


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 20, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> People in this thread have tried to point to Japan as a country that does not have guns and has less murders by guns. They try to say that a lack of guns means less gun violence. But you don't have to worry about things like people trying to attack you with a knife in comparison to the US. How does a lack of guns explain the lower number across the board of violent crimes? It doesn't. There are a lot of factors involved in the problem. And any US politician that tries to even bring up some of them will get raped in the media and have to find a new job.
> 
> You want an example? I can tell you that in Japan the norm is that a woman stops working and stays at home after she has child. Contrast that with America. Do you think that people are going to sit still while someone even tries to raise the issue of there maybe being a link?


 
First, I think I agree with you.

But you also have a situation in Japan where the police have greater rights to search and seizure than in the US. And if I am not mistaken it is a guilty until proven innocent country, unlike the US.

Also in China you have fewer gun crimes, but you generally have both parents working. The police in China do not carry guns, but once again they have greater powers. And you have a guilty until proven innocent legal system. 

I cannot speak for Japan, but in China the punishments tend to be harsher and more certain for all crimes and for gun crimes, depending on the governments feeling, the punishments may vary; several years in prison to death penalty.

And I know Chinese people that are absolutely terrified of hand guns, but an AK-47 does not bother them in the least. This also may be in part due to the fact that the majority of college students are required to go through military training at some point.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 20, 2006)

The fundamental flaw in the reasoning of all people pointing to nations with strict "gun control" as having lower levels of violent crime miss one very important fact:

*These nations had much lower levels of violent crime, compared the US, BEFORE they enacted their strict laws.*

Violence is cultural.  It is not determined by the availability of weapons.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 20, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> What's more, if you support gun control you are not a "martial" artist at all.



That is to say ... in your opinion.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 20, 2006)

No, it's objectively correct.  You can't be a _martial_ artist while supporting arms prohibition any more than you can be an animal rights activist who works in a lab experimenting on chimps.  The concepts are mutually philosohpically exclusive -- a logical contradiction.  Unless one is willing to embrace logical contradiction and paradox, the two cannot coexist.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 20, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> No, it's objectively correct.



I am not saying I am for or against arms control here, I am just curios, but where does your data originates from? Where do you get these statistics?

Although I will agree that most countries level of violent crime is lower than the US, but why is that? The luck of the draw, stricter laws, it certainly is not lower population. And is it really lower in a country such as (this is only for example) India where you have a very large population with very little ability to report a crime? Basically if you shoot everyone around you and there is no one left to report it, is it a violent crime?

Is ethnic cleansing considered a crime or something else? 

Can you be guiltily of a violent crime in a war zone?



			
				Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> You can't be a _martial_ artist while supporting arms prohibition any more than you can be an animal rights activist who works in a lab experimenting on chimps. The concepts are mutually philosohpically exclusive -- a logical contradiction. Unless one is willing to embrace logical contradiction and paradox, the two cannot coexist.


 

I should also ask you define what you mean by arms prohibition before I make my next statement, but I am basing it on the possibility you are staying within the post and talking guns in general.

But I think you would have a lot of disagreement in and with martial artist from China, Japan, Singapore, etc. with your statement.

"You can't be a martial artist while supporting arms prohibition"


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 20, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> No, it's objectively correct. You can't be a _martial_ artist while supporting arms prohibition any more than you can be an animal rights activist who works in a lab experimenting on chimps. The concepts are mutually philosohpically exclusive -- a logical contradiction. Unless one is willing to embrace logical contradiction and paradox, the two cannot coexist.


I'd be interested to see you justify your position with logic.  How are they philosophically exclusive?

According to Wikipedia,



> A *martial art*, often referred to as a *fighting system*, is a system of codified practices and traditions of training for combat, usually (but not always) without the use of guns and other modern weapons. Today, people study martial arts for various reasons including sport, fitness, self-defense, self-cultivation (meditation), mental discipline and character development, and self-confidence.
> The term "martial arts" is slightly anomalous in its English usage. Its strict meaning should be "arts for military use" (flying fighter aircraft, sniper training, and so forth) but in normal usage it is used to refer to formalized systems of training to fight without modern technology.


 
Note the the discrepancy between the "strict" usage and the "normal" usage of the term "martial art".  

Regarding the philosophical "exclusivity" you wrongfully declare, it seems to me that I can have an interest in defending my person physically, while still pushing for restrictions on gun ownership.

BTW, you may note that you seem to have changed your position somewhat.  Note that you said: "if you support gun control you are not a "martial" artist at all", and then subsequently proclaimed, "You can't be a _martial_ artist while supporting arms prohibition".

As I'm sure you can agree, there is a noteworthy difference between the concepts of control and prohibition.

Either way, I can support both quite fine as a martial artist.  So, how can you logically lay out your argument, Phil?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 20, 2006)

The Wikipedia is hardly what I'd call a definitive source on anything.  It's an international graffiti board and does not determine the working definition of "martial art."

I justify my position with logic in *this article* and touch on some of the same concepts *here*. The first article I cited earlier in this thread.  (Weren't you the one who got angry before when I didn't read something you cited before responding to your post?)

_Martial_ arts and self-defense are mutually exclusive to civilian disarmament.  If you support disarming the citizenry you support making it more difficult for them to defend themselves.  You cannot them claim to be a self-defense exponent.

Oh, and no, there is no difference between "gun control" and arms prohibition.  "Gun control" is a euphemism for the prohibition of arms to free citizens.  Those who claim to be for "reasonable gun control" are either philosophically naive or outright lying.  Those seeking to "control" privately owned "small arms" will not be satisfied with "reasonable" regulations.  Historically they never have been.


----------



## Mr.Rooster (Mar 20, 2006)

Mr. Elmore:

I love reading your posts.
I think your a stud and maybe even borderline brilliant.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 20, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Oh, and no, there is no difference between "gun control" and arms prohibition.  "Gun control" is a euphemism for the prohibition of arms to free citizens.  Those who claim to be for "reasonable gun control" are either philosophically naive or outright lying.  Those seeking to "control" privately owned "small arms" will not be satisfied with "reasonable" regulations.  Historically they never have been.



I'd say that what you stated here applies more to government officials and lobbyists rather than individual or groups of private citizens.  I just told a friend of mine today, "Give me access to assault weapons, but keep them out of the hands of the whacko down the street who spent 3 years in Bellview."


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 20, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> I am not saying I am for or against arms control here, I am just curios, but where does your data originates from? Where do you get these statistics?
> 
> Although I will agree that most countries level of violent crime is lower than the US, but why is that? The luck of the draw, stricter laws, it certainly is not lower population. And is it really lower in a country such as (this is only for example) India where you have a very large population with very little ability to report a crime? Basically if you shoot everyone around you and there is no one left to report it, is it a violent crime?
> 
> ...


 
Phil

It's not like you not to answer questions. See above.

Also I feel I should point out a bit of a flaw, in my opinion, of your justifacation. First although you do mention statistics and other publications in your justifications you say you are quoting from memory, which is very much like saying "because I say so" in an academic setting.

Also you have a definition of "Martial" and it appears to be from Dictionary.com. If it isn't it looks exactly like the definition of martial in dictionary.com which is

mar&#8226;tial    
adj. 
Of, relating to, or suggestive of war. 
Relating to or connected with the armed forces or the profession of arms. 
Characteristic of or befitting a warrior. 

However if you go to the same site and enter "Martial Art" you get the following definitions.

martial art
n. 
Any of several Asian arts of combat or self-defense, such as aikido, karate, judo, or tae kwon do, usually practiced as sport. Often used in the plural.

martial art
n: any of several Oriental arts of weaponless self-defense; usually practiced as a sport; "he had a black belt in the martial arts"

Key thing to note here "Oriental arts of weaponless self-defense"

Although I do believe this definition is a bit flawed since many CMAs that I do or have seen use spears, swords, staff, etc. But never a gun.

Either way it shows that the definition of martial does not necessarily equal the definition of martial art.

None I have ever seen, practiced or studied have ever discussed the application of guns, unless it was an application as to how to take a gun from someone. 

As for gun control. I choose not to voice my opinion here. As for the statement "You can't be a martial artist while supporting arms prohibition any more than you can be an animal rights activist who works in a lab experimenting on chimps.&#8221; First I do not think the second example is proof or you&#8217;re first, second I feel you are way off base with this statement and show an incredible lack of understanding of the martial arts from east Asia.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 20, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> The Wikipedia is hardly what I'd call a definitive source on anything. It's an international graffiti board and does not determine the working definition of "martial art."


Thank you Xue Sheng for answering this point exactly as I was about to.


> 1. I justify my position with logic in *this article* and touch on some of the same concepts *here*. The first article I cited earlier in this thread. 2. (Weren't you the one who got angry before when I didn't read something you cited before responding to your post?)


1. It seems as though your article relies quite heavily one fallacious supposition. That is, that regulating gun ownership (my definition of gun control) equates to civilian disarmament. Phil, they are not the same thing. In my perfect world, guns would only be legally owned by civilians who had passed rigorous qualification standards, which you acknowledge is not the current status quo. I don't think society is well served by allowing any regular city boy, untrained in safe firearm handling and shooting technique, to run around with a lethal sidearm. This would be quite contrary to an acceptably safe community, IMO. I don't, however, think that it's prudent to take away everyone's firearms. Equating control with disarmament undermines your logical platform. So, try again.

2. Yes, and that's due to the fact that adding a comment in when you are unfamiliar with the premise of the topic is trolling by most definitions. I don't care much for trolls. Hence, a negative response to you. Aside from that, I asked you for your logical argument. Your article doesn't meet that standard, and thus doesn't answer the question.


> _Martial_ arts and self-defense are mutually exclusive to civilian disarmament. If you support disarming the citizenry you support making it more difficult for them to defend themselves. You cannot them claim to be a self-defense exponent.


This is fuzzy logic at best. You discount the role of law enforcement in your proposition: perhaps with more resources, law enforcement would be able to eliminate illegal gun ownership. If law enforcement can eliminate illegal gun ownership, why again do you need to carry? Please, set aside your fears that you may need to rise up against your government one day, and let's deal with the everyday occurrences of robbery, home invasions, carjackings, and the like. Self defence scenarios. If you needn't defend against a sidearm, why would you need to carry one? 

Now, I realize that this isn't realistic in terms of what's going on today. But, that doesn't preclude society's ability to start making some intelligent choices. Has law enforcement been successful in reducing illegal gun ownership? Certainly not so far. However, do they have all the necessary resources to do the job? Not by a long stretch. Give them the resources they need, and perhaps we'll see some positive changes.

So, I'll ask you now, which postition would you guess would be more likely to be that of a real martial artist: one that espouses more gun violence, or one that espouses less? You advocate unrestricted access, I advocate responsible access coupled with a genuine focus on reducing the illegal guns on the street. I think my suggestions are worth considering.





> Oh, and no, there is no difference between "gun control" and arms prohibition. "Gun control" is a euphemism for the prohibition of arms to free citizens. Those who claim to be for "reasonable gun control" are either philosophically naive or outright lying. Those seeking to "control" privately owned "small arms" will not be satisfied with "reasonable" regulations. Historically they never have been.


This is fear mongering and projectionism. You're saying, "oh, you say you want responsible control, but you really mean you want to take away my guns!" No, don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying if you aren't going to be safe according to a reasonably high standard, on the street carrying your sidearm, you shouldn't have it.

Advocacy of public and personal safety is, in fact, concordant with the philosophical reference frame of a martial artist. To prevent war, a peace loving society must be fostered. Any real martial artist will tell you that the best defense is to prevent the altercation in the first place.


----------



## Mr.Rooster (Mar 20, 2006)

Whenever this stuff comes up, I always think that Guns do not kill people.
People kill people, so outlaw people.  Where's the cries for people control?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 20, 2006)

Mr.Rooster said:
			
		

> Whenever this stuff comes up, I always think that Guns do not kill people.
> People kill people, so outlaw people. Where's the cries for people control?


 
I am all for people control, if they use a gun to kill someone, or attempt to kill someone or harass someone, arrest them and put them in prison. As for gun control, I could go either way; the jury is still out on that one.

As for "do guns kill people?"...of course they do, but it is not alone. 

The gun cannot do any killing on its own, it takes someone to load it and pull the trigger.

It isn't likely that a person throwing bullets at you will do much damage, and unless someone throws an unloaded gun at you it isn't too much problem either. As for the bullets, if they are sitting in a box on the shelf, they are not all that dangerous either. And a person sitting all by himself sans gun isn't likely to shoot some one. But put the 3 together and you can have problems. 

A very good friend of mine that works for a local PD once said, he has no problem with guns, just drunks with guns, whether that gun is a hand gun or a shotgun in the hands of a drunk its a real problem.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 20, 2006)

So many people have "no problem" with guns -- as long as they get to decide who gets them and who does not.

In a free society, we either see our fellow citizens' freedom of action as a benefit, or as a threat.  Those who see that freedom of action as a threat will never be comfortable _in a free society_.



> That is, that regulating gun ownership (my definition of gun control) equates to civilian disarmament. Phil, they are not the same thing.



Yes, they absolutely are the same thing.  You are kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.  Historically, all attempts to regulate gun ownership invariably become attempts to register and then confiscate privately owned firearms.  It has happened again and again.  It happened in the UK, for example, and it is being attempted in Canada right now (as well as in parts of the United States).



> This is fuzzy logic at best. You discount the role of law enforcement in your proposition: perhaps with more resources, law enforcement would be able to eliminate illegal gun ownership. If law enforcement can eliminate illegal gun ownership, why again do you need to carry?



It is not "fuzzy logic;" it is the immediate and logical outcome of such a philosophy.  Even if it was possible to guarantee that no illegal firearms existed, this would not negate the efficacy of the firearm as a tool of perosnal protection.  You seem to wrongly and foolishly believe that the only time a firearm is necessary is when one faces another firearm.  Multiple opponent scenarios or scenarios in which the opponent is bigger, stronger, faster, or more trained are all scenarios in which a citizen would require a force multiplier for legitimate self-defense.



> Please, set aside your fears that you may need to rise up against your government one day, and let's deal with the everyday occurrences of robbery, home invasions, carjackings, and the like. Self defence scenarios. If you needn't defend against a sidearm, why would you need to carry one?



Please do not waste my time with intellectually dishonest attempts to mischaracterize the topic.  Arms in the hands of law-abiding citizens are a necessity for any _free society_, for reasons ranging from self-defense to resistance to tyranny.  This is a fact no matter how much you plead to have it dismissed in order to strengthen your own ill-conceived argument.



> Now, I realize that this isn't realistic in terms of what's going on today.



No, it isn't -- it's wishful thinking, which is the foundation of all pleas for gun control by people who do not own guns, who are not familiar with guns, and who presume to speak of what should and should not be allowed concerning devices of which they have almost no knowledge.



> Has law enforcement been successful in reducing illegal gun ownership? Certainly not so far. However, do they have all the necessary resources to do the job? Not by a long stretch. Give them the resources they need, and perhaps we'll see some positive changes.



That is nonsense.  More resources are now devoted to this than ever before; more laws are in effect now than ever before; there is a reason alcohol prohibition was a dismal failure.



> So, I'll ask you now, which postition would you guess would be more likely to be that of a real martial artist: one that espouses more gun violence, or one that espouses less? You advocate unrestricted access, I advocate responsible access coupled with a genuine focus on reducing the illegal guns on the street. I think my suggestions are worth considering.



A hoplophobe cannot be a _martial_ artist, as I argued in my essay.  If you fear guns, if you wish to dictate who may own them and who may not, you are not furthering the cause of self-defense; you are harming it in order to pursue your wishful thinking.  "Gun control" is a proven failure, whereas access to firearms make citizens safer.  This is statistically supported by the work of Kleck and Lott, whose studies are the most comprehensive to date and whose methodologies have not been successfully pr credibly criticized.



> This is fear mongering and projectionism.



No, it is a historical fact.



> Advocacy of public and personal safety is, in fact, concordant with the philosophical reference frame of a martial artist.



Advocating tying others' hands in order to make one feel safer is not the act of a _martial_ artist.  A _martila_ artist empowers his or her fellow citizens for self-defense.



> To prevent war, a peace loving society must be fostered. Any real martial artist will tell you that the best defense is to prevent the altercation in the first place.



No, to prevent war, a strong ability to wage war must be maintained.  Only the ability to fight frees one from the necessity to do so.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 20, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> So many people have "no problem" with guns -- as long as they get to decide who gets them and who does not.
> 
> In a free society, we either see our fellow citizens' freedom of action as a benefit, or as a threat. Those who see that freedom of action as a threat will never be comfortable _in a free society_.


In your own words: 





> There can be no self-defense  there can be no _martial_ art  where reality is not recognized and where fantasy is substituted for fact.


so let's deal with reality for a minute.

You refer to this ideal of a free society - ostensibly alluding to gun regulation as undermining that free society.  Here's an interesting question - is driving a motorized vehicle regulated?  Face it, everything is regulated.  This is reality.  Guns are already regulated.  I don't understand the objection to the idea of restricting gun ownership to those that meet a higher standard of ability.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 20, 2006)

*Why I Stopped Arguing Gun Control on the Internet*


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 20, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> *Why I Stopped Arguing Gun Control on the Internet*


 
I have said it before and I will say it again if nothing else you are predictable and entertaining.

And even though you never addressed the questions and statements I made, I guess I will just let it go and move on.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 20, 2006)

I think some common ground needs to be reached for a logical  and fair debate.

First off, I don't think it is useful to debate what a "martial artist" is in the context of this discussion because that definition is not one that is perminent. It will vary from person to person, dictionary to dictionary, etc. The definition of _martial _is very consistant, but when combined to create the word _martial artist_, a whole new meaning is contrived that will vary as much as martial arts schools vary in content. 

Using the words _martial artist _was useful for Phil to make his point in the context of his article, but here it only creates a new debate, thus distracting from the real discussion.

That said, I think that we can all agree (at least all of us taking part in the discussion) that firearms _prohibition _and self-defense are mutually exclusive, and that supporting disarmament of citizens is not condusive of supporting the right for people to defend themselves. That is pretty clear, I think.

So, the question is what is considered _reasonable_ gun control? Where should the line be drawn, if at all? We must take into account that gun control laws tend to regulate the citizen who will obey them rather then the criminals who would harm us. We need to consider as well that although reasonable people out there might be in support of national registries and regulation but not disarmement, there are many unreasonable people who will only use such things as stepping stones to national disarmement if they could get into power.

These are all things to be discussed and considered. I think that it would be more productive to talk along these lines and on common ground rather then to insult each others arguements and essentially get no where...

Paul


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 20, 2006)

There's another one of your fallacies - that all people who argue for gun control are afraid of firearms.  Dude, I grew up with a gun in my hand.  I was raised on a farm, and my step-father is a defensive tactics instructor - he teaches cops how to use their sidearms.  I'm not afraid of guns.  

What I am afraid of is the fact that people have access to guns who probably should not.  When there is no proficiency standard, you end up with people who don't know how to store them properly, for example.  Then, kids find them and make mistakes.  

You're a strong advocate of firearm training - I am too.  Education is key.  It should, in fact, be a requirement.

However, you still haven't justified the position that martial artists cannot logically espouse gun control, because you're too afraid the government wants to take yours.



> Historically, all attempts to regulate gun ownership invariably become attempts to register and then confiscate privately owned firearms. It has happened again and again. It happened in the UK, for example, and it is being attempted in Canada right now (as well as in parts of the United States).


You're assuming malicious intent on the part of legislators, and that's not a valid proposition.  It's an assumption. 


> Arms in the hands of law-abiding citizens are a necessity for any _free society_, for reasons ranging from self-defense to resistance to tyranny. This is a fact no matter how much you plead to have it dismissed in order to strengthen your own ill-conceived argument.


No they're not Phil.  Take your Canada example.  There are extremely rigorous standards to meet in order to own or transport firearms.  They're getting more rigorous all the time.  I have no tyranny to resist.  I would, however, like to have the opportunity to meet some rigorous standard which would allow me to carry.  I'd also feel quite comfortable with having others in my community afforded the same opportunity.


> No, it isn't -- it's wishful thinking, which is the foundation of all pleas for gun control by people who do not own guns, who are not familiar with guns, and who presume to speak of what should and should not be allowed concerning devices of which they have almost no knowledge.


Well, there's an incorrect assumption.  See above.


> That is nonsense. More resources are now devoted to this than ever before; more laws are in effect now than ever before; there is a reason alcohol prohibition was a dismal failure.


Is more resources the same as enough resources, Phil?  And, perhaps more laws doesn't necessarily equate to substantive enforcement now, does it?  Finally, comparing guns to alcohol is nonsense.  Make a reasonable comparison here.


> "Gun control" is a proven failure,


So, because it didn't work in previous incarnations (in completely different contexts, I might add), it can't be revised to work more effectively?


> No, to prevent war, a strong ability to wage war must be maintained. Only the ability to fight frees one from the necessity to do so.


Really?  Can you provide me with an example?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 20, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I think some common ground needs to be reached for a logical and fair debate.
> 
> First off, I don't think it is useful to debate what a "martial artist" is in the context of this discussion because that definition is not one that is perminent. It will vary from person to person, dictionary to dictionary, etc. The definition of _martial _is very consistant, but when combined to create the word _martial artist_, a whole new meaning is contrived that will vary as much as martial arts schools vary in content.
> 
> ...


 
Agreed

My Apologies


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 20, 2006)

Those who argue for gun control are indeed afraid and ignorant of firearms, regardless of their protestations.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 20, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Those who argue for gun control are indeed afraid and ignorant of firearms, regardless of their protestations.


 This kind of black-and-white thinking belies the restrictions you have placed on others in the name of what can loosely be called freedom.  Attempts at controlling conversation to forward one's own ideals corroborates the fact that one is afraid of thinking openly, of getting attacked, robbed, raped, or proved wrong.

These arguments remind me of those of a political pundit - those who hammer on particular items of interest in the name of defending freedom to the abandonment of other useful tactics mistakenly labeled and completely disregarded as being valid in order to further a specific agenda.  I laugh at people like that.

No matter how smart you think you are (or indeed are), I am done with this conversation.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 20, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Those who argue for gun control are indeed afraid and ignorant of firearms, regardless of their protestations.


 
Although I basically agree with your stance on firearms, I can't agree with your tactic here.

From my own personal experience, I didn't always agree with your stance on gun control, and I was an advocate of "reasonable gun control" even for the law abiding citizen for awhile. Yet, I don't think I was "ignorant" or "afraid." I just believed a lot of misinformation that was out there, and made logical conclusions on misinformation. When I really looked into the issue and found data that I hadn't seen before to shed light on the subject, I changed my view.

However, if in a discussion someone called me "ignorant" or "afraid" or insulted the integrity of my agruement, then my natural human reaction would be to stand stronger in my arguement and essentially dislike the "name-caller," rather then to see things from the other perspective.

This does no good to promote a fair exchange, and it certianly does no good to educate people to our point of view.

I don't mean to jump on you on an issue that we essentially agree on, but I think that your a talented writer and that issues like these could be handled better.

With respect,

Paul


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 21, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I'm reading that book right now as well, Don. I'd love to discuss it more with you, but, I just started!
> 
> You cited a cultural difference between Japan and the US ... Am I correct in reading your post to say that acceptance of socially guided roles and social status in the Japanses culture (as opposed to the rejection of oppression of any sort including it's inflictor) is responsible, in your eyes, for a lower crime rate?



Yes, no and maybe.

I gave one example and said there were many others. Xue Sheng gave another part of the puzzle. But there are tons of other things that are added to the mix to make the total picture. Some of them may not be needed, some of them may even be unrelated. We can't even really deal with some of the issues that you see in Japan and think about putting them in place in America, much less test them out to see if they are valid. There is just too many things that happen in a society to make a call on just one thing like gun ownership.

Just some of them off the top of my head,

In Japan, people tend to put the responsibility for people's actions on the person themselves. They don't care how they were raised, if they were part of an oppressed minority, how much money they have, etc.

The heros the kids have are more like the John Wayne types instead of the rap stars that live and sing about how they will kill a person for looking at them wrong while surrounded by riches and young females.

During their formative teenage years the kids spend the vast majority of their time in group activities under the guidence of an adult.

Japan has been called a 'shame culture' where the people feel shame for their actions and will be treated as scum if they merely step outside of the common mold. They showed the Jerry Springer show on Japanese television and could not believe that people would appear on it and that no one would tell them that they were perverted freaks.

And all of the above are just _part_ of the picture. But I bet that those that point to Japan having less firearm deaths would blanch at trying to make sure people stay married for the kids sake and the mother stays home with the kids. Or any of the other things that make violent assaults with any type of weapon a very rare event in Japan. I would not like some of it, most of it, being put in place in America.

So it is easier for politicians to go after guns instead of dealing with issues that will probably get them tarred and feathered.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 21, 2006)

> Although I basically agree with your stance on firearms, I can't agree with your tactic here.



It's not a tactic.  With very few exceptions, a thorough knowledge of firearms makes it almost impossible for one to advocate their prohibition (or their "control," if you must call it that).  This is because when you understand weapons, their limitations, and their applications, you understand their utility and you no longer fear them.  Such a person is almost _incapable_ of lobbying for their regulation and prohibition.  They're mutually exclusive concepts.

Once in a while the left will drag out someone they claim knows firearms but still advocates "gun conrol," on the idea that this gives them more credibility.  Such people are invariably either outright liars or not nearly as educated or experienced as they claim themselves to be.


----------



## modarnis (Mar 21, 2006)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> In your own words: so let's deal with reality for a minute.
> 
> You refer to this ideal of a free society - ostensibly alluding to gun regulation as undermining that free society.  Here's an interesting question - is driving a motorized vehicle regulated?  Face it, everything is regulated.  This is reality.  Guns are already regulated.  I don't understand the objection to the idea of restricting gun ownership to those that meet a higher standard of ability.



The driving analogy doesn't fit well to analyze the US model, since driving is not an enumerated right in the constitutional framework.  Comparing gun regulations with regulations on free speech or exceptions to 4th amendment seach and seizure  seem more applicable.

Violence exists, regardless of what dangerous instrument is available to a perpetrator.  Severely punishing violence is a better angle than restricting access to inanimate objects.  Far more violent crimes are committed with household objects that based on their manner of use become dangerous instruments than guns.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 21, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> It's not a tactic. With very few exceptions, a thorough knowledge of firearms makes it almost impossible for one to advocate their prohibition (or their "control," if you must call it that). This is because when you understand weapons, their limitations, and their applications, you understand their utility and you no longer fear them. Such a person is almost incapable of lobbying for their regulation and prohibition. They're mutually exclusive concepts.
> 
> Once in a while the left will drag out someone they claim knows firearms but still advocates "gun conrol," on the idea that this gives them more credibility. Such people are invariably either outright liars or not nearly as educated or experienced as they claim themselves to be.



It seems your focusing your idea of "control" (or prohibition if you must) on fear of the firearms, or lack of education. That is simply not the idea behind the control of guns. Take the regulation or control of alcohol. I completely understand the utility of alcohol and yet still support its regulation. The utility of an object doesn't affect its regulation. It seems you are only looking at this issue from one standpoint. If someone is in support of regulation or control of firearms they must simply be uneducated and misunderstanding of "weapons, their limitations, and their applications"? Thats going to be pretty hard to prove here. What exactly would be the utility of unregulated dispersal of firearms?

7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 21, 2006)

modarnis said:
			
		

> Far more violent crimes are committed with household objects that based on their manner of use become dangerous instruments than guns.



And yet no one has ever been killed as an inocent bystander from being hit by a stray eggbeater. 

7sm


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 21, 2006)

No one has ever protected herself from attempted rape with an eggbeater, either.  The benefits outweigh the liabilities.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 21, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> It seems your focusing your idea of "control" (or prohibition if you must) on fear of the firearms, or lack of education. That is simply not the idea behind the control of guns. Take the regulation or control of alcohol. I completely understand the utility of alcohol and yet still support its regulation. The utility of an object doesn't affect its regulation. It seems you are only looking at this issue from one standpoint. If someone is in support of regulation or control of firearms they must simply be uneducated and misunderstanding of "weapons, their limitations, and their applications"? Thats going to be pretty hard to prove here. What exactly would be the utility of unregulated dispersal of firearms?
> 
> 7sm


 
Just as an addition

There are people in the world that are trained in firearms and tactics that are for gun control and there are those that are not.

There are police officers and military people on both sides of the argument, I personally know a few.

And as previously stated, in reference to alcohol I have a very good friend that is highly trained in the use of firearms, which said he is not that concerned about the average person with a gun, he is VERY concerned about a drunk with a gun.

How do you regulate that?

Also to have a gun does not necessarily mean that you will or are capable of using it. There have been cases where a civilian having a gun has saved their life. There have also been cases where a civilian having a gun has given him/her an over abundant sense of confidence and it has got them killed. There is also a big difference between shooting a target and shooting a person, even if that person is coming at you with violent intent.

A wounded or missed bad guy with a knife can still kill you while you hold your gun. A bad guy with a gun can kill you as well. If they got the gun illegal they do not care about regulations or gun laws.

How do you keep guns out of the hands of those that would use them for the wrong things? This is another question that should be answered.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 21, 2006)

> There are people in the world that are trained in firearms and tactics that are for gun control and there are those that are not.


 
They may believe themselves to be (those that are for "gun control," I mean), but they're not nearly as educated or trained as they claim.  A thorough understanding of weapons and the advocacy of civilian disarmament are mutually exclusive concepts.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Mar 21, 2006)

Murder was around for thousands of years before some ape decided to see what happened when he poured gunpowder in a pipe and dropped in some marbles. It'll still be there when the marbles are long gone and the projectile is super heated plasma.  Murder is caused by mental issues, be it extreme emotion, anger or hatred. It is preventable, but at the true source, humanity. Take away the gun, and those intent on doing harm will find some other tool to achieve their goal. You can't take them all away, no matter how ****ed up the government gets.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 21, 2006)

Good heavens.

Edmund, we've finally agreed on something.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 21, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> They may believe themselves to be (those that are for "gun control," I mean), but they're not nearly as educated or trained as they claim. A thorough understanding of weapons and the advocacy of civilian disarmament are mutually exclusive concepts.


 
A retired Swat member, a PD snipers and a marine are not trained!?!?!?

okie dokie


----------



## Mr.Rooster (Mar 21, 2006)

I can tell you that if a SWAT team member, PD Sniper and former marine told you that, it was definitely because he/she didn't trust you.  You did not get the truth out of him/her.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 21, 2006)

Mr.Rooster said:
			
		

> I can tell you that if a SWAT team member, PD Sniper and former marine told you that, it was definitely because he/she didn't trust you. You did not get the truth out of him/her.


 

Whatever you wish to believe in order to justify your argument is fine with me. 

"I can tell you that if a SWAT team member, PD Sniper and former marine told you that" - Told me what?

I do not ever remember saying I was for or against anything, nor do I remember ever saying exactly what they said other than there are trained people on both sides of the argument.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 21, 2006)

Let's return to the original topic, shall we?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 21, 2006)

Law enforcement officers overwhelmingly support the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens.  While the union leadership often sides with the prohibitionists (that is the left-wing politics of unions, after all) the rank-and-file -- the people on the streets dealing with crime -- understand how important it is for citizens to be able to defend themselves.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 21, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> No one has ever protected herself from attempted rape with an eggbeater, either. The benefits outweigh the liabilities.


The benefits outweight the liabilities in the question of regulation or control? How so exactly? The eggbeater example may be a farce but guns are not the only tools used effectively to stop rape. I think you would be rather surprised to see the amount of normal everyday items used to stop rape. This neither supports or detracts from the idea of regulation. Regulation doesn't inhibit the "average law abiding citizen" from carrying or using that gun to stop said rape.



			
				Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> How do you keep guns out of the hands of those that would use them for the wrong things? This is another question that should be answered.


 Thats a very important issue. We must realize that there is no "magic bullet" (pun intended) for these types of issues and we must appraoch them from many angles. One part of the puzzle is strict regulation and control of firearms. Is it the main or only way, of course not. Growing up I purchased cigaretts at any time of the day or night in any clothes from any store (under the age of 18). When stricter regulations and punishments were enacted I began getting carded everytime (after the age of 18). We can see the benefit or regulation of controled substances or items, we just can't rely on it exclusevely.



			
				Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> Murder was around for thousands of years before some ape decided to see what happened when he poured gunpowder in a pipe and dropped in some marbles. It'll still be there when the marbles are long gone and the projectile is super heated plasma. Murder is caused by mental issues, be it extreme emotion, anger or hatred. It is preventable, but at the true source, humanity. Take away the gun, and those intent on doing harm will find some other tool to achieve their goal. You can't take them all away, no matter how ****ed up the government gets.


 Your exactly right, and I agree 100%. But does that mean we take away regulation and control of firearms? I dont see how it supports that. I mean regulation and control can keep the firearms out of the hands of many situations where "extreme emotion, anger, hatred" or even alcohol could be present. We can't lump all murders in the same basket of premeditated, planned, actions by those who have acted the same way before our even would again. Those intent on doing harm are not the ones we really catch with regulation and control. Those intent on doing harm will do harm regardless, but does that mean we need to make it easier to own or use a handgun? Thats flawed logic.



			
				Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> They may believe themselves to be (those that are for "gun control," I mean), but they're not nearly as educated or trained as they claim. A thorough understanding of weapons and the advocacy of civilian disarmament are mutually exclusive concepts.





			
				Mr.Rooster said:
			
		

> I can tell you that if a SWAT team member, PD Sniper and former marine told you that, it was definitely because he/she didn't trust you. You did not get the truth out of him/her.


 This type of static, absolutistic position is exactly the problem. There is no way to prove these types of blanketed statements apart from ones own beliefs or opinions. Its the proverbial burying of the head in sand to blindly hold to the generalistic ideas instead of trying to understand what might motivate these types of people to support regulation or control. It takes more effort to repeat this flawed logic than it does to seek understanding of what might be their motivation. The fact is there are well educated, understanding people who support gun control, instead of screaming "there is no spoon", lets try and discuss or understand the differing reasons for their thinking. 



			
				Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Law enforcement officers overwhelmingly support the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens. While the union leadership often sides with the prohibitionists (that is the left-wing politics of unions, after all) the rank-and-file -- the people on the streets dealing with crime -- understand how important it is for citizens to be able to defend themselves.


 Key words here: law-abiding citizens. Regulation and control of firearms is not stoping law-abiding citizens from carry firearms. I'm reminded of that line from Tombstone..."No one is saying you can't own a gun, no one is saying you can't carry a gun, all we're saying is you can't carry a gun in town".

FWIW,
 7sm


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 21, 2006)

> The benefits outweight the liabilities in the question of regulation or control? How so exactly?


 
Firearms are more often used to protect the law-abiding than they are misused by those breaking the law.  A citizen with a firearm is much more able to protect himself than one who has been disarmed by a well-meaning nanny state.  It's really quite simple.

All the other arguing is just textual acrobatics and illogic attempting to substitute wishful thinking for reality.


----------



## modarnis (Mar 21, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Key words here: law-abiding citizens. Regulation and control of firearms is not stoping law-abiding citizens from carry firearms. I'm reminded of that line from Tombstone..."No one is saying you can't own a gun, no one is saying you can't carry a gun, all we're saying is you can't carry a gun in town".
> 
> FWIW,
> 7sm



I have to respectfully disagree with this point.  Regulation and control often prevents law abiding citizens from obtaining or keeping guns.  Many states, here in Connecticut included, make it so difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain firearms, many choose not to jump through the hoops to gain the privilege to exercise an enumerated right.  Others, who may need a firearm for a valid self defense or home defense purpose are unable to get one in a timely fashion.  Victims of domestic violence, stalking, and harrassment fall into this category.

Cars, steakknives, telephones and beer bottles create far more havoc and mayhem in my anecdotal experiences with crime, criminals and victims than guns do.  Nobody seems to call for waiting periods, psychiatric exams, or proficiency standards for me to buy a heavy phone or  a set of ginsus.  Is that to imply that I can bash or slice with impunity?

The bigger picture is that Americans in general do not have the stomach to deal with the social ills that cause violence.  Until we are willing to acknowledge the failures of many social programs we won't get anywhere


----------



## Bigshadow (Mar 21, 2006)

The bottom line folks is that the reason Americans can have guns is simply guns are the people's liberty teeth.  It isn't about stopping rape, or stopping a murderer, it is about stopping an out of control despotic government.  Unfortunately, in reality the time for the people to use their 2nd ammendmant right is all but gone, but that is another thread.  

To answer the original question, no, firearms do not cause murder, people cause murder.  Murder is a people problem, not a firearm problem.  It is quite simple, really.  I could put my loaded and cocked .45ACP on my dining room table.  Then I could stand there and stare it for eternity, it will never jump off that table and cause murder.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 21, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> They may believe themselves to be (those that are for "gun control," I mean), but they're not nearly as educated or trained as they claim. A thorough understanding of weapons and the advocacy of civilian disarmament are mutually exclusive concepts.


 
I think we'll have to agree to disargee on that statement.

There are people out there who understand the gun itself, but don't thoroughly understand the political issues or philisophical arguements behind gun control. But I think that those are seperate issues.

It is easy for someone to learn to shoot when he is a kid, and be pretty comfortable and unafraid of the object, but still think, "sure, we should have strict standards for licensing so that we can make sure people can safely use a firearm before they carry" or "sure, I don't see why registration would be a problem if it helps Law enforcement identify weapons used in crime." They don't have to be afraid of the gun or untrained with weapons to take these stances. They may just be uneducated on the entirety of the issue, and may not realize what they are actually supporting.

Again, I was one of those people, and I can tell you I wasn't "afraid" or "poorly trained." Now, I will admit that as I got better trained with the firearm, my stance did change. But I would say that this was as a result of looking more into the issues behind gun rights because of my interest in guns, not just as a product of training by itself.

Paul


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 21, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Firearms are more often used to protect the law-abiding than they are misused by those breaking the law. A citizen with a firearm is much more able to protect himself than one who has been disarmed by a well-meaning nanny state. It's really quite simple.
> 
> All the other arguing is just textual acrobatics and illogic attempting to substitute wishful thinking for reality.


I would love to see your proof or support of that statement. Especially without having defined standards for it. To make generalistic statements without source or proof is pretty close to what I would consider "wishful thinking", as is that position. The way I see it, the most often use of firearms is really not the issue, but I could be mistaken. To get back on the original topic though, guns are used in murder, but do not actually cause murder. 



			
				modarnis said:
			
		

> I have to respectfully disagree with this point. Regulation and control often prevents law abiding citizens from obtaining or keeping guns. Many states, here in Connecticut included, make it so difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain firearms, many choose not to jump through the hoops to gain the privilege to exercise an enumerated right. Others, who may need a firearm for a valid self defense or home defense purpose are unable to get one in a timely fashion. Victims of domestic violence, stalking, and harrassment fall into this category.


 You have a good point about the hoops one must jump through. However, you said it yourself, many *choose* not to jump through them. Also, in the case of self defense, I would say that once the domestic violence, stalking, and harrassment start, the time for getting the firearm has passed. To be prepared is to jump through the hoops now, not only when a situation arises where you may need the weapon. Its like carrying the gun but not loaded, only trying to load the gun when the situation presents itself. 



			
				modarnis said:
			
		

> Cars, steakknives, telephones and beer bottles create far more havoc and mayhem in my anecdotal experiences with crime, criminals and victims than guns do. Nobody seems to call for waiting periods, psychiatric exams, or proficiency standards for me to buy a heavy phone or a set of ginsus. Is that to imply that I can bash or slice with impunity?


 You have to look at the intent of the object in question. Handguns are made for one reason only. Two if you include sport shooting now. Heavy phones aren't made for killing people. Therefore there would be no reason to regulate the selling of them for that reason. Its flawed logic to associate impunity with a lack of government regulation. Also, the potential of a frearm is much more than that of a pair of kitchen knifes.



			
				modarnis said:
			
		

> The bigger picture is that Americans in general do not have the stomach to deal with the social ills that cause violence. Until we are willing to acknowledge the failures of many social programs we won't get anywhere


Your right to a degree, but that doesn't negate the need or effectiveness of gun control.

7sm


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 21, 2006)

> I would love to see your proof or support of that statement. Especially without having defined standards for it.



It's not some great mystery.  In Florida and Texas, when "shall issue" carry laws were enacted, violent crime went down.  Nationwide, the overwhelming majority of guns (and gun owners) are not responsible for crimes with guns; the crimes occur with a small percentage of guns that are obtained, overwhelmingy, through illegal means.  Legal gun owners commit crimes at a rate far less than the rate at which the general population commits crime, too.  Violent crime in the United States is almost entirely the exclusive domain of a minority of repeat offenders, whom our "justice" system keeps releasing back into society.  These are public knowledge -- statistics of crime from the FBI, from the statistical work of Kleck and Lott, and from other reputable sources as compiled by the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action.

All the emotional rhetoric in the world won't change the facts.  A disarmed citizenry is less capable of defending itself.


----------



## Mr.Rooster (Mar 21, 2006)

Amen to that Mr. Elmore.
Viriginia is also one of the states.


----------



## Korppi76 (Mar 22, 2006)

I think it is good thing that guns are registered and you should have permit to get them. But  I am from Finland and we have quite strict gun laws so this might be learned way to think. But then again those laws dont stop us owning 3th most guns per capita in world. (mostly hunting weapons)


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 22, 2006)

Some day we will have small, discrete, quiet, accurate handheld lasers and guns will seem an archaic relic of the past.  I suppose we'll still be having the same conversation, but not about fireams, which due to the noise, size, and mechanical complexity, are seen as quant relics of days gone by.

No real point, just sorta thinking about how the ultimate personal weapon of one era becomes a museum wall display for the next


----------



## modarnis (Mar 22, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> You have to look at the intent of the object in question.
> 7sm



Objects don't have intent.  They may have a purpose.  The pupose of a firearm is to discharge a projectile (shotload in shotgun world) out of the barrel.  This purpose is affected by the type of gun and load and targeting mechanism.  The counter argument is guns are designed for killing.  Maybe, some have specific designs to facilitate their use in a variety of applications. That doesn't change the fact that the object can't kill.  

  The intent comes from the manner in which something is used.  In the sense of a gun, it is how, when, where and why the projectile is discharged.  I still argue that murder is a people issue, not an object issue.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 22, 2006)

A gun may indeed be "designed for killing."

The fallacy in making that statement as an argument for banning or "controlling" (as a prelude to banning) guns is that _there are people in need of killing from time to time._  A violent would-be murderer or rapist is someone who, under the right circumstances, _needs killing_.  Give me a tool "designed for killing" in that context, please.

There are very few human actions that have inherent, intrinsic morality.  (Sex with a child is one act that comes to mind as having an intrinsic moral value -- it is a moral crime -- regardless of context; there is no way to justify it by circumstance).  Most human actions can only be judged morally _in context._

The taking of human life is an action without moral value until we examine its context.  If performed in self-defense, it is morally just.  If performed without provocation, it is morally unjust and it is murder.  The _act_ cannot be judged morally until we know why and how it occurred.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 22, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> It's not some great mystery. In Florida and Texas, when "shall issue" carry laws were enacted, violent crime went down. Nationwide, the overwhelming majority of guns (and gun owners) are not responsible for crimes with guns; the crimes occur with a small percentage of guns that are obtained, overwhelmingy, through illegal means. Legal gun owners commit crimes at a rate far less than the rate at which the general population commits crime, too. Violent crime in the United States is almost entirely the exclusive domain of a minority of repeat offenders, whom our "justice" system keeps releasing back into society. These are public knowledge -- statistics of crime from the FBI, from the statistical work of Kleck and Lott, and from other reputable sources as compiled by the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action.


Thats great and all, but completely different from your original statement. Speaking of no great mystery, lets see your original statement...


			
				Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Firearms are more often used to protect the law-abiding than they are misused by those breaking the law.


 I offered that this is incorrect and asked for a source or proof of your statement. What I got was some explanation of how allowed carries have helped to lower violent crimes in two states. There is no connection between your two statements. The fact that violent crimes have decreased in two states that allow carrying of handguns, doesn't in any way shape or form support the idea that firearms are more often used to protect law-abiding citizens than misused by those breaking the law. Your correct in that most CCL's are not involved in violent crimes, a great tool for supporting CCL (which I do) but simply not a support for your original statement.

This whole post is nice, but completely off topic to my question. I am not arguing for the right to bear arms, I support that right and exercise it regularly (and will more often in a few months when I receive my concealed carry permit). It seems you have skirted my question.



			
				Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> All the emotional rhetoric in the world won't change the facts. A disarmed citizenry is less capable of defending itself.


 Thats another great point, but one outside the scope of this discussion. I didn't use any emotional rhetoric and I certainly didn't post anything about disarming citizens. Maybe a re-read of my post is in order, no?

Ok, I tell you what, lets actually jump back to the topic at hand. I do agree (and have this entire thread) that guns do not cause murder. It is people, however that fact is not enough to support the deregulation or lack of control for firearms. The whole "handguns were made for killing" is 100% correct, and while it is necessary to kill and I support that right, it still remains fact that these weapons were designed for that purpose. Therefore, it would only make sense in the year 2006 to regulate and control these killing weapons. Those who are law-abiding can carry and use these weapons if need be, I dont see any support that makes sense to do away with regulation and or control of firearms. I also dont support the conspiracy theories that gun control is just a pre-step to banning guns. Is alcohol regulation the precursor to another prohibition? Is the regulation of paint thinner a step towards doing away with paint?

7sm


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 22, 2006)

> offered that this is incorrect and asked for a source or proof of your statement. What I got was some explanation of how allowed carries have helped to lower violent crimes in two states. There is no connection between your two statements.



Yes, there is.  Think about it a bit.  If you need more statistics, start with Kleck and Lott (whom I've cited repeatedly).  Lott's book, _More Guns, Less Crime_ contains a comprehensive body of supporting material.



> I also don&#8217;t support the conspiracy theories that gun control is just a pre-step to banning guns.


 
History has proven you wrong time and time again.  It happened in the UK, it is happening in Canada, and it is being attempted in portions of the United States.  Regulation leads to registration leads to confiscation.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 22, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Yes, there is. Think about it a bit. If you need more statistics, start with Kleck and Lott (whom I've cited repeatedly). Lott's book, _More Guns, Less Crime_ contains a comprehensive body of supporting material.
> 
> 
> 
> History has proven you wrong time and time again. It happened in the UK, it is happening in Canada, and it is being attempted in portions of the United States. Regulation leads to registration leads to confiscation.


 
You can read this excellent article,by David Kopel, titled "Hitler's Conrtol," 
here.



> *Writing in The Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law Stephen Halbrook demonstrates that German Jews and other German opponents of Hitler were not destined to be helpless and passive victims. (A magazine article by Halbrook offers a shorter version of the story, along with numerous photographs. Halbrook's Arizona article is also available as a chapter in the book Death by Gun Control, published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.) Halbrook details how, upon assuming power, the Nazis relentlessly and ruthlessly disarmed their German opponents. The Nazis feared the Jews  many of whom were front-line veterans of World War One  so much that Jews were even disarmed of knives and old sabers.
> 
> The Nazis did not create any new firearms laws until 1938. Before then, they were able to use the Weimar Republic's gun controls to ensure that there would be no internal resistance to the Hitler regime.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 22, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> It happened in the UK, it is happening in Canada, and it is being attempted in portions of the United States. Regulation leads to registration leads to confiscation.


 
This is very true, and was what ultimatily made me against gun control all together, even when it seems reasonable.

Paul


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 22, 2006)

Amen.

I think I've had about all of the "gun control" debate I can stand.  It's been a while and my tolerance still hasn't come back up to what it once was.


----------



## modarnis (Mar 22, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Those who are law-abiding can carry and use these weapons if need be, I dont see any support that makes sense to do away with regulation and or control of firearms. I also dont support the conspiracy theories that gun control is just a pre-step to banning guns. Is alcohol regulation the precursor to another prohibition? Is the regulation of paint thinner a step towards doing away with paint?
> 
> 7sm



In my mind the issue of regulation comes down to this:  what rational and demonstrable affect do additional regulations have  on law abiding gun owners?  In my experiences as a prosecutor, criminals disregard laws anyway.  Here in Connecticut there are 17 criminal statutes involving regulatory gun issues.  Most of these issues are covered by federal law already and are redundant.  They have no effect on anything. 

 We also have about 5 laws that relate to criminals (convicted felons, persons subject to protective orders, and misdemeanor drug disqualifiers)that have a real effect on the people who possess firearms illegally or with some malicious purpose.

Obviously murder, rape, assault, robbery, burglary and larceny statutes all have aggravating sections or subsections that deal with dangerous instruiments, deadly weapons, or firearms specifically used to perpetrate those crimes.  In these instances the mere existence of the firearm during the context of the crime enhances the penalty.

Finally there are sporting purpose specific regulations that have an effect on persons who mishandle firearms while hunting.  They relate to hunting regulations about the time place and manner of firearms usage in the field.

Even if we removed many of the regulations that impede lawful procurement of firearms, there are a multitude of laws that will always exist which punish bad conduct with the firearm.  Regulating the object does nothing but create convenient soudbytes


----------



## Mr.Rooster (Mar 22, 2006)

Mr. Elmore:

Some folks here are gonna find fault with you no matter what you say for whatever reason.  Don't waste your time on them or trying to prove your point repeatedly, it's not sinking in with some.   There loss, as far as I'm concerned.
Peace be with you my friend.


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 22, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I also dont support the conspiracy theories that gun control is just a pre-step to banning guns. Is alcohol regulation the precursor to another prohibition? Is the regulation of paint thinner a step towards doing away with paint?



I do not think it is a vast conspiracy. But I think that registration leads to the eventual confiscation of firearms.

Yes, there are groups out there that are openly trying to get all firearms or pistols banned that propose 'reasonable' legislation for the regulation of firearms. But I think the vast majority of people and politicians that propose or support registration and regulation are not out to get rid of all firearms.

But later on, someone gets into power who wants to get rid of firearms. It is kind of like a die- hard Bush supporter I know who is worried about some of the anti- terror laws being discussed. As he puts it, "I see nothing in his past behavior to make me think Bush will abuse this stuff for personal gain- but eventually we are going to get someone like Hillary in office."

The anti-gun groups I mentioned seem to specialize in jumping on a tragedy before the bodies have time to cool in order to put the next stage of their agenda in motion. That seems to be another reason why reasonable laws about firearm registration seems to lead to the police coming around to pick them up.

It is not a conspiracy. But there does seem to be a lot of cases where one leads to the other.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 22, 2006)

Given the historical innuendo over gun registration, I can see why there'd be significant concern.  So, don't register, that's fine.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, and I agree, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

So, regulate the people, that's all I'm saying.  I don't understand why so many don't see the validity of this proposition.

I understand the value of having an armed population; does the appropriate firearm training not add value to this idea?  I think it does.  

I also don't understand the resistance to the idea, given that someone without the training in proper use is dangerous to _everyone on the street_.  Seems pretty straight forward to me.


----------



## Mr.Rooster (Mar 22, 2006)

FlatLander, I think we are on the same page.  You and I anyway.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 22, 2006)

It seems everyone is looking at this issue from only two sides, excesive regulation leading to confiscation, or complete lack of regulation or control. Thats just simply not the case and is not what is needed. I'm not for stricter regulations for law-abiding citizens, but I think its absurd to offer a complete lack of control. 

Its true that the firearm itself doesn't commit murder, but regulation of the ability to obtain said weapon along with manditory education is simply the responisble action to take in today's society.

7sm


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 23, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> It seems everyone is looking at this issue from only two sides, excesive regulation leading to confiscation, or complete lack of regulation or control. Thats just simply not the case and is not what is needed. I'm not for stricter regulations for law-abiding citizens, but I think its absurd to offer a complete lack of control.
> 
> Its true that the firearm itself doesn't commit murder, but regulation of the ability to obtain said weapon along with manditory education is simply the responisble action to take in today's society.
> 
> 7sm


 
The problem is that most regulation, especially ones aimed at what kind of firearm you can obtain, and most registration requirements have lead to confiscation or banning. This is just a fact when we look at some states and most other countries. 

This is my problem with most regulation.

That said, I don't mind *minimal saftey training standards* _to carry_, as long as it is done on a shall issue bases. This requires basic saftey training for those who would carry in public. Also, I don't mind some standards for hunting, like manditory notification of Law Enforcement in case of an accident. And, if someone has been convicted of violent crime, then the review board should have strict standards on whether or not that individual should be allowed a carry permit. And, there should be strict penalties for those who commit violent crime with weapons.

These are all fine because they penalize bad bahavior, and may reduce unsafe behavior as with training standards. Yet, it all has to be carefully done because there seems to always be some ******* politician who wants to take this stuff too far. 

It is the other stupid stuff like manditory registration, "assault weapons ban," regulation on how many rounds you can have in a magazine, waiting periods, etc, etc, etc that attempts to regulate _ownership. _It is this attempted regulation of ownership that is the core of the problem, is ineffective in reducing crime or keeping us safe, and is only effective in removing civil liberties.

If we understand this seperation of _ownership _vs. _behavior,_ then we will probably be closer to some common ground.

Paul


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 23, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> That said, I don't mind *minimal saftey training standards* _to carry_, as long as it is done on a shall issue bases.



In theory, I have no problem with that. In reality, I know of quite a few cases where things were left to the descretion of some members of goverment who then used their power to effectively stop anyone from getting a firearm, carry permit, etc. 

There was a story I saw on the news 15 or so years ago on the people who were allowed to carry a concealed weapon in a county where the sheriff had to approve the application. The people who were on the list also coincidently were on the donors list for the sheriff's re-election.  

The standards and such would have to be laid out in law and not subject to the whims of some political hack.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 23, 2006)

Driving a car, operating heavy machinery, dispensing prescription drugs.

It seems there are many things that can be done that are potentially very dangerous to yourself and those around you that before you can legally do them, you have to prove at least a minimal amount of training and/or competence so you don't accidentally or needessly endanger those around you


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 23, 2006)

Correct! Ultimately, it's people that murder, not the objects that are used.


----------



## modarnis (Mar 23, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> It seems everyone is looking at this issue from only two sides, excesive regulation leading to confiscation, or complete lack of regulation or control. Thats just simply not the case and is not what is needed. I'm not for stricter regulations for law-abiding citizens, but I think its absurd to offer a complete lack of control.
> 
> Its true that the firearm itself doesn't commit murder, but regulation of the ability to obtain said weapon along with manditory education is simply the responisble action to take in today's society.
> 
> 7sm



How does that type of regulation correlate to any benefit of less murder or crime in general?  Criminals generally do not obtain their firearms through lawful channels.  They buy stolen guns on the street.  Why is it logical to increase regulation on law abiding citizens (many of which will get training and continue to train on their own accord) while the persons who need regulation continue on, business as usual?  What demonstrable societal benefit would come from these increased regulations?


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 23, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> The problem is that most regulation, especially ones aimed at what kind of firearm you can obtain, and most registration requirements have lead to confiscation or banning. This is just a fact when we look at some states and most other countries.


 I agree with that to a point. Its a stretch to say "most regulation" but certain kinds of regulation I would agree with you. 



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> That said, I don't mind *minimal saftey training standards* _to carry_, as long as it is done on a shall issue bases. This requires basic saftey training for those who would carry in public. Also, I don't mind some standards for hunting, like manditory notification of Law Enforcement in case of an accident. And, if someone has been convicted of violent crime, then the review board should have strict standards on whether or not that individual should be allowed a carry permit. And, there should be strict penalties for those who commit violent crime with weapons.


 The sad reality of the society we live in is that more individual programs like this will not work and wont be tried. Only generalizing laws and such will really work across the board of our citizens. I mean take the [FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]20,851,820[/SIZE][/FONT] people in Teas alone. You think wait times are long now...
I'm not saying I agree, but its the way it is. 



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> If we understand this seperation of _ownership _vs. _behavior,_ then we will probably be closer to some common ground.


 That I completely agree with.



			
				modarnis said:
			
		

> How does that type of regulation correlate to any benefit of less murder or crime in general? Criminals generally do not obtain their firearms through lawful channels. They buy stolen guns on the street. Why is it logical to increase regulation on law abiding citizens (many of which will get training and continue to train on their own accord) while the persons who need regulation continue on, business as usual? What demonstrable societal benefit would come from these increased regulations?


 I'm not sure you understood what I was trying to say. I dont think gun control and or regulation is really going to do much at all for "less murder" besides maybe making the availability of murder by handgun a bit harder to achieve and collect much stiffer penalties. I agree that a criminal intent of using a gun for murder wouldn't go purchase one legally and register it, but does that mean we remove registration? If we did wouldn't it make that a possibility for someone intent on using the firearm for murder? Its a matter of realizing what the law is supposed to do. Its not supposed to stop murders with firearms. Like I said in another thread, no single action will solve any of thes issues, its a collection of many different types from many different angles. 

I am *not* for the increaesd regulation for law-abiding citizens, I stated that pretty clearly in my post. I'm not sure why your asking me the benefits of such, since I dont agree with it. What I am saying is that the complete deregulation and control of firearms will not only do nothing to affect the status of violent crimes with firearms, but will only make attainable said firearms to those wishing to perfrom such acts. Its the age old question. Because someone is finding away around a rule means we should drop the rule? No, the answer is to uphold those other angles and rules that support this one. 

7sm


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 23, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> In theory, I have no problem with that. In reality, I know of quite a few cases where things were left to the descretion of some members of goverment who then used their power to effectively stop anyone from getting a firearm, carry permit, etc.


 
That is the other side that I agree with also. Potential curruption and abuse is always a possability.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 23, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I agree with that to a point. Its a stretch to say "most regulation" but certain kinds of regulation I would agree with you.


 
It's not really a stretch when you consider that most other countries do not allow their citizens the right to bear arms, and that right was stripped with the introduction of seemingly reasonable regulation. 



> The sad reality of the society we live in is that more individual programs like this will not work and wont be tried. Only generalizing laws and such will really work across the board of our citizens. I mean take the [FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]20,851,820[/SIZE][/FONT] people in Teas alone. You think wait times are long now...
> I'm not saying I agree, but its the way it is.


 
Actually, it is working pretty well here in Michigan. To have a CPL (concealed pistols license), you have to pass a minimal 8 hour training course that covers safety and basic firearms use. We are a shall issue state, so if I fit the minimal requirements (basically, no felonies or things on your record that demonstrate poor judgement) then I get my licence to carry. Here in Oakland county we have a new finger printing process and things are much more effecient. So, I recieved my CPL in 3 1/2 weeks from the time I turned in my stuff. With my license, I can buy and take home any firearm that is legal to sell without a waiting period, and I don't have to renew my license for 5 years. And when I do go to renew it, the process is even simpler.

The only way you could run into hicupps is if you have something glaring on your record that causes the data base to red flag you. Then, the gun review board reviews your case. They can deny you, but you have the chance to appeal. This could lengthen the process for you. Also, not all counties are as effecient as Oaklands; Wayne County the waiting period for a CPL is about 6 month. 

The system isn't perfect, but I would have to say it is pretty fair. Passing an 8 hour course and getting your license to carry in a month is pretty reasonable.

So, having a minimal standard and an effecient process can work; and we are proving that. By the way, the banner on the gun forum for GLSDA is a group I am involved with, and has been landmark for pushing and supporting for a lot of these steps to be made.

My only worry is that the wrong person in power will ruin it for us, as Mr. Roley expressed.

Paul


----------



## Laeticia (Mar 23, 2006)

Korppi76 said:
			
		

> I think it is good thing that guns are registered and you should have permit to get them. But I am from Finland and we have quite strict gun laws so this might be learned way to think. But then again those laws dont stop us owning 3th most guns per capita in world. (mostly hunting weapons)


 
For what it's worth, I support regulation to a degree, and this far haven't seen a problem with it. Here's an example about gun regulation:

First you get the "buying permission" from the police, to actually buy the gun (you state what type of gun you want to buy, caliber etc.). For this you need to prove that you're a member of a shooting club and get 2 persons (gun owners of course) to vouch for you. This changes from region to region, though. Some of my friends needed only the membership papers, I needed both of these things. 

After you've bought the gun you must register it and get an "owning permission". You go to the police station, they examine your gun, check the buying papers and you fill the form for the actual permission. In some weeks you get the plastic permission card you have to carry with you whenever you carry your gun to the range and back. Usually you get a permanent permission, but I for example got an year-long permission that I had to renew to get the permanent permission (19yo girls with .22 pistol are highly suspicious... ). Note: I say "owning permission", because it's not a permission to carry your gun everywhere with you. In theory you should carry your gun only to the range and back, not have it with you all the time. 

And as Korppi said, Finland is far from being a "No Gun"-country. You just have to do a bit paperwork to get the gun, that's all. It's regulated. Now can someone tell me how this is a bad thing? 

Cheers,
Laeticia


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 23, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Actually, it is working pretty well here in Michigan. To have a CPL (concealed pistols license), you have to pass a minimal 8 hour training course that covers safety and basic firearms use. We are a shall issue state, so if I fit the minimal requirements (basically, no felonies or things on your record that demonstrate poor judgement) then I get my licence to carry. Here in Oakland county we have a new finger printing process and things are much more effecient. So, I recieved my CPL in 3 1/2 weeks from the time I turned in my stuff. With my license, I can buy and take home any firearm that is legal to sell without a waiting period, and I don't have to renew my license for 5 years. And when I do go to renew it, the process is even simpler.


 Thats pretty good, in Texas you have to go through a 10 -15 hour course (pass with a 70), a 50 round test (pass with a 70), fingerprint and photo, background check, fine, penalties, tax, and child support payement check, then wait an average of 2 months for the liscense. We also have to renew the license every 4 years. This is however what I was refering to as blanketed laws. To have a more individual process where a board must meet on each applicant would be out of the question. 



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> The system isn't perfect, but I would have to say it is pretty fair. Passing an 8 hour course and getting your license to carry in a month is pretty reasonable.


 I think thats fair, I think Texas' is fair as well. I dont mind going through that to receive my permit. I am under no illusions that the process is keeping criminals from carrying guns if they really want to, but it certainly weeds out those not interested in the safety and education (especially of the laws). It also creates stiffer penalties for the criminal when he is found carrying a weapon. 



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> So, having a minimal standard and an effecient process can work; and we are proving that. By the way, the banner on the gun forum for GLSDA is a group I am involved with, and has been landmark for pushing and supporting for a lot of these steps to be made.
> 
> My only worry is that the wrong person in power will ruin it for us, as Mr. Roley expressed.


I completely support this process, I was simply making the point that the lack of a process is irresponsible at best. I share your worry over the wrong person in power, but then thats the whole idea behind our "democracy". 
I think we need to understand the desired effects of these types of processes. If we try to apply this process to the issue of illegal gun cartel, we see it fall apart, but it has its uses and we can see its benefits.

7sm


----------



## modarnis (Mar 23, 2006)

Laeticia said:
			
		

> And as Korppi said, Finland is far from being a "No Gun"-country. You just have to do a bit paperwork to get the gun, that's all. It's regulated. Now can someone tell me how this is a bad thing?
> 
> Cheers,
> Laeticia



Here in the US, it could be construed as a bad thing.  The constitutional language in our bill of rights confers these rights on the people.  If I propsed that you had to register all of your household possessions to be afforded protections from unreasonable searches and seizure in the 4th amendment context, or submit an outline of your proposed speech for approval prior to exercising your first amendment right to free speech, most would be up in arms and call me crazy for thinking that way.  Why should the second amendment 'the people' be treated differently?  

There already exists a significant federal paper trail for the lawful purchase of a firearm  in the US.  Most state's require seperate state paperwork for purchase or transfer of firearms.  I posed the question earlier, but what benefit is gained from these additional regulations vis a vis law abiding citizens?  Keep in mind, that criminals in the US or elsewhere do not purchase their weapons in a lawful stream of commerce


----------



## modarnis (Mar 23, 2006)

7starmantis 

Its true that the firearm itself doesn't commit murder said:
			
		

> Not trying to snipe, but I'm requoting your original statement above.  Here is your follow-up:
> 
> >>I am not for the increaesd regulation for law-abiding citizens, I stated that pretty clearly in my post. I'm not sure why your asking me the benefits of such, since I dont agree with it. What I am saying is that the complete deregulation and control of firearms will not only do nothing to affect the status of violent crimes with firearms, but will only make attainable said firearms to those wishing to perfrom such acts. Its the age old question. Because someone is finding away around a rule means we should drop the rule? No, the answer is to uphold those other angles and rules that support this one. >>
> 
> I'm not sure how requiring mandatory education is not creating increased regulation on law abiding citizens.  How do you reconcile those seemingly conflicting positions?  Why create new rules, rather than enforce the current ones strictly?


----------



## Laeticia (Mar 23, 2006)

modarnis said:
			
		

> Keep in mind, that criminals in the US or elsewhere do not purchase their weapons in a lawful stream of commerce


 
That's absolutely true. 

One reason that I personally don't feel as concerned about the whole thing (regulation/no regulation/who has a gun) is that the "criminal scene" is different between here and the States. There are some shootings reported in the papers), but the "stereotype" would still be a drunk with a knife or a mugging, not shooting. 

It's interesting to read about what *really* happens/is thought about this in the US, as opposed to the popular (in Europe) stereotype of "trigger-happy nutcases". 

(All this talk has made me really miss my Walther that I had to leave in Finland...)

Cheers,
Laeticia


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 23, 2006)

modarnis said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how requiring mandatory education is not creating increased regulation on law abiding citizens. How do you reconcile those seemingly conflicting positions? Why create new rules, rather than enforce the current ones strictly?



Um, because mandatory education is currently required. I'm not for creating "more" or "new" from what is allready in place.

7sm


----------



## modarnis (Mar 24, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Um, because mandatory education is currently required. I'm not for creating "more" or "new" from what is allready in place.
> 
> 7sm




Mandatory education may be required in states for concealed carry of handguns.  To my knowledge, mandatory education is not required for the purchase of firearms in general.  Do you have a source you can point me to for these already existing education requirements?


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 24, 2006)

modarnis said:
			
		

> Mandatory education may be required in states for concealed carry of handguns. To my knowledge, mandatory education is not required for the purchase of firearms in general. Do you have a source you can point me to for these already existing education requirements?


OK, I can see your really wanting to press this point. You can purchase a gun without said education, thats true. What I'm interested and talking about is when that gun affects other people (from yourself). What you do in the privacy of your home is not my business (although it could be argued that the potential of a firearm reaches beyond the four walls of your house). Are you going to use your gun for anything other than collecting? If so you will be fased with education courses. Concealed carry courses, hunter education courses, even gun clubs and ranges require you to act on at least the very basic of firearms etiquette. Sure you can go out and shoot in your backyard, but unless you live in the right area that is illegal and you will asses heavy penalties if you destroy the propety or life of someone else in the process.

7sm


----------



## modarnis (Mar 24, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> OK, I can see your really wanting to press this point. You can purchase a gun without said education, thats true. What I'm interested and talking about is when that gun affects other people (from yourself). What you do in the privacy of your home is not my business (although it could be argued that the potential of a firearm reaches beyond the four walls of your house). Are you going to use your gun for anything other than collecting? If so you will be fased with education courses. Concealed carry courses, hunter education courses, even gun clubs and ranges require you to act on at least the very basic of firearms etiquette. Sure you can go out and shoot in your backyard, but unless you live in the right area that is illegal and you will asses heavy penalties if you destroy the propety or life of someone else in the process.
> 
> 7sm



Not trying to press any point.  I believed that your statement that mandatory education was already required was factually incorrect.  If education requirements constrain purchase in any way, that flies in the face of  what one does in their home isn't yours or mine or whomevers business position you seem to advocate.  Its an interesting question, and I certainly don't know if there is a right answer, but can you really support individual liberties that are significantly constrained by regulation?  It would seem that you either trust people to behave within the boundaries of your society's criminal or you don't

You seem somewhat reluctant to answer my question, or take the bait as it were as to how regulations, above and beyond criminal laws that already proscribe killing, raping, maiming, stealing, robbing or reckless conduct, actually have any real societal benefit.

Pick one, education requirement, waiting period, regulating the magazine capacity or grip style of a weapon, local registration above and beyond existing federal or state firearms databases.  What is the measurable benefit to society of these type regulations?


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 24, 2006)

Sorry folks, I'm confused.

What are the current requirements to obtain a firearm?  Are these regulations set out by the State, or by the Feds?

What are the current requirements to carry a firearm?  Are these regulations set out by the State, or by the Feds?

*If* there are no current educational requirements to carry, then I think that a measureable societal benefit may be found in having a more functionally armed society.  Without doubt, this would cause me to think twice before committing a violent act; as opposed to challenging someone that I could have a reasonable chance of surprising or defeating through superior tactics.  

Quite simply, it raises the bar.

A secondary measurable benefit that I can postulate would be that overall, you'd end up with a (generally) gun safety concious populace, thereby potentially leading to fewer accidental gun deaths.

Gun deaths should *never* be accidental.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 24, 2006)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Sorry folks, I'm confused.
> 
> What are the current requirements to obtain a firearm? Are these regulations set out by the State, or by the Feds?
> 
> What are the current requirements to carry a firearm? Are these regulations set out by the State, or by the Feds?


 
I can answer some of those questions, although Modarnis might be able to answer them better, being an attorney and gun advocate and all.

Regulations are on a state level, so I can mostly speak for my state.

First off, in order to carry concealed you have to have a CPL (concealed pistols license), and I covered those requirements earlier (I think this thread, but it could have been in one of the other ongoing threads on this topic), but it is basic safety training and background check.

The CPL also gives you benefits in terms of puchasing a firearm.

If you don't have a CPL, when you purchase a firearm you pay your money to the dealer and sign some paperwork. There is no waiting period per say, but you aren't allowed to walk out with your firearm right then. You have to take your reciept of purchase to the police department in which you live, get a temporary registration, then you GO BACK to the dealer to pick up your firearm, in which you have to GO BACK to the police department so they can inspect your firearm. They register the firearm with that office, and issue you a "green card" which is your registration that you must have on you whenever you have the firearm with you. That's basically how it works, if I remember correctly. The process is a huge unecessary pain in the ***.

Now, if you have a CPL, the process is much easier. Upon purchasing the firearm, you sign some paperwork and walk out the door with your purchase. That's it. You are supposed to register your firearm and get your "green card" for that piece if you intend to carry it, which you can do at your leasure.

Now that said, I think the fact that you have to register your gun is ridicules. I don't think ownership should be regulated in a manditory fashion like that, and I see no societal benefit for the registration process.

As far as the CPL requirements go, you have to be careful about regulating skill level, as it seems that you are advocating here. By who's requirement do we go by to regulate skill? Bottom line, it is not the States responsability to regulate peoples preparedness to defend themselves. So a CPL course should only contain minimal safety and self-defense concepts to deter accidents, as it does today in our state, and that is all. Again, as I have said this before, an individuals firearm skill or self-defense preparedenss is ultimatily that individuals personal responsability.

Finally, since you mentioned a gun safety consious populus, I would like to point out that some people simply refuse to be responsable. For some people, it doesn't matter how many safety courses they take, or how stringent the requirements are to purchase or carry a firearm. There are those who still will refuse to follow safety precautions, will have "accidents," regardless of what the laws are. It is important that any regulation isn't geared towards saving these people from themselves, because they are essentially unsavable. Any requirements should be geared towards the regular populus, who will behave safely regardless of manditory safety requirements. Just something to think about.

Paul


----------



## elder999 (Mar 26, 2006)

I carry a concealed Ruger P97 .45 caliber eight-shot semi-automatic handgun almost everywhere I go, though Rita and I have taken to carrying Glock 29 10mms in the field because theyre easier to bicycle with and will take out a black bear, and I keep a shotgun or two in my home  all within easy reach. They all hold bullets or shells designed to kill or _shred_ a violent criminal-or a bear- instantaneously, before he can take another step or move his hand another inch. I don't keep gun locks on these weapons, and I don't apologize for them, and it's not just because it is my Constitutional right to keep guns, although that is reason enough. It is because I have been convinced by overwhelming evidence that guns keep me and my family safe. 

Does that sound like the rantings of a paranoid, gun-toting nut? Probably, if you are a paranoid, gun-grabbing ignoramus who knows nothing about guns and the role they play daily in American society in the prevention of crime. To those of you who do know the relationship of gun and crime statistics, the weapons I keep probably make a lot of sense. 

We who own guns for self protection have been much maligned by those who think guns are evil, even though the statistics about gun use show that guns are used far more often by average citizens to prevent violent crime than they are used by criminals to commit crimes. The evidence is greater than ever, thanks to the largest and most accurate study ever undertaken. It was performed by John Lott, a senior research scholar at Yale Law School who had never owned a gun and who had spent most of his career doing research on nongun-related issues. The study's findings are contained in his scholarly 1998 book,_* More Guns, Less Crime *_(University of Chicago Press), which is a detailed analysis of 18 years of the gun/crime relationship in all 3,000-plus counties in the United States. 

After Lott finished the study, _he went out and bought his first gun. _

Here are a few of the things he found, much of which will sound like plain common sense to us gun owners: 

 In counties that have "right-to-carry" laws or "shall issue" permits, that is, where a citizen must be issued a gun permit after meeting certain criteria, usually a background check and having taken a gun safety course, violent crime goes down dramatically while it goes up in surrounding counties that issue permits only at the discretion of the relevant law enforcement agency. Furthermore, the crime rate continues to go down year after year due to the increasing deterrence of more people getting the "shall issue" permits. 

 Private citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals more than 2,000,000 times a year. Since the safety of children is often cited by gun opponents who don't want guns in private homes, the study analyzed deaths of children per year for the sake of comparison. For children under age 5 in the United States, less than 20 died of gunshot, about 100 drowned in bathtubs, and about 40 drowned in 5-gallon water buckets. 


 Resistance with a gun, rather than passive resistance, is the safest option for the private citizen when confronted by a criminal. For a woman, especially, it is the best option, increasing her chances of not being injured by two and a half times. 

 The biggest drops in violent crime occurred in urban areas, especially in poor neighborhoods, and among women and the elderly, who are most vulnerable. 

When his study was released, Lott was instantly attacked by the likes of New York Senator Charles Schumer and other anti-gun advocates as being a stooge of the gun industry, which he is not. The mass media briefly mentioned his book, then ignored it much like they have ignored the 2,000,000 annual instances in which guns are used to prevent crime while heavily reporting the under 20 instances of young children being killed by guns. 

What are we to conclude from this study, especially in the wake of the mass shootings at some of the nation's schools, such as at Columbine High School? If it is clear that guns save lives far more often than they take them, what happened at Columbine? May I be so crass and insensitive to suggest that some of the teachers-or security guards- should have been armed? In a country like Israel where they fear attacks by madmen and terrorists, the teachers carry guns into the classroom and they consequently have no gun attacks on their students. Here in the United States, we have a federal law that bans guns from within 1000 feet of schools, even sometimes posting signs outside the school announcing to the world and to the nuts it is a "gun free zone." Do you think there may be an analogy here, that perhaps Israel's policy works and ours doesn't? 

In the counties mentioned in Lott's study, where "shall issue" laws are in effect violent crime goes down, while it goes up in the surrounding counties where there are no "shall issue" laws. Do you think there may be a connection there too? Do you suppose that violent criminals and nuts may be figuring out where the easy prey are? 

We who realize the value of guns have been very silent in the face of the all-out war on gun ownership that is currently being waged by certain politicians and the mass media. Yet the evidence clearly shows that gun possession and "shall issue" laws save lives. Isn't it time we stopped apologizing for our guns and spoke up? 


Anti-gun groups, politicians, and the mass media regularly hide incidents and studies that portray guns favorably, and they spare no ink to tell the rare story when guns are used by criminals or by accident. Then they pass stupid laws that endanger our children. We who know the truth about guns need to let that truth be known: Guns save lives and prevent criminal attacks. They protect our families from harm, not expose them to danger.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 26, 2006)

Nice post.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 26, 2006)

modarnis said:
			
		

> Not trying to press any point. I believed that your statement that mandatory education was already required was factually incorrect. If education requirements constrain purchase in any way, that flies in the face of what one does in their home isn't yours or mine or whomevers business position you seem to advocate. Its an interesting question, and I certainly don't know if there is a right answer, but can you really support individual liberties that are significantly constrained by regulation? It would seem that you either trust people to behave within the boundaries of your society's criminal or you don't


 Ok, I stated in my last post what I meant about the required education, which (agree with it or not) is required to perform any of the things I mentioned in my previous post. Nowhere did I say there was mandatory education for purchasing or owning a gun, neither did I support such a requirement. In fact, in my last post I even said there was nothing of the kind. I'm not sure what your point is in pressing this idea, especially since its not an idea I agree with. 
I think individual liberties have changed with our society. We can't hold to outdated and archaic training, we certainly dont support the carrying of archaic weapons for self defense (no one wants to carry a single loading musket for self protection). In this way our liberties change at least in the way they affect others liberties. I guess you could say that regulation squelches those liberties, but I'm accepting of the regulation, its like paying your taxes, not something I necessarily enjoy doing, but something I'm ok with because I see its effectiveness and need. 



			
				modarnis said:
			
		

> You seem somewhat reluctant to answer my question, or take the bait as it were as to how regulations, above and beyond criminal laws that already proscribe killing, raping, maiming, stealing, robbing or reckless conduct, actually have any real societal benefit.
> 
> Pick one, education requirement, waiting period, regulating the magazine capacity or grip style of a weapon, local registration above and beyond existing federal or state firearms databases. What is the measurable benefit to society of these type regulations?


I wasn't aware you had asked me a question. I posted my beliefs of how education and regulation benefit society as a whole (previous posts in this thread and maybe a couple other threads going on over this topic). While you have laws that forbid the killing of another, education makes those laws more effective to the general populous. There are many, many traffic laws on the books, do we advocate doing away with drivers education courses and just let anyone buy a car and drive around? While most vehicular deaths are accidents, I can see where education and regulation benefit the society. Its the same with firearms, you can't seriously believe everyone growing up in todays society will have a healthy respect and understanding of firearms and firearms safety, usage, and laws. 

However, this is way off topic; maybe you can open another thread if you would like to pursue this topic more.

7sm


----------

