Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by darthmomm, Oct 29, 2001.
I'd leave it at "Lunatics, period, kill people", but that's just me . . .
Yes, it is definitely Switzerland Moriarte is talking about?. The Swiss common military service entails that the soldier keeps his equipment, up to and including his weapon, at home.
This means that a gun can be found in most homes.
And?. Neither Switzerland, nor Sweden are East countries. None of us belong to the Nato, but that is not the same thing!
May I recommend checking your facts in the future??
Let's look at some other detals: australia's crime has gone up wince its gun ban. So has England's.
The fact is, a 5'3", 110-pound woman would not stand a chance in a physical fight against a 6'2", 249-pound man who has decided to rape and murder her.
The only way she has a chance is if she has something that can negate that pjhysical advantage. Seeing as stun guns and tasers are unreliable, the only thing that can do that is a gun.
I also fail to understand why I should give up a means to protect myself if we are not willing to keep criminals locked up. If the criminals will be let out of prison, then I want the means to protect myself.
Smuggler, you have a point when you talk about protection. I just fear that when you give a gun to every person that wants protection you'll also give it to a Million lunatics in the process. Or in other words: If people didn't own guns then maybe the woman in your example wouldn't be in danger in the first place.
It's a bit like the current state of the Middle East conflict - both sides bomb each other in constant retaliation for attacks yet peace cannot be achieved that way. So maybe you have to disarm your guns in order to achieve security
Glad you brought up the Middle East. There have been several of those Palestinean attacks that were stopped by regular citizens who had guns. In fact, yesterday's Washington Times reported that the Israeli government is upping the number of permits issued by 60,000. This is a 25% increase in the number.
Furthermore, with an INSTANT background check, and a concealed-carry law like the one in Florda (copied by 32 other states) will be good at weeding out most of the bad guys. You'll still have some, but as some regular Israeli citizens have shown, their efforts will be mitigated a great deal.
In the U.S., several of the school shootings have been stopped when people were able to use their guns. The fact is, deep down, most of the people who use guns for terrorist or criminal purposes are cowards. And when confronted with someone who has the means to fight back (especially when the good guy has a of their own), they usually will give up, or flee.
For a good guy, a gun is like a fire extinguisher. You're better off having it and never needing it, than to need it and not have it. Yes, bad guys do bad things with guns. But I'm not a bad guy, and I do not wish to pay the price for what bad guys do.
JediSmuggler, what do you think is the reason for the extremely high murder rate in the US? I don't want to call people of one nationality more violent than people of another but what do you think is wrong in the States? I consider the high rate a serious issue for the standard of living in a country. I was three times in New York but every single time I ran into a violent crime scene. Sorry, but that's not healthy.
I can see why people want to own a gun when they're confronted with such a crime rate but I also see reports of lunatics killing everybody in a McDonald's in the US on a regular basis on TV.
We need to tackle the source and the roots of all this violence rather than stocking up on weapons.
Most of the crime is committed by a small percentage of armed career criminals. Unfortunately, many of them have the cases plea-bargained down to misdemeanors.
There are MAJOR Federal penalties in the States for possession of a gun by a felon, person who has been involuntarily committed, or a drug user. Penalties also exist for the use of guns in a violent crime. There are 10-20-Life provisions in some states as well.
The problem is, they are hardly ever used. In Richmond, they began to use these statutes regularly, and they cut the murders by 60%. One guy they put away for possessing some crack cocaine, a handgun, and a sawed-off shotgun was later indicted on six murder charges.
If we can get the violent offenders off the streets, that gets the crime rate down by 50-70%. We're never going to be able to stop all the murders, but getting the armed career criminals off the street will be a very big improvement.
We may also need to re-evaluate the Great Society's program. I know it had the best of intentions, but I do not think we're getting good results. The out-of-wedlock birth rate has climbed a great deal since then, and babies born out-of-wedlock have had a greater chance of falling into a life of crime. There's little else we can do beyond that without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens to own the means to protect themselves.
UGH, ya know first I get a V word wrong, and then a country, yes I was talking about Switzerland...at first I was thinking Netherlands...oops.
Yes, a major problem is with enforcement of the existing laws we have concerning gun control and they slacked off increasingly during the Clinton administration, take a look:
Amid the Clinton-Gore-Reno Administration's calls for more and more gun control laws, the evidence continues to mount that it failed miserably to enforce existing law, dismissing violent gun crimes as unworthy of its time and effort.
* 44% DROP IN FEDERAL REFERRALS: BATF referrals for prosecution of federal law violations declined nearly by half during the first six years of the Clinton-Gore-Reno Administration. BATF cases sent to federal prosecutors declined by 44% from 1992 to 1998, a drop from 9,885 to 5,510.
* 46.5% DROP IN FIREARMS CASES SENT TO FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL PROSECUTORS: BATF federal firearms law violations cases sent to federal, state and local prosecutors declined 46.5% between 1992 to 1998, a drop from 12,084 to 6,470.
* THE "PROJECT EXILE" DIFFERENCE: With "Project Exile" in Richmond providing the momentum, in 1998, BATF-referred prosecutions in the state of Virginia led to 242 gun criminals being exiled to prison. Unbelievably, more armed criminals were sent to prison in Virginia in 1998 than in the far more populous states of California (70) and New York (140) and New Jersey (14) combined. The District of Columbia, which has effectively disarmed its law-abiding residents and has a violent crime rate about six times higher than Virginia, sent exactly two gun criminals to prison for breaking federal gun laws in 1998.
* "KINGPIN" COPOUT: BATF says the dramatic declines in their enforcement actions are related to improved targeting, but more focused prosecutions of gun-trafficking "kingpins" have not resulted in longer prison sentences, as would be expected.
* DROP IN SENTENCE LENGTH: During the Clinton-Gore-Reno years, the peak BATF sentence?a median of 57 months ? came in 1996. In 1997, the median dropped to 48 months, and in 1998, to 46 months.
* TARGETING GUN MAKERS, NOT ARMED CRIMINALS: Ironically, BATF's 1998 gun crime referrals for prosecution were the lowest in many of the cities that are now bringing "junk lawsuits" against gun manufacturers for the medical and law enforcement costs of gun crime. San Francisco ranked last in federal gun crime prosecution referrals, followed by Sacramento (89th), Los Angeles (87th), Chicago (86th), Bridgeport, Conn. (85th) and Newark/Camden, N.J. (84th).
(Source: Analysisof law enforcement data by Transactional Records Access Clearinghouseat Syracuse University)
Also, this is a long read, but worth reading. It compares and contrasts foreign countries firearm regulations:
A recent report for Congress notes, "All countries have some form of firearms regulation, ranging from the very strictly regulated countries like Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Sweden to the less stringently controlled uses in the jurisdictions of Mexico and Switzerland, where the right to bear arms continues as a part of the national heritage up to the present time." However, "From available statistics, among (the 27) countries surveyed, it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes. . . . (I)n Canada a dramatic increase in the percentage of handguns used in all homicides was reported during a period in which handguns were most strictly regulated. And in strictly regulated Germany, gun-related crime is much higher than in countries such as Switzerland and Israel, that have simpler and/or less restrictive legislation." (Library of Congress, "Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998.")
Many foreign countries have less restrictive firearms laws, and lower crime rates, than parts of the U.S. that have more restrictions. And many have low crime rates, despite having very different firearms laws. Switzerland and Japan "stand
Found this. It hits home on a lot of issues.
>>Criminalizing Toy Guns
Paul Craig Roberts
March 8, 2002
Gun control has reached absurd limits in America. In Michigan, an 8-year-old boy is being prosecuted for pointing a toy gun at three other youngsters and threatening to shoot them. If this had happened in my day, every boy would have spent his youth in prison.
We played guns when we weren't playing baseball or football. We had three variants: cowboys, war, and cops and robbers. Our cap guns roared through rolls of caps, punctuated with extra loud BANG-BANGS. Insistences that "You're dead! I shot you dead!" would have meant life sentences for all of us.
With all males locked up for the duration, there would have been no procreation and no one to pay Social Security for the retired.
Tommy Davis was 7 at the time he committed "three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon" by pointing his toy pistol. According to the Washtenaw County prosecutor's office, the 7-year-old was motivated by "criminal intent" to "threaten and scare the other children."
The two goofballs bringing charges against the little boy are Police Lt. Dennis Gruschow and Assistant County Prosecutor Donald Ray. Obviously, neither has enough common sense to be allowed out of the house, much less given the authority to arrest and prosecute.
When Pennsylvania gun-shop owner Jack Weigand ordered a Dell laptop computer, the company refused to sell it to him. Handguns, the company explained, imply, well, terrorism, and Dell is prohibited under U.S. law from exporting computers to terrorists.
It makes about as much sense as the arrest of the little boy.
It gets worse. According to Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, prosecutors are now criminalizing self-defense by prosecuting people who use guns to defend themselves against intruders in their homes.
Four men broke into Ronald Biggs' Goldsboro, N.C., residence and assaulted him with a baseball bat. He broke up the attack by shooting one of the assailants. His assailants were charged with misdemeanors and Biggs was charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
Don Campbell of Port Huron, Mich., shot the assailant who broke into his store and attacked him. The prosecutor plea-bargained with the assailant in exchange for the assailant's testimony against Campbell for felonious use of a firearm. Community pressure forced the prosecutor to drop the charges he was fabricating.
Vietnam veteran and Maryland "Citizen of the Year" Donald Arnold recently lost his gun permit because it came to light that 33 years ago he got into a scuffle with a war protester. According to Maryland's ridiculous attorney general, Joseph Curran, the scuffle means Maryland's Citizen of the Year is too dangerous to have any gun rights.
Great Britain and Australia are thoroughly gun-controlled countries. The British are allowed only shotguns and birdshot. The two countries have the highest violent crime rates in the developed world.
Do you remember when England had very little crime and unarmed Bobbies (police)? Since those halcyon days, the British have had their guns confiscated and are now being shot, raped, burgled, robbed and assaulted at record rates. Violent crime rates in Britain far outstrip those in the United States.
All licensed handgun owners were confiscated in 1997-98 in order to prevent "legally held handguns from falling into the wrong hands." London murders with handguns promptly shot up 83 percent, and armed muggings rose 53 percent. The BBC reports that residents of other cities also are experiencing high rates of attack from armed criminals.
Self-defense has been criminalized. Britons who use permitted shotguns to beat off assaults in their homes are dealt with harshly in the courts.
The insanity of the political attack on guns and self-defense is obvious. A year ago, the Dutch Ministry of Justice published its International Crime Victims Survey and, surprise, 26 percent of the British population was a victim of crime in 2000!
I have always wondered what the rea
I find it hilarious how some of you are acting as though owning a gun is a basic human right and freedom. This is rediculous. You claim you need guns for protection. Protection from what?? Your not at war! If you mean protection from the high crime, there wouldn't be so much crime if so many guns weren't on the streets! And, there are better ways to protect yourself. Tasers, pepper spray, etc etc etc.
And ask yourself this. When was the last time you heard about a school shooting in Britain, or any other country besides America for that matter?
Its complete madness to think that ANYONE, as long as they know how to use a gun "safely", should be aloud to have one. All guns need to be banned before things are going to improve. It may be a slow process, but in the long run, you will see less crime being committed with guns.
The only people that should have guns are police men and the military.
TripleB, some of those "facts" are wrong, and don't "hit home" with me at all. They just make me realise even more that pro-gun people would use and make up any excuse they can to keep guns in the hands of the public.
Maybe you should read the previous posts on this thread before making such a baseless statement.
PPOR that those are wrong, or mine even, I believe you cannot in either case.
Ciou-See the Sig
Kaine is probably one of those people that believe ANYTHING Rosie o'Donnell or the Brady Campaign tell them too.
I find the use of the word "excuse" to be rather...irritating, because any government would love to have its citizens not to have the right/ability to own/carry a firearm, democracy or no for obvious reasons
Actually, I find the use of the word "excuse" to be rather repulsive.
Ciou-See the Sig
Actually TripleB, all the opinions i have expressed here are my own.
If any of you want to REALLY get this thread into active status again, I suggest Kaine PM Darthmomm and try to get her to get her friends from the other site (she will know what that means), like Blankman and Midunbar and Blueoakleyz and Ice Dee, over to these boards.
Why not just let the thread die? There doesn't seem to be anything new to contribute.
Sometimes, I tend to agree with that notion. The problem is, any time some nutcase or crook misuses a gun, and it gets into the news, some people immediately come out of the woodwork using that tragedy to demand more restrictions on my rights.
If it won't strain you too much, try to look at it from my perspective. I've done nothing wrong, yet I'm supposed to pay a price because someone else did. I find that to be patently unfair, and I'll say so publicly.
"ILM employee shot by stray gunfire"
Ahh, I'm glad all gun owners are so responsible these days
According to the Marin Independent Journal, the rounds may have come from the U.S. Park Police at a range used at San Quentin by law enforcement personnel.
IMHO, we need to wait for the facts.
"some people immediately come out of the woodwork using that tragedy to demand more restrictions on my rights."
I've said this before. Owning a gun is NOT a basic human right or a basic freedom. Your view of freedom is a little messed up. Can anyone own a gun, in your opinion? Or do you need to know how to use it "safely" first? If you wanna play cops and robbers, buy a toy gun. Real guns are meant to kill. Not everyone that knows how to use a gun "safely" is going to do so. America, land of the free. Free to buy a gun from convenient stores? Hell, just because SOME people use nukes irrisponsibly, they're gonna take away MY right to own one? I want a nuke damnit! Is that what freedom is?
Owning guns is as much a right as to worship freely, or for the press to do their business freely, or to peaceably assemble, to petition to the government to redress their actions, and so on. All part of the Bill of Rights.
Can you really excuse EVERYTHING just because a constitution states it that was written hundreds of years ago? Has it ever crossed your mind that some things might need to get updated considering we now live in a totally different society and not in the Wild West anymore?
Outdated? I don't think so. The studies of John Lott and Gary Kleck have proven that guns are quite useful in self-defense still. One of the initial observations was made by an Italian criminologist.
Someone named Thomas Jefferson quoted the guy's observations back in the late 18th century.
Humans have been able to adapt because they are able to use tools to protect themselves against predators, whether they are a bear or an armed robber, burglar, or some other criminal.
The fact is, as long as there are people who will prey on those weaker than themselves, guns are needed, and the right to bear arms is not outdated.
I must disagree with you. Your argument flies in the face of multiple statements from the people who wrote the Constitution, as well as a rather thoroughly-researched opinion by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Furthermore, I again repeat the challenge, why should I pay the price for those who misuse guns? Don't give me a straw man argument about nuclear weapons. Explain to me why my guns, which have killed fewer people than a certain Senator's driving, are part of the problem.