Gun Control (v.2)

But that has nothing to do with how Aussie's use firearms, and you know this.

Pre-Port Arthur, or post Port Arthur, the average Australian wouldn't have thought about using a firearm for defensive purposes anyway. A gun is not part of the collective conscience.

Unless you are trying to make the absurd claim that the mere idea of a firearm, causes more people to hurt themselves, guns wouldn't have played a major factor in this statistic anyway.

 

No, I'm claiming that the less firearms there are the less likely people will be killed by them.

 

Maybe by firearms, but people have killed each other in mass numbers since Cain killed Abel. If you take away the right for good citizens, who would never a gun to murder someone or commit a crime, to buy a gun, you are only helping the criminals. Criminals/murderers who want to get a gun will just get one on the black market. Making guns illegal will do nothing to stop this. You are just disarming the honest and good citizens. That is all.

If you want to stop gun violence, do a better job and nurturing the family unit. Parents should be with their children, teaching them about life and morals. This is the only way you will reduce the amount of violent crimes.

 

Uruk, I see your point at some level, but that justification is an oversimplification, that merely fits within your own view.

On a purely basic level, your assumption holds true. Less of anything should mean less examples of them using used.

For example, theoretically, less cars should mean less auto accidents.

However, this does not hold up once social factors are brought into play.

Other factors such as the supporting infrastructure, training and screening, and overall upkeep, all serve to mitigate auto accidents.

Shall I bring up the old examples again?

Switzerland has universal gun ownership for its citizens, even to the point where people are required to keep military weapons in their homes.

In relation to the number of firearms, the Swiss have a very low gun-death rate.

England and Wales prohibited all ownership of handguns, yet at the same time, the homicide rate there increased dramatically.

Despite the fact that gun ownsership continues to rise in America, the overall crime rate continues to fall.

So, gun ownership rates cannot be tied into a specific cause of violence.

 

I know it's simple. It's a very simple concept.

 

Oh, now why didn't I think of that....

 

Hello to all! I just got back from a freakin' fantastic hunting trip, and I'm in the mood to make some gun grabbers look like idiots. Buckle your seat belts!

Fred, what I was very clearly saying is that self-defence isn't limited to owning a gun. You talk as if the two are so totally codependent that without guns, defence would collapse entirely.

How is a 70-year-old woman supposed to defend herself from a burglar without a gun? Guns are the most effective self-defense tools in existence, and our right to keep such useful tools should not be infringed upon because some liberal panty-wetters think some of us *might* someday use them to hurt someone.

Find somewhere, anywhere where I said gun control would stop crime.

OK, now we're going to scroll down a bit...

I believe I should be protected by having no guns in society.

So in the same post, you've claimed that a gun-free society is a safer society, but you've NEVER said that gun control would stop crime. How would gun control make a society safer if it doesn't reduce crime? See, this is called "contradicting yourself"...don't worry, a lot of people do it when they're wrong.

I have a right to live in a society free from guns.

No you don't. Why? Because ALL PEOPLE, not just Americans, have the right to keep and bear arms.

I don't have any guns, I don't carry knives, I don't know karate or whatever.

Baaaa....baaaaaa.....

I have never, ever seen a situation where guns would be useful.

Are you saying that no one has ever used a firearm to save a life? Or just that since you've never personally seen it happen, that's a good enough reason to deny everyone else the right to self-defense?

Saying you need guns for protection is a gross exaggeration...

Tell that to all of these people.

...guns are dangerous and have no place in society.

Power tools result in thousands of injuries a year, and can even kill someone if misused. Would you support a worldwide ban on them? No? Oh, but why not? After all, they're dangerous!

I only used the term gun nut on Fred, because he attacked me personally.

Cry me a river, build a bridge, and get over it.

 

I couldn't be arsed arguing with an idiot.

 

Writer David Codrea, whose "Open Letter to San Francisco Civil Authority" resulted in an "ongoing investigation" by the San Francisco Police Department received the following email over the weekend. Codrea used asterisks where there was foul language; the original had no asterisks:



-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Levine dobguy@ns.sympatico.ca
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 7:41 AM
To: codrea4@adelphia.net
Subject: HOMOSEXEUAL [sic] MARRIAGE AND GUN OWNERSHIP!!

Hey ****wit,

Why the hell do you post off-topic drivel to usenet forums that are international in nature? Take you local parochial redneck sh** and keep it in your own ****ing backyard. Better yet, use your gun to prevent your genes from being passed on to future generations.

A**hole.

- Craig

Not knowing who Craig Levine was or what he was talking about, Codrea did an internet search. It turns out his correspondent is an academic who holds a prominent position in the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada.

Codrea wrote the following reply, copying Levine?s colleagues and internet service provider:



-------Original Message-------
From: David Codrea
Date: 02/21/04 15:07:49
To: dobguy@ns.sympatico.ca
Cc: abuse@ns.sympatico.ca; chair@ap.stmarys.ca; mbutler@ap.stmarys.ca; nationaloffice@rasc.ca; public.affairs@stmarys.ca; Director@KeepAndBearArms.com
Subject: RE: HOMOSEXEUAL MARRIAGE AND GUN OWNERSHIP!!

I just received an email from Craig Levine, who appears to be quite the raving lunatic. I had no idea who he was until I checked him out-- apparently someone posted one of my articles to his discussion group, and he thinks it was me, but I have never posted on a usenet forum in my life. I'm writing to complain about his abusive email because he is apparently a colleague of yours.

I did some checking on your loose cannon. That's why I am contacting the Chair at St. Mary's University and its Department of Astronomy and Physics, and the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. Do you approve of your "Observing Chair RASC, Halifax Centre", whose "[web]site is provided courtesy the Department of Astronomy and Physics at Saint Mary's University," sending unsolicited obscene rants to people because he disagrees with their political views? Do you think it appropriate that a colleague and academic is so unhinged that he wishes me, a stranger, dead by my own hand? Is this how you want someone who claims affiliation with St. Mary's and the RASC to represent you?

I object to one of your members sending me a vile and obscene death wish. My children might have seen this. Sorry, Craig, the genes have already been passed on. Perhaps you wish my children dead as well?

If you allow this to persist, my complaint will be against you. At the very least, I expect an apology from him and his reprimand from you. I also expect to see Mr. Levine's ISP, sympatico.ca, invoke their policy against this kind of outrageous conduct.

I have also copied Mr. Angel Shamaya, director of the pro-Second Amendment website, KeepAndBearArms.com-- his site literally gets millions of hits. Quite a can of worms your resident genius has dumped in your laps, eh?

I intend to publicly post this letter as well as the tempestuous Mr. Levine's. We'll also be happy to publish the expected apologies.

David Codrea



Levine?s response is copied below:



-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Levine [mailto:dobguy@ns.sympatico.ca]
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 11:24 AM
To: dobguy@ns.sympatico.ca; codrea4@adelphia.net
Cc: abuse@ns.sympatico.ca; chair@ap.stmarys.ca; mbutler@ap.stmarys.ca; nationaloffice@rasc.ca; public.affairs@stmarys.ca; Director@KeepAndBearArms.com
Subject: RE: HOMOSEXEUAL MARRIAGE AND GUN OWNERSHIP!!

To whomever receives this message:

My apologies that you were drawn in

 

I have never, ever seen a situation where guns would be useful.

Have you ever seen nature?

When my parents were buying their first rural property, they took a walk around to see what state it was in. My dad took along his handgun - not because he was worried about some mugger jumping him from behind a tree, but because he didn't know what wildlife might be out there.

Sure, you can kill a snake without a gun, but it sure is a lot easier. And with larger animals, you don't have many options. (As it turns out, we later found a need for something more powerful than a handgun - so my mother got a shotgun for defending our animals from the wildlife and other people's unruly dogs.)

You've never seen a situation where guns would be useful? You haven't been to many places on this planet. Not everything is suburbs.

 

84 pages and the gun-grabbers have yet to produce a single piece of credible evidence that gun control is anything but a threat to freedom. Pathetic.

And in related news, the Million Morons are at it again...

"Million" Moms head to Washington for gun control

"Mary Leigh Blek, president emeritus of the Million Mom March: 'Since our last march, 120,000 Americans - almost 14,000 of them children - have died from gun violence. We are deeply disappointed that Congress hasn?t made progress - and instead is trying to turn back the clock on the progress we?ve made. We are resolute, and we won?t rest until our children are safer.' "

-------

How many of those "children" were gang bangers and criminals killed by police or law abiding citizens in self defense? Maybe to strident, shrill, emotionalist anti-gunners, there's no difference between criminals dying in the commission of crimes and innocents.

 

84 pages and the gun-grabbers have yet to produce a single piece of credible evidence that gun control is anything but a threat to freedom. Pathetic.

You aren't looking hard enough.


Womberty Farmers needing guns is acknowledged. However, farmers don't need handguns, semi automatic or automatic rifles. My statement that I have never seen a requirement for a gun in any situation is not referring to farming and you know it.

You people twist everything said by opponents of gun ownership to suit your argument and miss the point entirely. At least I think you miss the point. Maybe you are just ignoring the point.

 

Actually, I didn't know it, as I don't keep up with everything in this thread. Even if I had, have you ever said that you make an exception for farmers with guns?

Surely you must realize, if farmers can get guns, so can anyone who wants one. That's not a gun-free world, is it?

So, what problem do you have with handguns that you don't have with rifles and shotguns?

 

I agree with the Australian gun laws. The gun control laws in Australia have banned semi and automatic weapons as well as handguns. No-one has the right to such weapons. Shotguns and bolt action rifles are not illegal, however I don't believe they are needed outside places of work (farms) or for sporting purposes (rifle ranges).

Simply because a farmer can get a permit to own a shotgun, doesn't mean everyone in the community should be able to own one. A rifle is part of the business of running many types of farm - not all, and I believe a farmer needs to show cause as to why he requires a rifle.

The point with all my previous posts has been that the average person does not need a gun.

 

A gun is not necessarily for everyday use; rather, it is for the extreme need. By that, I do not mean that only those in extreme need should have a gun, but that they should be able to keep a gun just in case such a need should arise.

The average person doesn't buy a gun to kill someone; they buy it just in case they might need it someday. If all goes well, they will never need it, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have it.

 

People with guns are five times more likely to commit suicide and nearly three times more likely to commit murder.

I think it makes more sense not to have one than to keep one on the off chance that maybe one day there will be a need for a gun and that there will also be the chance to use it on that occasion.

 

Perhaps, in a society that is moving more and more to shun gun ownership, a person is several times more likely to purchase a gun for suicide or murder than for self-defense.

That doesn't mean the gun made them do it.

Tell me, do you keep a first aid kit? I keep one in my car, in case I'm ever in an accident or at the scene of an accident where it might come in useful. Now, there's a good chance I could be injured or my car could be damaged in such a way that I can't get to the first aid kit, but does that mean I shouldn't keep it?

How about fire extinguishers? Why do we need those?

There is certainly good reason to keep some things around just in case they are needed, even if you hope never to need it. The problem with guns being dangerous to their owners and the owners' families has to do with personal responsibility - and there are plenty of other things that can be misused through a lack of responsibility.

 

I will have to agree wholeheartedly with Womberty's last post about anythings use has to do with personal responsibility. Cars are as deadly weapons as guns depending on what purpose you intend on using it. Martial arts practitioners could raise holy h*ll if they decided to go out and test what they learn on everybody they see walking around, but they don't, why because they learn responsibility of their knowledge. I own guns and every member of my family has learned how to use a gun at some point in their life. We all also learned the responsibility that came with using a gun and that's what people need not restrictions. If people are taught to be responsible than it'll all be good but restricting them is not the answer. Restricting the ability to own things like guns will end up just causin problems over the long run and pissing a lot of people off. Not only that but it sets the stage for a government to become tyrannical in how it deals with its people. It's a bit hard to create a dictatorship when every other person you piss off has the means to stop what you're doing.

 

You aren't looking hard enough.

You'll have to do better than that.

However, farmers don't need handguns, semi automatic or automatic rifles.

If a farmer is attacked by an animal (a wolf or a mountain lion, for example), a handgun, with it's short barrel and light weight, would be a very practical self-defense tool, simply because it is easier to point with one hand at close range. And a rifle is a must for any farmer. How else is he to defend his property from predators?

The gun control laws in Australia have banned semi and automatic weapons as well as handguns. No-one has the right to such weapons.

On the contrary, EVERYONE has the right to such weapons, even you. Of course, if you are someday jumped by those gangsters you mentioned (that Australia's strict GUN CONTROL LAWS have FAILED TO DISARM), you also have the right to offer no resistance whatsoever, and simply let them slice you to ribbons.

Simply because a farmer can get a permit to own a shotgun, doesn't mean everyone in the community should be able to own one.

Then what should they keep to defend themselves and their families? A burglar alarm? A big, scary dog? A can of pepper spray? None of these things are anywhere near as effective as a firearm.

The point with all my previous posts has been that the average person does not need a gun.

Translation: I would rather see a woman raped and strangled with her underwear than a woman with a smoking gun in her hand and a dead rapist at her feet.

But remember, kids, we gun owners are the "nuts"!!!

People with guns are five times more likely to commit suicide and nearly three times more likely to commit murder.

Proof that guns make people crazy! Give people guns, and they turn into mindless killing machines! Ban the weapons, and the same people immediately return to normal! Is that the best you can do?

 

Yeah, right. That's exactly what I mean. I want women to be raped. I want to be sliced up by gangs. I want old ladies to be molested. You are so clever. You saw right through me.

Using a smiley face doesn't make your point any less irrelevant or inane.

 

Translation: I would rather see a woman raped and strangled with her underwear than a woman with a smoking gun in her hand and a dead rapist at her feet.

I think the more accurate "translation" would be: I don't worry as much about a woman being raped and strangled as I do about the possibility she will kill herself.

I still find the sentiment misguided.

 

No, there's no translation required. Putting words in my mouth shows you have no real argument except emotive ones.

 

Fine, let's take a look at what you actually said:

I have never, ever seen a situation where guns would be useful.

Would it be safe to assume you have never seen a rape, burglary, or murder?


People with guns are five times more likely to commit suicide and nearly three times more likely to commit murder.

It sounds as though you are concerned with the possibility people might commit murder or suicide. Is that a fair assessment?


I think it makes more sense not to have one than to keep one on the off chance that maybe one day there will be a need for a gun and that there will also be the chance to use it on that occasion.

Is it safe to conclude that you do not feel that using a gun to defend oneself from rape, burglary, or murder is a pressing need? And that you fear murder and suicide are more likely results of gun ownership than self-defense?

Yet the statistics you gave prove nothing in that respect. You have not shown us the ratio of defense and non-defense uses of guns. You have not shown the likelihood of the need for defense compared to the likelihood of committing suicide or murder. You have not shown that guns are ineffective for defense.

All you have shown is your fear of guns being used for suicide and murder. While I do not dispute that guns are used for those purposes many times every year, I don't believe that disproves the need for guns for defense. You have not proven that not having access to guns would keep people from committing suicide and murder, or that anyone would be safer without guns.

 

On the contrary, EVERYONE has the right to such weapons, even you

As someone who was, until recently, a registered shooter (owning a rifle and before that, handgun), I must strongly disagree with this statement.

America accounts for 4.5% of the worlds population, give or take .1%. There and only there are guns treated as rights. Everywhere else it's a privledge. I'm going to side with the majority here and say guns are not a right anywhere but the US; they are a privlidge. Vox populii, vox Dei.

E_S

 

America accounts for 4.5% of the worlds population, give or take .1%.

Irrelevant.

There and only there are guns treated as rights. Everywhere else it's a privledge.

All people, not just Americans, have the right to keep and bear arms, just as all people have the right to speak freely, and the right to a trial by jury. Unfortunately, no government today recognizes the RKBA for what it truly is. Even the US government has infringed upon this right, resulting in thousands of deaths that could have been prevented if the intended victims had been armed.

I'm going to side with the majority here...

Irrelevant. The majority once supported slavery...does that make it right?

...guns are not a right anywhere but the US; they are a privlidge.

FACT #1: Self-defense is a basic human right.

FACT #2: To the average person, a firearm is the most efficient self-defense tool in existence.

FACT #3: Gun control laws fail to disarm criminals. All they do is leave innocent people defenseless.

"One man with courage is a majority." -- Thomas Jefferson