Guns, the other side

[mietla]

 http://www.combatsim.com/ubb/Forum35/HTML/000407.html

[leonid]

There's a problem with saying that banning/restricting firearms only takes them away from lawful citizens, and leaves them with the criminal element.  This happens everywhere firearms are restricted: most countries in Europe, Canada, etc (a good example of this is the Mafia in Italia).  The deaths in these countries related to gunshot wounds come nowhere near ours.

Sadly, I'm almost certain another civil war would result in America if firearms were restricted/banned here.  Amazing that so many males would revolt over this, especially when so many other nations do fine without them.

Time will tell, just how many Americans want them gone vs. those who are determined to keep them.  And yes, it's a constitutional issue, but no constitution is writ in stone.  Just look at history.

[Dowding]

It's true what u say about constitutions, Leonid. Britain doesn't even have a written constitution and we get along alright most of the time.  

[Karnak]

 

Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Hmm, you want me to post the dangers of swimming pools? They caused 10 times the fatalities that handguns did...

Ripsnort,
Could you post the source of that info please.  I have seen many, many pro-gun people use that statement and have never seen any data to back it up.  As far as I can tell it might just be an urban legend that is perpetuated by the pro-gun people because of its conveinence.

Don't take this wrong, I'm not anti-gun, I'm just curious and would like to see the actual numbers for pool deaths, backed up by a legitimate source.

Sisu
-Karnak

[leonid]

Oh man, I just saw a terrible vision of the future.  

Firearms are finally heavily restricted by the Federal government, which results is a furor by a fair portion of the male populace.  Soon militias begin forming up nationwide, holding caches of the now-restricted firearms, in defiance of the federal government.  The National Guard is called in to seek out these caches and confiscate the weapons.  Surprisingly, first one one, then another NG unit make bogus searches, finally erupting in outright insubordination of their CinC.  The Army is called in to bring order, but it is divided on the issue, resulting in outbreaks of clashes between elements of either side.  Finally, all hell breaks loose, and after months of intense, no-quarter fighting the pro-gun elements of the military (which comprise at least 80% of the entire armed forces of the USA) eliminate the last elements of the loyalist forces.  In an unprecedented act the Commander of the pro-gun forces, asks for the resignation of the present president, so that he may be put on trial for treason.  Meanwhile, political supporters of the gun control law, nationwide, are collected to answer for their involvement in this federal act of 'treason' (though a few escape and flee the country).  A new president is put in place by the military forces, a former presiding officer of the NRA.  The first legislation passed is that all citizens must own a registered firearm in order to vote, resulting in a sizable amount of the population that cannot vote.

[Tac]

NATO nuclear policy in wartime against the "Red Menace":

"First we will use conventional weapons until we start losing, then we will use Tactical Nuclear Weapons until we keep on losing, then we will blow up the world"

This was said by a former NATO chief, so you can bet your butt it was true. THAT is a scary... and it was real.

That vision leonid is hilarious in my point of view. You will never get congress to agree on that nor the armed forces.

But always beware the NRA.. Nationalist Rednecks of America.     *G*
 

[Toad]

 

Originally posted by Fishu:
but man... a gun is addiction, it increases the lenght of your d***, you possibly can't rid such thing!

So you don't have a gun then? And your d*** is short?

Is THAT why you aren't man enough to fly in the arena under your posting handle?

[Toad]

Leonid,

So what do you suggest as the answer.

You have brought the statistics before the group, obviously to point out what you perceive to be a problem.

Will you now state your proposed solution?

I'd also like to see the reference for your statistics. Is there a website for that?

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-18-2000).]

[Toad]

 

Originally posted by F4UDOA:
BTW, Charton Heston recently admitted to having an alcohol problem. Don't you feel safer now? I feel safe. F4UDOA

You're not going to go off on us again are ya? No more spit-flying, foaming at the mouth diatribes? Just a discussion?  

Teddy Kennedy is a major pro gun control advocate. What does his drinking have to do with his position?

I can’t count how many times he’s been dried out, only to soak himself in booze once again.

Maybe he drinks to forget drowning Mary Jo when he accidentally drove his car off a bridge...while DUI.

Damn, killed her with a car; I bet her parents are glad it wasn’t a gun!

But what does that have to do with his position? His bodyguards are armed; does he deserve that right more than a average citizen?

Are you really going to argue that a recovering alcoholic (and they are all always "recovering"...ask one) is in some way incapable of reason or making a valid argument? If so, then after Heston, I suggest we start removing everyone of this type from the Congress!

Let’s start with Ted!

BTW, I don't feel any "safer" with Ted in the Senate. He's a typical liberal..."A man cannot be evil...it's either the environment or some inanimate object that MADE him become a menace to society. So we can't punish the man."

 

[Jigster]

Yes this is all a constitutional problem.

But to understand why, we need to look at why the 2nd amendment was ever added.

Okay then. After the revolution, the founding fathers of the US decided to ENSURE to the people that they would have some means to remove the government, if it ever neglected to serve the people. That's what is there for. Nothing much other then that.

For that reason, pro-gun people get really really nervous when politicians try to mess with the right that would let them remove a government (i.e. the militia groups banding togather)

anti-gun people point to other countries that have had guns rights removed and it hasn't led to totalitarianism or anarchy.
But after living with the idealology of the common man has the ability to act should his government betray him, for over 200 years, this will not go away anytime soon. We use to take pride in the fact we controlled how the government acted, not the other way around (albeit as long as that citizen conducts himself under the authority the people give the government). That's the other idealology. The 18th amendment was the first major attempt to try and remove a freedom from the people of the US. It was a noble concept and could it of been enforced would of saved many a life in the present day. But think of all public servants died trying to serve it in the open shoot outs...

I am afraid the same thing would happen if any MAJOR changes were made to the constitution again...it's all well in theory but, under common interpretation of the second amendment the people who go out to enforce such laws are subject to be shot at by people defending their right against government hostilities.


It's a big stink. I really don't have to many problems with limits imposed on hand guns, but allowing one to pass would make it easier for even stricter laws to be passed.

I have a varying collection of rifles and some black powder pistols, along with antique revolvers and a Colt .45 pistol. Alot of those guns have been passed down through the family. The rest are for hunting.

Being from a rural area where I sometimes actually did hunt for food and not for sport, that is, hunting for sustinance (My gawd! They still do that in America!?) guns have always been a part of my life. They only time I every used to use the Colt .45 was during froggin on rivers and such, Water Moccasons would be everywhere and it was either shoot them or get bitten, ain't fun. I once used it to save myself from a rather pissed off bob cat that slashed my face.

So what are we to do when it comes to hand guns?

Some people do have a legitimate reason for having them.

But I think the answer is very simple. Take them up, give everyone black powder pistols and load them with rock salt. If kids happen to get into them they'll remember the sting. Robbers will too. Docter's business will boom for helping minor skin abrasions.

People are stupid. It will never change. It's just ashame that stupid people end up ruining the life of those who aren't. But then again who isn't stupid? Self defense is an odd reason...but it buys a person peace of mind. And that too is covered by the constitution. Pursuit of happiness and all.

- Jig

[Toad]

 

Originally posted by Dowding:
Ripsnort - that is a senseless comparison. Since when was a swimming pool designed to kill or maim?

So does this mean that only the original design intent should be used to decide whether ANY object can be owned by the general public?

Is this your standard?

[-raxx-]

I'm confused by the rhetoric above about having a right to own a firearm and the definitions used.  A firearm is designed to kill things but can be used of other purposes, (ie. target shooting which I enjoy).  Pools and cars as mentioned above are for swimming in or trantporting people which sometimes happen to kill people as well.  Comparing the two is a poor attempt at distracting from the original point put forward that there needs to be better gun control in the United States of America.

I live in a country with strict gun control laws but a high ratio of firearms per capita.  New Zealand has a population of a bit over 3.1 million people with about 800,000 registered owners, (most having more than one weapon).  I can't confirm it but we apparently have the highest ratio of firearms per captia in the world, (almost 1:1).

Restrictions on Category D firearms, (Pistols), are very tight.  Military style weapons, (ie. semi-automatic, pistol grip with a magazine that holds more than 5 rounds), have a restriction on storage, (must have a safe bolted to the floor and wall), and you need two other category E lisence holders to vouch for you on application as well as a non-family referee.  The other categories are for hunting rifles or collectors.

The police force here is armed but not visibly, (ie. they don't walk about with pistols on their hips but some officers have concealed weapons and some police cars have a shotgun, rifle and pistol in the gunsafe in the boot of the car).  There are also specialist Police Armed Offender squads who deal strictly with firearms related situations.

New Zealand isn't a utopia as there were 6 more murders than last year bringing the total to 104, (most were not firearms related).

I understood that in the US the right to bear arms was so that the individual states could mount militias for the defence of their state or the defence of the country, (but not be used to attack another country).  This comes from a basic lack of trust in the federal government and to stop the president becoming a dictator, (this is oversimplified to make the point more obvious).  I can understand the principle, (freedom liberty and justice for all has to be defended) and regretfully sometimes this involves violence,

however...

the US population is about 250 million, (83 times the size of New Zealand).  Even if every single murder in NZ was committed with a firearm, then the US still has a murder rate involving firearms over 3 times that of New Zealand, (in reality it's 10 times greater).

That's a hell of a price to pay for not trusting your govenment, your local law enforcers and your neighbours.  Maybe I'm being to much of an idealist but until the citizens of the United States of America really want to change the firearms laws, then they will have to live with the consequences of their choises.  32,000 lives a year is the size of large town each year, every year.

There is no "right answer" to the problem they face because even one firearms related death is one too many.  Short of banning firearms all together, I think the system in New Zealand is about as good as you can get but we had a better start than US.

[disclaimer.  I've held a Firearms Lisence since I was 15, (over half my life now).  Served 8 years in the Territorial Army in New Zealand and am a qualified Shooting Coach on Rifle, Pistol and Light Support Weapons, (ie. machine guns).  I don't know a lot about the American Constitution apart from what I learned in school or read on this board]

Spotcha in the Air,

[leonid]

Toad,

I really don't know myself.  I see a problem, but firearms is not only  ingrained in the American culture, it is represented, more or less, by the 2nd amendment.  Right now, ownership is so huge and so entrenched that any true federal action to restrict ownership could have explosive consequences.  To be honest, I'm not sure I'm ready for that.  I don't know if anyone is.  One side sees it as a threat to a basic American right.  The other side sees it as the catalyst to the greatest level of violence in the industrialized world.  I wish we could find some common ground.  I really do.

The sources are:

Police Foundation © 1996, Guns in America: Results of a comprehensive national survey on firearms ownership and use, p. 13.

National Opinion Research Center, The University of Chicago, 1997-1998 National Gun Policy Survey, September 1998.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Unpublished Data from the National Vital Statistics System, 1997.

Calculated by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence using Unpublished Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health statistics, National Vital Statistics System, 1998.

Washington State Department of Health, Center for Health Statistics, 1999.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 47, No. 19, June 30, 1999.

United Nations, 1997.

Kellermann AL, "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home", J, Trauma 1998; 45(2):263-67.

Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB, et. al., "Gun Ownership As A Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1084-1091.

Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et. al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership", N Engl J Med. 1992;327:467-472.

Schuster MA, "Firearm Storage Patterns in US Homes With Children", American Journal of Public Health, 2000;90(4):588-94.

Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 1999.

Kellermann AL, "Weapon Involvement in Home Invasion Crimes",JAMA 1995;273(22):1759-62.

Kellermann AL., "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home", J, Trauma 1998;45(2):263-67.

Unpublished data from the Vital Statistics System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 1999.

"Firearm-Related death in 26 Industrialized Countries", Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1997, 46(5):101-105.

Unpublished data from the Vital Statistics System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 1997.

Kann L, Warren CW, Harris WA, et. al., "Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance - United States, 1993", Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1995;44:1-56.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1998.

National Summary of Injury Mortality Data, 1987-1994, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, November, 1996.

Miller M, Hemenway D, "The Relationship Between Firearms and Suicide: A Review of the Literature", Aggression and violent Behavior, 1999, Vol.4, No.1.

Annest JL, "National Estimates of Nonfatal Firearm-related Injuries. Beyond the Tip of the Iceberg", Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995, Vol.273, No.22.

MMWR Weekly Report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, April 28, 1995. 44(16);312-315,321-323.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1998.

Grossman DC, "Self-inflicted and Unintentional Firearm Injuries Among Children and Adolescents", Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, August 1999, Vol.153.

Ginsburg, JA, et. al., American College of Physicians, "Firearm Injury Prevention", Annals of Internal Medicine, 1998, 128:3, 237.

Millert TR and Cohen MA "Costs of Penetrating Injury", Textbook of Penetrating Trauma, 1995. Ivatury and Cayten, eds. Philadelphia: Lee and Civiga.

American Academy of Pediatrics, "Firearm-related Injuries Affecting the Pediatric Population", Pediatrics 2000;105(4):888-89.

"Financial Impact of Inpatient Resources in Children's Hospitals Caused by Firearm Injuries: CY 1991", National Association of Children's Hospitals and Related Institutions, 1993.

Rice M, "Shooting in the Dark: Estimationg the Cost of Firearm Injuries", Health Affairs, 1993, 12(4):171-185.

[Cobra]

I think its a dangerous slippery slope to start removing ammendments to the Constitution.

Which one would be next?  Its not hyperbole, its a serious concern.  Get enough people together and lets get rid of a couple more.  

A Democracy is not perfect.  No from of government yet tried on this planet is perfect.  But one thing a Democracy does is protect the minorities rights from the majority.  If the majority today decides it doesn't like a Constitutional Ammendment and revokes it, then the precedent is set for whatever majority exists tomorrow to remove another Right asserted to us by the Constitution (and don't give me any of that Prohibition Ammendment stuff, that was idiotic to add as an Ammendment in the first place).......

Actually this is a good example of messing w/the Constitution.  An Ammendment against Alcohol was added to the Constitution.  What was the result?  Well besides making Joseph Kennedy very rich, it made criminals out of ordinary citizens.  Did it stop drinking...not even close.  It did make the ordinary population federal law breakers.  Ofcourse, it also had a very positive affect on a few Gangsters bank accounts.

The point is, the Constitution has withstood the test of over 200 years (not alot, I know by European Standards, but darn good).  Why is this the case?  I believe its because it has been respected enough not to alter it to fit the current trends, political correctness, or times.  Also, it is a simple, basic document which was crafted to insure our rights.  And the great thing is, it can be applied today.  At the time of its writing, not all of our citizens enjoyed these rights, but we eventually caught up to the foresight of the Constitution and its framers.  So we still are growing into the principles in the Constitution, so to speak.

While the document itself is static, the principles and basic tenants are not!  That is why it is very risky, in my mind, to alter what the original framers put forth.  I don't mean we can't add rights (women's right to vote is a perfect example) to the Constitution, but we should never revoke any of those rights already put forth.  

Cobra
(paid attention during History and Social Studies Classes)

Post Script
As far as Britian and the colonies go.....The original pilgrims that landed at Plymouth Rock were fleaing religious prosecution.  But after that, it was good ole capitalism which drove the major events.  The colonists didn't like being taxed without their representation.  They also didn't like their money going back to Britian without their say, is the bottomline.

[Toad]

 

Originally posted by leonid:
...any true federal action to restrict ownership could have explosive consequences.  To be honest, I'm not sure I'm ready for that

Well, specifically then, if you could pick your ideal solution irrespective of possible consequences, what would it be?

What I am driving at is a person either feels there is a place for firearms in American society or that there can be no place for firearms in American society.

Which side of that are you on?

You undoubtedly read the previous threads that dealt with this topic in the O-Club.

Obviously, I feel there IS a place for firearms. I also believe there is room to improve the situation.

However, I am also fully aware that no laws, restrictions, compromises, databases, federal forms or whatever to date have ever been enough to satisfy those who want all guns removed from the hands of private citizens.

This DESPITE the fact that the present laws, restrictions, etc. have NEVER been fully enforced nor have perpetrators of violent crime with guns been dealt with to the full extent of the law. (Except perhaps recently in Richmond, Va. where gun violence has fallen dramatically.)

When the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and use firearms in appropriate ways are PERMANENTLY AFFIRMED, it will be quite easy reach a compromise.

(I also FULLY support incredibly heavy penalties against those that use guns improperly.)

However, the gun control forces, IMHO, have justifiably earned the total distrust of the law-abiding gun owning citizenry.

There, from MY point of view, lies the problem. The "antis" will never stop and have proven it repeatedly.