Madison riots

[AKDejaVu]

Originally posted by beet1e
Let me repeat the question - What point am I supposed to be exaggerating?

The whole point.  Americans own guns in spite of the inherant dangers.  

Do you own a car?  What about its inherant dangers?  What is most likely to kill someone... a car or a gun?  Wouldn't that equate to a gun being easier to keep/use in a safe manner than a car?

There are dangers with owning firearms.  Nobody can contest that.  There are also dangers with owning knives, razors, lawnmowers, farm equipment, high chairs, rocking chairs and virtually any other household item including the house.

Just one quick question for the perrils of firearms crowd... can someone show a statistic indicating the average age at death from Australia, the U.S. and the U.K. ?  Can someone also get it with a breakdown that includes auto accidents, death to cancer, hear attack and etc?

Nah.. nobody really wants to do that when they can inflate specific numbers all on their own.

AKDejaVu

[beet1e]

AKDejaVu

No need to get all willied.  I know you guys have run out of puff, but there's no need mess your pants about it. I own 2 cars.

There are dangers with owning firearms. Nobody can contest that. There are also dangers with owning knives, razors, lawnmowers, farm equipment, high chairs, rocking chairs and virtually any other household item including the house.

And the reason we have to keep going over it is that all those items of equipment are designed for a useful purpose. A gun is designed to kill. People are fond of citing target practice as a legitimate purpose, but that need not involve large calibre weapons. Besides...

... I don't see thousands of people getting killed by lawnmowers and rocking chairs. But true - thousands of people are killed in vehicle accidents. Here, that total is well down since 1983 because of mandatory wearing of seatbelts, airbags, safer cars.

Never heard of anyone being injured or killed by pumping their own gas - LOL!  

[beet1e]

Forgot to say - you're more likely to be killed by a car in Britain - because the vast majority of people have never seen a real gun, never mind owned one. There are lots of cars, but hardly any guns.

When I buy a car, I have in mind a set purpose for it - transport. I know it can be used as a killing device, but that is not what goes through my mind at time of purchase. But someone who buys a gun - maybe the only thing they're thinking about is how well it can kill. Big difference.

Just waiting for Mr. Toad to return, and I will prove that most guns are never used. See you in the ANTI-GUN thread later on.

[AKDejaVu]

Originally posted by beet1e
No need to get all willied.

Ummm... I fail to see where this comes from.  willied eh?  Sorry, but that is not the case.  Why.. is that your goal?

I know you guys have run out of puff, but there's no need mess your pants about it. I own 2 cars.  And the reason we have to keep going over it is that all those items of equipment are designed for a useful purpose. A gun is designed to kill. People are fond of citing target practice as a legitimate purpose, but that need not involve large calibre weapons. Besides...

Ah.. the "useful purpose" argument.  Hey... are swords outlawed in the UK too?

Weapons have surved a usefull purpose in the U.S. as recently as 1776... a point most brits are still somewhat sore about.

As long as military forces still have weapons, they will continue to have a usefull purpose... even in the hands of private citizens.  For some reason, you don't quite realize this.  That's OK.  But when Brittain was proliferating the "empire" they sure saw the need for them.  I suppose every country that they occupied was better off for not being allowed to have weapons themselves.

The armed of the world will continually take advantage of the disarmed.  Brittain has proven that, Europe has proven that... everyone has proven that over history.  The U.S. was founded on the principle of not segregating between who is and is not allowed to be armed.  The fact that guns already existed meant that they were necessary to defend against them... or those that had them.

... I don't see thousands of people getting killed by lawnmowers and rocking chairs. But true - thousands of people are killed in vehicle accidents. Here, that total is well down since 1983 because of mandatory wearing of seatbelts, airbags, safer cars.

I highly supsect you didn't "hear" about these things because you haven't "listened" for them.  I also note you left out farm equipment there too.

Never heard of anyone being injured or killed by pumping their own gas - LOL!  

Erm.. I didn't bring this up... but if you haven't heard of anyone getting injured pumping gass then I suppose you are just plain obtuse.  Nope... no fuel splashing in eyes... no issues with fuel vapors... no real reason they put up "no smoking" signs at gas stations.  Nah... no real danger inherant to handling a low flashpoint chemistry on a regular basis.

Besides... I've never heard of safety being an issue in regards to any ballot measures on the subject.  Its always about cost.  But then, I didn't really expect you to have any actuall knowledge on the subject... much like the rest of your posts.

AKDejaVu

[beet1e]

LOL Deja Vu!  You are willied!

[Kieran]

I think you greatly exaggerate the peril to our citizenry. I think far more people are killed every year in America by cars than by firearms. I think the real peril of firearms comes from people that possess the weapons who are using them to forward an illegal agenda, and absent the firearms would use other means to enforce their desires.

What I can't think of is why you are carrying on as if you have a personal stake in the whole deal. And, if you happened to see any billboards in America that stated "Great Britain: send more nannies, please!" they were in error.

[lazs2]

wait a minute...  No one has yet proved that getting rid of firearms completely in the U.S. would lower the homicide rate in the least.   even IF it were possible to magicly rid the country of firearms.   firearms accidents would of course be elliminated but probly 90% of the people invbolved in firearms accidents are and accident waiting to happen in any case... and firearms accidents are very small and going down every year.

No one has proved that we would be safer without guns.  In fact... the oppossite has been proven so far as I can see..  the states with the most armed citezens have the least crime.

spook is simply a preachy windbag justifying his lameo lack of courage and inability to absorb real data by sputing an endless and meaningless wall o words that can all be boiled down to (and I paraprase several thousand words)"I don't know anything about the subject but since I feel the way I do I must be right and don't you dare go spouting off facts at me".

beetle simply feels that if it isn't british it is probly wrong.   He wants to 'help" us be more british.   He is simply misguided and patriotic.  He lives in a country where his 'bobbies" are now going around in body armor with Mp5 machine guns.   and he still doesn't get it.   Why do they need to defend themselves?   Certainly some danger exixts.... no doubt it will grow.

Not one person has refuted effectively the fact that firearms are a deterent to every type of tyranny.   This makes them worth the price of addmission to most but... above that... Killings are prevented using firearms.   More crime is stopped with firearms than is commited.   Firearms give the weak and the infirm a fighting chance.   I would say that simply because the "need" is not imediate does not mean that it is never possible.   Let each decide on it for themselves.    

Finally.... yeah... no need for suv's or hot rods or motorcycles or old cars or ultralight's or whatever.... in the U.S. we have a lot of freedom of choice.... A lot of variety... It isn't allways good for us but.... we prefer it.   In england I was struck by..... sameness... everythign and everywhere was sameness..  compared to here there simply wasn't a lot of choice in anything except maybe "pubs".   I don't want that for here.
lazs

[beet1e]

Kieran - look further up the thread to where I said about cars having a separate purpose - transport, whereas guns are designed to kill.

Lazs - Mr. Toad made a very good point a few days ago. Given that US gun homcides are 50 times as numerous (per 100,000 pop.) as they are here, homicides by other means are less in such a way that overall homicides in the US are nowhere near 50 times higher than they are here. So yes, it would seem that murderers here do indeed resort to other instruments of homicide in the absence of guns. A hand gun just makes it so much easier. You can shoot someone through a door, or a wall in the case of your 44 Magnum. With a shrap implement, you can't. And you have to get very close. And because of handguns, the overall US homicide rate is about 5 times what it is here.

You almost made a good point in your first paragraph: If guns were elminated, there would be no firearms homicides! I know we can't achieve that, for a number of reasons. And it's highly possible that various governments have banned guns because they don't want to see their country become like America with regard to gun homicides.

The weak and infirm probably could not hold a gun steady to get off a good shot. Here, the weak and infirm (in my village - and therefore much of England, given the "sameness") have security in that no-one around here has a gun.

Heckler & Koch MP5? Is that what our airport bobbies have? Hehe Lazs - I have said all along that the Police should be given all necessary means to carry out their duties. It's the privately owned weapons that worry me - and not in the hands of guys like you. I know you're not a racist, and besides, you're a cat lover. So you should be safe enough. No, it's not you guys having guns that worries me so much as Joe avacado with an IQ of 25 having one. By all means, arm the Police. Gawd, have we been arguing all this time under false pretences? The trouble is, how do your gun licensing authorities distinguish between a responsible owner and a avacado? Just look at GTO's driving thread. GTO does a safe 50 in rain, but with other people doing 70-80 nose to tail. Dangerous enough, but a similar cavalier attitude with guns has potentially disastrous consequences.

Why do you think there's a liquor store or a gun store on every corner in this neighborhood? Cos they want us to kill ourselves, that's why.

[/COLOR] - Furious Styles, played by Larry Fishburne in "Boyz n the Hood".[/size]

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by lazs2
Not one person has refuted effectively the fact that firearms are a deterent to every type of tyranny.

[/b]
Maybe in the 18th century, but since then an armed militia (citizens with guns) have a life expectancy fully comparable to  stillborn sheep if in a combat situation against a regular army force.

[AKDejaVu]

Originally posted by Hortlund

Maybe in the 18th century, but since then an armed militia (citizens with guns) have a life expectancy fully comparable to  stillborn sheep if in a combat situation against a regular army force. [/B]

The Vietnamese and Afghani would debate this to some extent... as would the Georgians.

Armed citizens have proven themselves to be the biggest obstacle for any invading force.

AKDejaVu

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by AKDejaVu
The Vietnamese and Afghani would debate this to some extent... as would the Georgians.

Armed citizens have proven themselves to be the biggest obstacle for any invading force.

AKDejaVu

ah yes...so Deja, the Vietnamese and Afghani...tell me, did they have any larger weapons than handguns?

[J_A_B]

"Im asking why you believe the risk acceptable."

Because, in real terms, it's a very small risk that's only slightly higher than the risk of living in your country.   Look at gun-related deaths compared to traffic accidents sometime.  Gun violence simply isn't a big problem outside a few large urban areas, so there's no need to completely remove them from society.  

Where I live, more people get struck by lightning on a yearly basis than get killed by guns.  If you think that the USA is like a war zone with hundreds of people being killed by the gun-wielding hordes on a daily basis, then you're badly mistaken.  

The only places where gun violence is a bad problem is in certain select urban areas, and in this case banning guns would do nothing to help the problem since gangs and criminals don't tend to obey the laws anyway and our huge land borders make it easy to smuggle stuff in.

So, to sum it up, we as a nation find the risk acceptable because it's a tiny risk.


"Is it really worth hanging on to an 18th century anachronism in the name of freedom, but at the expense of thousands of lives each year? "

Our 2nd amendment is no more an anachronism than freedom of speech or due process is.  It may no longer have the importance it once had, but firearms are still a very real, relevant issue in today's world.   The parts of the Constitution that really are anachronisms have been changed/removed (things like only permitting white men to vote, not being able to directly elect Senators, stuff like that is all gone).    Our system of government is not rigid; it changes with the times.

As for why we can accept a certain number of unfortunate tradegies....I think I answered that above.  In real terms the risk is very very small.


"And because of handguns, the overall US homicide rate is about 5 times what it is here. "

While this is technically accurate, it also makes the problem seem worse than it really is--remember than in BOTH countries the homicide rate is but a small fraction of 1%.  We both live in generally safe countries, and we're both far more likely to die in a traffic accident than become a victim of gun violence.  It's just not the problem you make it out to be.

Rather than a blanket ban for the entire country (a ban that the criminals could and would easily bypass), wouldn't it be better to try to deal with the guns in the areas where they really ARE a big problem?

J_A_B

[beet1e]

Hey J_A_B - excellent post!  I'm sorry you didn't join in sooner. We could have had this wrapped up last week!

OK, just a few things...

Where I live, more people get struck by lightning on a yearly basis than get killed by guns. If you think that the USA is like a war zone with hundreds of people being killed by the gun-wielding hordes on a daily basis, then you're badly mistaken.

No, never thought it was a war zone - absolutely not, which is why I was surprised at all the folks needing (or at least wanting) guns. I never felt that need, and when I was there the handgun homicides alone we into five figures.

Where I live, more people get struck by lightning on a yearly basis than get killed by guns.

Well, it's beginning to look like there are some very bad pockets of gun homicide. I always knew that the white middle class areas were safe, so for all those thousands of gun deaths each year, are you saying that the vast majority occur in ghettos? Certainly, Washington DC has an enormously high homicide rate. But I don't see more privately owned guns solving it. Which is what I meant when I said, in the anti-gun thread

Crime hotspot in a particular troublesome area of Los Angeles? Perceived solution: Arm all Californians, from Crescent City to San Diego. Better solution: Understand the problems involved, and give law enforcement the resources they need to apply their expertise to contain the problem in the areas where it exists.

Yes, allow law enforcement to tackle the problems in the areas where it exists.

Just had an email from an American friend in VT. This is what he said...

Hi, Alan.  Good to  hear from you.
 
I used to, a long time ago, keep a Ruger 22 caliber pistol in the house for protection. I got rid of in about 20 years ago.
 
The reason is that most people who keep a gun for protection end up shooting someone they didn't want to or end up having the gun used against them by the perpetrator.
 
I'm just not trained to handle a weapon in a confrontational situation. I don't feel I need to be either. At least not yet.
 
Based on this, keeping the pistol around was more of a danger to me and my family than a protection. When my son went off the deep end there for a few years, I was really glad I had nothing like that around the house.
 
I now have a 12 gauge shot gun for hunting. I hope to be able to bag a couple geese this fall and see if I like the flavor of wild game. If I end up not liking it, then I will probably sell the gun as a waste of money to have around. I've had it for a year and never even loaded a shell into it.
 
We would love to see you if you get a chance to come over. Hopefully, Sadam will disarm and not force a war and you can travel next year.
 
From what I've read about various analysts statements about the terms of the resolution, it seems unlikely he will comply.  It seems that President Bush really wants to go in and remove Sadam, in any case.
 
Scary times.  

[Kieran]

It's the privately owned weapons that worry me

Why?

You

don't

live

here.


Other than the fact you continue to ignore my point, my calls to clarify your specific concern for us as it relates to you, and your single-minded pursuit to only acknowledge evidence that supports your viewpoint, I'd say you're doing well.

You don't understand Americans- you've made that point abundantly clear. Ditto your understanding of America in general. I don't care what cars are designed for, guns, or the molding on my landscaping. It's my right to choose whether or not I own any of them, and it is NOT my right to tell my neighbors whether or not THEY should own them.

I never said I NEED guns. It is enough I want them, or at least the right to get one if I should NEED one. Situations change, you see, and I might find myself in the condition of needing one.

So your friend in Vermont has a son who is a nut? This makes your case for handguns being dangerous? Try harder... much harder. Even if your friend's son goes tower sniper, he isn't going to get more than a dozen or so before he is taken out. Ask Lazs to come up with rebutting stories of people that saved their lives by having a gun handy. Bet he can come up with more than you can.

Damn, the more you type, the more you sound like Barbara Streisand.

[lazs2]

hortlund... tyranny is thugs doing strongarm crime also.

beetle..  without guns it is arguable that the homicide rate would increase given the fact that over a million crimes a year are stopped with firearms in the states.   The deterent effect cannot be downplayed either...   say it is a wash.. i don't care... say it would be slightly better without guns?  I find that hard to believe in light of the data that proves that states with more guns have less crime.   but... even if so... a few more dead thugs a year doesn't bother me in the least.    

Infirm and old unable to use a firearm?   LOL... you really don't know much about guns do you?  My 21 year old daughter can empty my custom 4" ruger in 44 mag... double action shooting in abourt 3 sec and put all the rounds into the K5 zone at 15 feet no problem.   she is 5'3" and about 120 lbs.   My 97 year old grandfather can empty his 45 into a K5 at twice that distance.   Neither of them would be much of a fight for a 200 lb attacker tho without the firearm.  

wake up... it's not just at airports that your cops are armed and they are armed cause it's getting ugly out there.   guns don't increase homicides so much as crime increases the need for guns.  besides... like I said... edged weapons give me the creeps.

Who cares how often or even if a person ever uses a firearm... It is his choice.   How often does a person really use a seat belt or an airbag?    I would say that firearms have saved more lives than airbags.  

disarm yourself if you wish.  Chances are.... you may never live long enough to regret it.  I hope so.   I have used my guns.  i have no idea how the situation would have turned out otherwise.  Don't even really care.  

Now why don't you run along... read the book I suggested and then when you come back... get onto something new... Maybe you can show the germans on the board how to save lives by putting a speed limit on the autobaun.
lazs