Media bias?

[capt. apathy]

i think that alot of the problem we have with gun-violence is that most kids are only exposed to guns in a tv/movie setting.  they never see responsable gun ownership.

 it's like that crappy old tv show 'the a team'  kids watch these guys spray bullets around like they're confetti and when the smoke clears everyone is alive and the bad guys are wearring handcuffs.
 
you take a kid that has seen that kinda thing for 15 years and no exposer to safty trainning or responsable use, and then he gets his hands on a gun and it's no wonder we have problems, i guess some would like to try to get rid of the guns, i'd rather kids where trained to use them responsably.

[streakeagle]

It doesn't take guns to kill a lot of people. People determined to take lives will do it by whatever means necessary. Those that plan their attacks and do the most damage frequently use means other than guns anyway.

Think about all the bombings, not even considering the WTC and Oklahoma. Abortion clinics, European discos (Libyan's favorite target to try to get U.S. soldiers stationed there), and anyplace in Israel have all been bombed extensively.

I don't know about other people and their weapons, but I know for sure that my ownership of an AR-15 and an M1911A1 has not ever contributed to any crimes or deaths of any kind. I have a concealed carry permit and carry the M1911A1 as much as possible within the laws.

My state concluded from studies that its decision to support concealed carry has significantly reduced violent crime rates with no incidents arising from misuse of this license (the anti-gun crowd would be waving any such data around like a flag if any had happened). They extended the license from 3 years to 5 years for the same fee to help increase its popularity with citizens.

[Gman]

Tell you what city jim, you turn someone loose who is trained in edged weapons, like say for instance kenjutsu or Aiado, they will kill easily as many people as some tard with a firearm.  You don't need to reload your sword/knife either.

It's a moot point in my book.  I'll even agree that a firearm is a more proficient device for destruction, as you don't see our infantry forces equipped with Gladiuses any longer.  That said, you can't un-invent the wheel, and criminals and evildoers will always can access to the best available tool if they are bent on destruction.  Why not allow, and even encourage the populace to train and equip themselves to counter this potential threat?  What is so scary here?

I live in Canada, a relatively "unfriendly" country when it comes to owning and using guns.  I'm not in the "short barreled" pistol club, nor the 12-5 Prohibited "Assault" weapons category, but take a look at some of the stuff I can legally own and shoot with.  



My theory is that if I can procure these devices, somebody bent on doing harm to others certainly can as well.  I prefer an equal playing field if it ever came to me or any of my family/friends being on the receiving end of that.  It's either that, or a total removal of every gun from society, which is an impossible task.  You'll have more luck trying to get people to treat each other respectfully (lol, ya right) than that.  Before some of my felow Canucks from the West Coast start claiming that this country is "safer", last year the statistics prove that you are just as likely to be the victim of a violent crime or act as you are in many, and arguably all the States in the Union.  Yes, a larger percentage of these assauts are not commited with a gun, when compared to US data, but I really don't care what some crook has in his hand - In my book, anyone with a weapon threatening to use it to hurt the innocent deserves a one way ride to the hospital.   I did a ride along a week and a bit ago with a Cop I work on an executive shooting club board with.  One ten hour shift - 5 stabbings and one shooting at one single location (It was the Black Swan pub if you wish to look it up), and 3 other various assaults, including another knife/home invasion attack.  This is in ONE shift, with ONE unit, in 1/6th the city of Calgary (District 1 PD).  Ya, gun/anticrime laws have done wonders here.  It was a "slow" night as well, so they said.


Sorry to be posting off-topic in regards to the original post RIP- I enjoyed that factoid you posted very much.

[Pongo]

ya you got an even playing field there idiot.
just admit you have a gun fetish and dont try to justify it with any claim of you need a sniper rifle in case the guy attacking you has one. Or you need a car15 incase the guy attacking you pulls that instead. If you feel you need that crap to defend yourself in Canada you have serios probelms. In your head not your neigbourhood. The only thing arsenals like that are used for in canada is murder suicides.
ohhh look out..their coming to get you.

[Gman]

That was fast.

Thanks for the insults by the way, most appreciated, since I've never even talked to you before.

Do I have a gun fetish?  Yep, probably guilty as charged.  I also have a foot fetish as well.  Feel better now?  I don't need to "justify" anything, I was simply stating a point.  I can legally own pretty much anything I want, and will continue to do so indefinetly, no matter what folks like you would want.  The only unfortunate part is so will the criminals.  My point was to show how little effect our supposed "incredibly strict" gun laws have had, when just about anybody can get a hold of what the left wing folks call "assualt weapons" still, be they law abiding citizens, or common thugs.

As for the "only thing guns like that are used for is murder suicides", you just show your ignorance of the statistics.  

I've owned stuff like this since 1990.  There are over 600 members of my shooting club - one of 15 in town - all of whom have larger personal collections than me.  Neither I nor them have embarked on a "murder suicide".  Care to explain perhaps why?

BTW, I work for a Law enforcement supply company, and 99% of my stuff is for demo work.  This stuff all resides in a stand up vault, I have means to use it for self defense, and I rarely think about it.  My points in my earlier posts were hypothetical - it's my opinion that people who want to train with weapons, particualarly for self defense, should be allowed to.

Hey Pongo, ever been to Swtizerland?  Over half of the homes have a lot more firearms than mine for certain, mostly at government expense, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates on the planet, right up there with Japan.  Quelle Dommage!  It must just be a fluke.

[easymo]

Yes. I own guns.  No. I don't like them.  If we could get the same kind of legal set up the British have, I would cheerfully chuck them in the nearest river.

[ispar]

Well, Gman certainly has right to own guns, and to enjoy shoting guns. Another sort of martial art, I guess. Karate isn't illegal, is it? Since it's his right and his perogative, owning them isn't the issue. Justifying the ownership of a pistol, AR-15, sniper rifle, 12-guage and whatever else as self-defense is silly though. I don't have a problem with people that like guns. It is enjoyable and perfectly reasonable to enjoy shooting guns as a hobby. Most people who do it aren't just practicing to shoot people, in self-defense or not. They are practicing a hobby that they enjoy, and they do so safely and legally. Why jump on them like that. Hell, that's one less AR-15 for a madman to get hold of.

So, own ten guns, or twenty or a hundred if you like. Just don't say that you own all those guns for self-defense, because you don't need more than one or two. Neither I nor many others have any problem with someone who enjoys shooting and owning guns, as long as you keep it pointed at a target on a safe range.

Pongo, please get a grip. You aren't helping your side of the issue.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by easymo
Yes. I own guns.  No. I don't like them.  If we could get the same kind of legal set up the British have, I would cheerfully chuck them in the nearest river.

1st step would be to shrink the US down to the size of less than Texas, reduce our pop to equal the brits and give our coppers some funny lookin hats .... guns, a necessary evil for many now a days. Though I've never owned one, besides a C02 bb pistol, if I didn't have kids or lived where one was needed, I'd have the biggest baddest weapon I could handle and the entire neighborhood would know it. Target window shades would add a good touch to my message, have to remember that one

[Gman]

I don't own any firearms for self defence, they are for shooting enjoyment and for my work.

No such thing as a CCW permit up here (actually, there is, but they NEVER issue it, unless you can prove you are in imminent danger - ie you're already dead), so self defence isn't an "approved" argument in this neck of the woods, more is the pity.


My points were hypothetical, as I stated before:  If a criminal has easy access to something they can use against me, or the rest of the general populace, the public should have access to it as well, especially when the gov't shows no signs of making a difference either way.

BTW, if Canada is SO safe, and me thinking that people should be able to defend themselves if they so choose makes me "have a problem in my head, not my neighbourhood", maybe explain the 290,000 VIOLENT criminal acts we have here a year.

Oh, ya, I forgot, the anti-gun/defense people think that statistics only work to prove THEM correct.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/000718/d000718a.htm

Read em and weep.

[ispar]

Hehe, it looks like Canada is getting safer and safer. Maybe I'll move there someday .

Gman, you're welcome of course. What's funny is that even six months ago I would be arguing against you. I've had a slight change in outlook, however. Taking guns away, or restricting ownership would be unconstitutional, and it's not worth the grief. While it makes me a bit nervous that people can pretty easily aquire weapons like AR-15s and sniper rifles, most of the ones that do are safe and responsible. They are not criminals, and are in most cases completely aware of the responsibility that they have to be safe. And while guns are not uncommonly the tools of violent crime, they also have a certain deterrence value to them. While I'm sure that we all hate there was no violent crime in our world, this is not the case. There are plenty of people, like streak, who carry weapons and would never even consider contributing to the violent crime in this country. While it isn't something I'd ever do, which has to do my personal beliefs, ownership of a gun is not a crime, and has been shown to help prevent it.

Yes, you can use a knife as well - against what? You are far more likely to have to use a knife for personal defense than a gun. The gun wins hands down. Besides, bladed weapons are heavily restricted as well. I don't know about other states, but it is illegal in Massachusetts to carry any double edged blade, or any that is more than five or six inches in length. Anything longer must be dulled.

As much as I didn't like to admit it at first, the pro second amendment side of the debate has a lot more common sense going for it. Most pro gun control arguments are based on hysteria and fear of guns, rather than the people who use them irresponsibly, illegaly, or lethaly.

[Thrawn]

Oh, ya, I forgot, the anti-gun/defense people think that statistics only work to prove THEM correct.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/000718/d000718a.htm

Read em and weep.

I looked at the stats, I'm not weeping.  Crime has gone down since mandatory gun registration.  heheh


What do you see in the stats?

[Toad]

Another Second Amendment Debate? Kewl!

I would like to say this about that:

The 2nd Amendment

and furthermore,

A Parody

not to mention

"Guns, the other side ", O-Club, 10-05-2000 (Sorry this and the next 2 no longer seem to have a thread ID number... you will have to find them by title and date.)

Of course, there is this one, which I am sure the Canadians will remember although it may be getting a bit out of date:

"Registered Perfection In Canada", O-Club, 10-13-2000

Wouldn't want to forget this one either:

"Of Cars and Guns and the Nature of Man (quite long)", O-Club, 10-04-2000  

So, like Forrest Gump... "that's all I have to say about that!"

(Except that for some of us, this is WELL-PLOWED ground. )

Enjoy!

[Toad]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Is this where I'll find the 2nd Amendment wackos? Been lookin all And PLEASE don't tell me the constitution guarantees your right to a gun.

I think I found three guys that WILL tell you that.

Check this link:

United States vs Emerson

VII. Conclusion...

...We agree with the district court that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller, regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia."

I'll let you argue with them though. Their opinion is a little more important than mine... because these three guys are presiding justices over the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

They probably know that law and Constitution stuff a little better than I do.  

[midnight Target]

Thanks for the article on the 5th district's decision Toad. I actually read it. It is very clear that this decision is a one-of and actually by many acounts (within that same article) is at odds with the Supreme Courts ruling in Miller. I would love to see if this one gets reviewed by the Supreme Court.

In US vs. Miller the SC said:

 
First, it contends that the right secured by the Second Amendment is "only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state." Id. at 15. This, in essence, is the sophisticated collective rights model.

The second of the government's two arguments in Miller is reflected by the following passage from its brief:

"While some courts have said that the right to bear arms includes the right of the individual to have them for the protection of his person and property as well as the right of the people to bear them collectively (People v. Brown, 253 Mich. 537; State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455), the cases are unanimous in holding that the term "arms" as used in constitutional provisions refers only to those weapons which are ordinarily used for military or public defense purposes and does not relate to those weapons which are commonly used by criminals. Thus in Aymette v. State [2 Humph., Tenn. 154 (1840)], supra, it was said (p. 158):

'As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin. These weapons would be useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and bear them, is not, therefore, secured by the constitution.'" (Id. at 18-19).(16)

All this is from the same page as cited by Toad.
Well........what could be more clear?

[Ripsnort]

Back to the thread guys...the story: Gun owner pulls a weapon on the bad guy, thus saving many more lives...media doesn't report the fact that the bad guy was overpowered by a licensed fire arm owner. Is it media bias?