Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on October 04, 2000, 05:35:00 PM
-
Well, yet again some keep trying to blame inanimate objects for the actions of the human beings that use those objects. Thus we get the old, tired “Guns were designed to kill. Guns kill. We must get rid of guns.” argument.
Here’s one of my “hot button” issues. Death by automobile.
Autos obviously were not designed to kill, but they are just as efficient at it as guns, if not more so. Is the automobile then held accountable? Are there cries for confiscation and destruction of all automobiles? No, of course not.
Why is that? Because in this case, society is willing to accept the deaths of even larger number of individuals in exchange for being able to travel 60 miles in one hour to go see a sporting event or run down to the 7-11 for a gallon of milk. This great “boon” to humanity makes the cost in human life acceptable, even commonplace and unremarkable, if theoretically unavoidable.
Guns do not have the same universal acceptance as a necessary part of society that automobiles enjoy. Thus, despite specific and inescapably clear language to the contrary in the Constitution, some feel that it would be fine to deprive others of the right to own and use firearms in a lawful manner.
Let’s look at some numbers and compare them to what Leonid posted about gun statistics in 1997: (Auto numbers from Mothers Against Drunk Driving and US DOT websites)
Privately owned US firearms: @ 192 million
Registered US Autos & Light Trucks: 198,755,638...amazingly close, eh? Call it 199 million.
US Gun deaths: 32,436
US Vehicle deaths: 41,967
Deaths per Gun: .00016
Deaths per Vehicle: .00021
While the gross number of deaths are considered “high” in both cases, the percentages are extremely low. Clearly this shows that MOST guns and MOST cars are NOT involved in killing people.
Guns kill more than 11 children and teenagers, ages 19 and under, every day.
During a typical weekend, an average of one teenager dies each hour in a car crash..
Traffic crashes are the major cause of death for children in the age group 0-14.
More than 35% of all 16-to-20 year-old deaths result from motor vehicle crashes.
Children younger than 13 represented 19 percent of the U.S. population in 1994 and six percent of all motor vehicle deaths. Child deaths have represented about this percentage of vehicle deaths since the early 80's.
Direct medical costs for firearm injuries was $4 billion in 1997. Additional indirect costs, such as lost potential earnings, were estimated at $19 billion.
Medical costs for 1993 traffic crash injuries were approximately $22 billion..
In 1994, the mean direct medical cost per gunshot injury was approximately $17,000, much of which was paid by U.S. taxpayers.
Over 25 percent of the first year medical costs for persons hospitalized as a result of a crash are paid by tax dollars, about two-thirds through Medicaid and one third through Medicare.
One could go on and on with these minor comparisons but it should be obvious that the loss of life, injury and economic costs associated with both of these inanimate objects is very similar.
The key factor is that BOTH of these inanimate classes of device are totally harmless until a human being takes control of the object.
What or who shall control the human being? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
This brings me to what I consider the most important fact. What happens when the automobile is used in a criminal manner? Specifically, let’s look at “drunk driving”.
I consider DUI a totally criminal act, no different than firing a gun into a crowd. You may or may not kill someone but the result depends entirely upon chance. DUI IS violent crime.
During the period 1982 through 1999, approximately 349,472 persons lost their lives in alcohol-related traffic crashes. (NHTSA, 1999)
In 1997 there were 41,967 traffic fatalities and of these 16,189 were alcohol related fatalities. In other words, 38.6% of all traffic deaths were alcohol related.
In 1998 15,935 people were killed in alcohol-related traffic crashes---an average of one every 33 minutes.
In 1998 about 630,000 were injured in alcohol-related crashes-an average of one person injured approximately every minute.
Estimates are that 2,104 persons aged 16-20 died in alcohol-related crashes in 1998. (NHTSA, 1999)
Alcohol-related crashes cost society $45 billion, yet this conservative estimate does not include pain, suffering and lost quality of life. These indirect costs raise the alcohol-related crash figure to a staggering $116 billion in 1993. (Miller et al, 1996b)
A drunk driving crash costs innocent victims $26,000. Comparable crime costs per victim: assault-$19,000; robbery-$13,000; motor vehicle theft-$4,000. Yet, the drunk driving crash is the only one of these crimes that is often not a felony for the first offense. (Miller et al, 1996a, 1996b)
Significant statistics that indicate DUI is a major problem? I think so.
Are you amazed that NOT ONE SINGLE STATE in the entire US classifies a DUI as felony on the first offense?
Yes, you can be driving a 3000 pound bullet around at 60 miles an hour (go figure your muzzle energy on THAT one!) in a totally intoxicated state and simply be guilty of a misdemeanor.
In just 4 states is a Second Offense considered a felony and those have time limitations on them. In all, just 23 States consider DUI a felony offense and most of those only apply to 3rd or 4th violations.
How can all this be? All of those things...except one...that people propose to lower firearm accidents have ALREADY been done in the case of automobiles accidents.
There is a minimum age limit for getting a driver’s license.
There is required training and both written and practical testing that a prospective driver must successfully complete before taking to the road.
Cars themselves are registered and licensed.
Purchases and transfers of cars from one owner to another are closely monitored, recorded and regulated.
New safety devices have been mandated, from seat belts to air bags.
New improvements have been offered by manufacturers, from anti-lock brakes to night vision devices.
None of these has had any effect on automobile deaths and PARTICULARLY not on alcohol related automobile deaths. The death rate has remained essentially constant.
The only thing left is to confiscate all the cars, right? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
No, this simply brings us to the HEART OF THE MATTER. Only when a human being gets behind the wheel does a car become a threat.
....and a human is the GREATEST threat when he/she breaks the law no matter what inanimate object they are controlling.
...and the ONLY way you are ever going to bring this problem under control is to DEMAND Responsibility and Accountabilty from those who would abuse the privilege of driving. In other words, you must prosecute the criminals. Tough concept, eh?
Where is the outrage? Where are the cries to reform automobile design/usage/ownership/privileges and lower the death toll? Where is the groundswell of support for MADD against DUI drivers? Where is the determination to stop DUI drivers?
Now, shall we punish ALL DRIVERS for the criminal actions of the few?
No, no one supports that. In fact, it is ridiculous; lucicrous. Yet that is EXACTLY the solution proposed by the anti-gun forces.
Once again, it boils down to two things. Responsibility. Accountability.
Each person must be responsible for their own actions.
Society must hold people accountable for their actions.
US society has been moving away from this concept since the late ‘60’s.
You can be caught driving DUI in Leonid’s State of Washington and NEVER be convicted of a Felony. Because in Washington, it ISN’T a Felony no matter what your blood alcohol level may be; it’s just a misdemeanor. In 1997, 676 citizens of Washington died in traffic fatalities. 44.4% of those (300) were alcohol related fatalities. Nearly 50 % of those killed were killed by drivers BREAKING THE LAW.
This despite the fact that the Washington State Patrol issued 16,629 citations for DUI. Would making DUI a Felony in Washington and coupling that to a mandatory prison sentence save a few lives? I bet that it would. If those 16,000+ folks that got DUI citations from the WSP had spent 6+ months in prison I bet the number of folks DUI would drop dramatically. As an inescapable result, traffic fatalities would drop as well.
Is there ANY evidence that suggest holding criminals accountable for their actions would result in LESS crime?
Well, suprisingly enough, let's look to the "gun problem" for a hint.
Holding criminals accountable WORKS. Speculation? No, there is supporting evidence from Project Exile in Richmond, VA.
http://www.vahv.org/Exile/Richmond/RchBody.html (http://www.vahv.org/Exile/Richmond/RchBody.html)
The site is worth considerable study, including the links, but here is the “quick and dirty”.
“Project Exile is an expedited federal prosecutive effort by the United States Attorney's Office, in coordination with the Richmond Commonwealth's Attorney's Office and Police Department, to combat Richmond's escalating problem of gun violence. The project has made significant strides since it began on February 28, 1997 against the problem, but reducing gun violence requires a coordinated community response insure continued success...
Project Exile is named for the idea that if the police catch a criminal in Richmond with a gun in a crime, the criminal has forfeited his right to remain in this community, the criminal will face immediate federal prosecution and stiff mandatory federal prison sentences (often five to ten years), and will be "exiled" to federal prison for five+ years. The rule is simply, "No Guns." In the project, the United States Attorney's Office prosecutes all felons with guns, guns in drug trafficking, and gun/domestic violence cases in federal court. No limits are placed regarding numbers of weapons or quantities of drugs involved. When a police officer finds a gun during the officer's duties, the officer pages an A.T.F. agent (24 hours a day). They review the circumstances and determine whether a federal statute applies. If so, federal criminal prosecution is initiated....”
Has it worked? Absolutely! So much so that a similar project, Cease Fire, was tried in Philadelphia with similar results. Check this out:
http://www.cpcn.com/articles/040600/cs.coverstory1.shtml (http://www.cpcn.com/articles/040600/cs.coverstory1.shtml)
“For instance, Maryland passed a one-gun-a-month law in 1995. While the number of legally sold guns has declined, the state’s largest city, Baltimore, continues to have a staggering murder rate almost twice as high as Philadelphia’s. Maryland’s law was based on Virginia’s one-gun-a-month statute, which passed in 1993. Subsequent studies showed that while that flow of illegal guns exported from Virginia to other states had been curtailed, urban gun crime was unaffected. In fact, the homicide rate in the state capital of Richmond rocketed to its highest level ever one year after one-gun-a-month passed.
Richmond, then, is arguably the best case of how gun law enforcement has succeeded where gun-control laws have failed. A city of just 203,000 people, Richmond is one-seventh the size of Philadelphia. Its ghettos are not nearly so large nor so desperate as Philadelphia’s, but for its size, Richmond is a far more violent place. Particularly in the impoverished, largely African-American sections of Richmond, gun violence was out of control for much of the 1990s. By 1996, with a homicide toll of 140, Richmond’s murder rate was among the 10 highest in urban America — more than twice as high as Philadelphia’s and five times higher than New York City’s.
Hundreds of felons with guns were indicted during Exile’s first year alone, and by the middle of 1998, Richmond’s overall violent crime had fallen 60 percent. ...There have also been only 11 murders in Richmond in the first quarter of the year, compared with 20 killings by March 31 a year ago. If the first-quarter rate holds up over the entire year (like it did in 1999), Richmond will have its lowest murder rate since 1970.”
Is it going to work in Philadelphia? Yes, it looks like it will.
“Since January 1999, the federally funded Operation Cease Fire program has hauled more than 300 of Philadelphia’s most egregious gun offenders off the streets and into federal court. In 1999 alone, gun possession indictments by the U.S. Attorney’s Office here more than quintupled from 1998. Out of 173 gun cases disposed of, only one defendant was acquitted, while 149 others simply pleaded guilty and went straight to federal prison.
Philadelphia’s rates of shootings and killings have been dropping steadily since Cease Fire’s launch 15 months ago. And although no one can be certain what role Cease Fire has played in making the city a safer place, it’s hard to imagine how so many dangerous characters could be put out of action without making some impact on crime. The only other program in the country like Cease Fire — Richmond, Virginia’s three-year-old Project Exile — has been widely credited with helping cut that city’s murder rate almost in half.”
Take the guns away from the CRIMINALS! Oh, what a concept!
Put DUI drivers IN JAIL! (They sure won't ram a 80 MPH Chevy into anyone in there!)
Leave the law-abiding folks alone! ANOTHER great concept! And totally in accordance with the spirit that led to the foundation of the US....and that pesky Constitution!
-
Guns are designed to kill, be it humans beings or not. Cars are not. Cars are very rarely used to murder someone. Guns are frequently used. Driving a car has restrictions, laws and regulations bound by both the criminal code and state law. The ownership of guns is much more flexable, sad but true.
What is the obsession with guns? Why do people feel they are no longer safe without them?? It is the very fact that everyone has them due to their insecurity and lack of education that makes it so dangerous.
A rife for hunting? Fine, although I don't agree with the concept of hunting for sport, I have no problem with this considering most hunters are educated enough to comprehend the potential danger with their firearms.
Why own a handgun if not for the specific purpose of using it on another human being? It is therefore obvious, or should be, that the responsiblity of owning handguns is much larger than a lot of people are aware of. Serious regulations should be set in place to regulate the number of handguns in the public, and only those qualified to own such weapons should take on the responsibility. Passing a law to regulate gun ownership does not violate your right to bear arms.
I'm not saying we should outlaw guns. The flow and quantity of guns is only one factor of this very serious problem. The other factor is lack of education and personable responsibility and accountablity.
Once again, I ask this question.
Will more people die if gun ownership is seriously regulated? If you answer no, then is that not a good enough reason to regulate??
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
I'm sick of guns and discussing them. But...
I read this argument a couple of months ago. Perhaps without relaxed gun laws Lennon would not have died. Sure, that nutter would have tried to kill him anyway, say with a knife. But a knife wound is often not as critical as gunshot wound. Reason I say this, is that someone tried to kill Harrison last year in the UK - they used a knife (since getting a gun if your an average person is very difficult). Despite multiple stab wounds he survived. In the States, I'm sure a gun would have been used instead of a knife - perhaps the result would have been different.
Have fun guys (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 10-04-2000).]
-
Dowding, unlike your Kingdom, our Union does not consider the welfare of the Beatles when enacting legislation. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Toad if you ever run for President you've got my vote, and I'll badger all my friends into voting for you too.
Great post, and it does a great job at showing how society loves to run a double standard.
Igloo: you have TOTALLY missed the point of Toad's post. He's not talking about what cars and guns were designed for. Read the first paragraph of the post again.
Well, yet again some keep trying to blame inanimate objects for the actions of the human beings that use those objects. Thus we get the old, tired “Guns were designed to kill. Guns kill. We must get rid of guns.” argument.
He points out that people blame inanimate objects so they dinnae have to take responsibility for thier own actions before he even mentions guns. A gun is an inanimate object, nothing more than metal and wood or plastic. A car is an inanimate object, nothing more than metal, plastic, rubber, and whatever else they use to build them these days.
Sit in your car, keys OUT of the ignition switch, and command your car to start up and drive you somewhere. You'll look like an idiot. Put your key in the switch, start the engine, put the car in gear. You have just taken control of an inanimate object that has much more lethal potential than any gun ever made.
Get a gun (please make sure it's unloaded, ask a friend for help if you're not versed in safe firearm handling) and put it on the table. Command it to fire and kill the neighbors dog that barks all night keeping you up. Hell yell racial slurs at it, tell it it's momma was a toaster etc. You'll look like an idiot for giving commands to inanimate object. Now pick up the gun (or have your friend do it if needed). You have just taken control of an inanimate object that has lethal potential.
The key here is the person. A human being. Without a human being neither the car nor the gun can do any damage (nor any good for that matter). A person must employ the inanimate object before it can become a major threat.
Accidents can happen, which is why you take responsibility to do everything you can to prevent them.
A loaded gun in the closet could be grabbed the wrong way and go off, possibly killing someone. Unload the gun before storage, something any responsible owner will do.
A car's parking brake can fail, allowing the car to roll down a hill and crash into someone's house, possibly killing someone. Leave the car in gear along with the parking brake, and turn the wheels toward the curb. Next time you're driving on a hill look at the cars parallel parked and see how many actually have thier wheels turned so the car will roll against the curb. Maybe 1 in 4 are turned. I see it every day where I live, and 1 in 4 is being extremely gracious and optimistic about it. By the way, this situation really happened. At a BBQ at a friend's house, all of a sudden an empty F-150 pickup comes barrelling down the hill and right into the neighbor's living room. If anyone had been sitting on the couch watching TV they'd have been dead. Another time a woman thought she had her truck in reverse when it was in drive. She gunned the gas (not thinking about why could be holding the truck (the curb)) and ended up parked in her living room, right through a brick wall. We arrived right after it happened.
Igloo you're the kind of person who scares me. You're defending the drunk driver's rights to have his lethal weapon because cars aren't designed to kill. At the same time you seem to imply that I should give up my guns, even though I am a trained, responsible gun owner. I even have license to carry concealed, and let me tell you from experience that you have to jump through many more, smaller hoops to get this than you do to go buy a car.
Someone convicted of DUI can go out and buy a car the day after they get out of jail.
Someone convicted of any felony will be laughed and told to go away if they try for license to carry. Sure, they can go out and buy a gun illegally, but this comes back to dealing with a living, breathing human being (and all of thier wants/desires/thoughts). NOT with some kind of law that will punish me because I followed the rules.
-
In the United States the police consider your car a lethal weapon, and should you attempt to use it as such (ram a cop car) they will shoot you dead. Of course, the police can ram your car with their car and it isnt using lethal force (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The police chief in South Bend, Indiana USA rammed a parked car in town this year. He was drunk, but the good old boys in blue took him to an uncertified testing facility, so his results were inadmissable as evidence. Meanwhile the people he hit were so badly injured that they were on feeding tubes for some time. Strange thing though, they were taken to proper testing facilities and given a complete rundown of tests for drugs (alcohol is included in the term drugs) even though they were parked and the car was off.
I agree with Toad, lets get cars off the streets, only cops can handle them properly! And when they can't they just work the system. Same for guns, only they can handle that responsibilty, and when they can't, work the system buddy.
As for you Brits, Tony Martin is still in prison, in isolation now that other inmates tried to set him on fire. A farmer who defended his home from a burgler? Yeah, he should have used a knife I guess. Then Peter Viggers supports the farmer, says publicly that people should be able to defend their property, and some constable tries to get his shotgun taken away? I am Pretty sure there was a good reason we shook off English rule, and World Wars aside, those reasons are still damn good ones today.
Great post Toad, clear, concise arguements and the point is well made.
Wrench
-
The thing is; cars are a necessity, a necessary evil if you will (or have become). US driver education and stats are quite poor compared to some other nations. Also not factored in is the Deaths per Unit Time Used. Or intentional deaths by cars/guns.
Other nations have shown that guns really aren't a necessity. Cars have grown on us and without thm, we'd suffer at least an initial economical setback.
Also, at least here, you have to get a driver's license before you can take it for a spin legally. A rather lengthy and very expensive thing compared to the US, yet with guns; sign up, wait a week or two get it out. It's my humble opinion that if you need a license for cars, guns should require a license too - some basic training and if a person is not suited, no license.
Which is the crux of the problem, since in the US, guns are a right, not a priviledge. In other words, there's no way of denying a person to own a gun. Provided he has no criminal record.
That brings up a question; if it is a basic right to own a gun, how can it be taken away if you have a criminal record and have paid your time in jail for comitting a crime? Again, as soon as the time's paid up, I'd think that since they've paid their dues, even criminals are to be considered normal citizens with the same rights as anyone else. (well, this is an argument out from an ideal, rather than practical reality). It's sort of akin to saying "you were once in debt, and therefore, you will always be in debt even after you've paid it. With that in mind, we're revoking your freedom of speech. Thank you, and shut up".
I say go the full length, whatever your choice is. Stop the hypocricy.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://voices.vossnet.co.uk/t/toles/9jg54.gif)
-
Toad <S> - another excellent post.
I am curious about one thing concerning the two programs you highlighted. Do you think the reduction in gun crimes has been due to a detterent effect or due to the removal of a core criminal element from society??
For me this discussion epitomizes the problem in the justice system that most countries run today. It comes down to the nature of criminal behaviour.
In my opinion most criminal behaviour (whether it be violent crime with a gun, theft or drunk driving) is carried out by a minority of people who have such disrespect for others and others property that they cconsider their actions and needs above all others - their rights to freedom of will are absolute.
If you imagine a society without a law structure then your right to exert your actions on another is determined purely by the relative power of the individual - if you steal my car and I have more power by having a gun then I shoot you, get my car back. If you steal my car and have more power by having a gun and shoot me I loose my car and my life. It's simple survival of the fitest and personal rights do not exist.
We have decided however that we need a law structure in place that lays out rules and behaviour standards that determine what sort of quality of life we have in our comunities and the basis of ALL these laws and rules is the mutual respect of the other people in the society - this is the core of our law structures - respect.[/i]
Your rights to live in that society are dependant on your responsibilty to maintain your respect for others - if you cannot respect the others in your society then you are not going to understand or accept the laws that define what is the minimum level of respect and so are going to ignore them - regardless of the punishment which may be attached to breaching the law. The detterent effect of any punishment which may be attached to a crime is irrelevant to and not considered by most criminals prior to a crime because that assumes they think about their actions in terms of it's impact on others and possible outcomes before the crime - they don't because they have no respect for the society they are in because they do not comprehend it's values.
Until a criminal can understand what respect is, understand the impact of his/her actions on others and learn to consider this BEFORE they act then in my opinion they are unfit to be in society as they will most likely re-offeend. A classic instance is the caar crime rate in our town. It is public knowledge that 80-90% of the car crime carried out in our town is committed by probably fewer than 100 people and these people go through our courts repeatedly - punishement means nothing to them because they do not understand why they have been puniished and so is not seen as a punishment, merely a part of their chosen lifestyle. In fact they turn against the society more because they feel their freedom has been violated by others.
For me the answer to the DUI and gun problem lies in the answer to how we handle all our criminals. Criminals should be removed from society until they can prove that they caan understand and accept the reason for the laws of the society - i.e. learn respect. What this means for me is no minimum sentencing - if you commit a crime then you go away to an institution until such time as you can convince represenatives of the society that you can live back in that society as a free person who respects all others[/i] - if that takes 2 months all well and good - if it takes 20 years oh dear how sad never mind.
And this returns me to why I think the programs in Richmond etc are working. Five years prison is a longer sentence than has been usual for what has been historically minor offenses. The result id that the repeat offenders - those with no respect for the society they live in - are gradually being collected in prison and so the repeat offenses are not being carried out. I believe that in 5 years time you will see a leveling out of the downward trend as the first offenders put away come back on the streets with no change in their attitude. The interesting thing would be to keep them inside indefinitely and see if the downward trend continued - I believe it would.
For me the justice and prison system - whether in the US or UK - is fatally flawed in that it does not address the core issue of crimainal activity - respect for your fellow man. The assumption is made that the punishement will have it's effect on the one punished and be a detterent to others. This is clearly untrue. When someone picks up a gun to harm someone, or gets in a car drunk, or breaks into your house they are not thinking about the people they are about to affect - they are thinking about themselves and how they are better / more powerful / above everyone else and that is what must be changed about that person before they come and live next door to us again - now matter how long it takes them to learn it.
<flame suit on>
Sparks
[This message has been edited by Sparks (edited 10-05-2000).]
-
Originally posted by funked:
Dowding, unlike your Kingdom, our Union does not consider the welfare of the Beatles when enacting legislation. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Well it should (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif).
Tony Martin put a football sized hole in a boy aged 16. I'm sure they would have left if he had pointed the gun at them - but he pulled the trigger instead, and he deserves to be where he is. People do not derserve to be killed for committing burgalry, it really is as simple as that.
As for the cars versus guns argument - if you think guns are so safe in the hands of the citizens, why don't you all strap one on and walk around the shopping mall with them? I'm sure someone said this before, but surely you're more likely to be attacked outside your home, rather than in it.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 10-05-2000).]
-
Caveman, you misunderstood my post. He was drawing parallels between cars and guns. I showed the difference. You cannot logically draw parallels between the two.
I totally agree with Dowding, you do not deserve to be shot for burglery. If someone breaks into your home, you do not have the right to kill them. You do have the right to defend yourself accordingly, but unless it is self defence, you are a murderer if you kill that individul.
Do you fail to realise that there is a very serious problem with guns in american society? Are you denying this? Seriously, I would like to know your stance on this. If you believe nothing should be done with guns, and there is a serious problem with them in your society, that is an utterly selfish stance to take.
"I like my gun, if someone can't handle theirs, that's their fault"
Wrong, that's roadkill. Like it or not, that same selfish attitude is the root of this problem not being dealt with. If those (how many million did you say died per year as a result of guns?) individuals die as a result of misuse or criminal use of guns, then it is your obligation as a moral human being to step up to the plate and do something for others.
A wise man named Gandhi once said, "You must be the change you wish to see in the world". And rightly so, you must put away the ego, the selfish attitude that is entirely focused on what you think you need and take a step back, look at the problem as a whole and do something about it.
Or is it not important that millions of people die from guns in your country every year, as long as you can have yours?
That's sickening.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
I think you added some extra zeroes on those figures Iggy! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I do not believe in basing laws on the least common denominator. To restrict all the people just because a few people can't handle responsibility is unamerican.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-05-2000).]
-
>Tony Martin put a football sized hole in a boy aged 16. I'm sure they would have left if he had pointed the gun at them - but he pulled the trigger instead, and he deserves to be where he is. People do not derserve to be killed for committing burgalry, it really is as simple as that.
See in your view, those "boys" right to take Tony Martin's property or life is paramount. Tony Martin's rights to his life and property were secondary. And don't start in about whether they intended to kill him or whether he was supposed to try and figure that out first, burglary turns into robbery the moment the perp decides it should.
You fail to realize that if those "boys" had some respect for another's property, or perhaps even a little fear of an armed property owner, the 16 year old would be alive today.
What I really like is your statement that the "boys" would have left if he had just pointed the gun at them. Hehe, so you admit that owning a gun and pointing it is a deterrent, but actualy using it in defense of life/property is a crime (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
So I'll say this, had Tony Martin not had a gun those "boys" would have surely beat him to death to avoid any trouble. That statement is as factual as saying they would have left if he had "just pointed".
English idea's on property and life haven't changed in over 200 years.
Wrench
-
Originally posted by Wrench:
See in your view, those "boys" right to take Tony Martin's property or life is paramount. Tony Martin's rights to his life and property were secondary.
No - those 'boys' had no right to take the property of anyone, something called the law states that very clearly. Similarly, the law states that you cannot use unnecessary force to protect property or yourself.
You fail to realize that if those "boys" had some respect for another's property, or perhaps even a little fear of an armed property owner, the 16 year old would be alive today.
What I really like is your statement that the "boys" would have left if he had just pointed the gun at them. Hehe, so you admit that owning a gun and pointing it is a deterrent, but actualy using it in defense of life/property is a crime. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Hehe - What you fail to realize is that Tony Martin was a farmer; it common knowledge that farmers have shotguns. ALL the farmers I've ever known carry shotguns. So Tony Martin being armed didn't act as a deterrent did it?
So I'll say this, had Tony Martin not had a gun those "boys" would have surely beat him to death to avoid any trouble. That statement is as factual as saying they would have left if he had "just pointed".
The thing is, most normal people find it very difficult to read the mind of another individual. Or do you mean that they looked like they would beat him to death? That legally justifies killing someone, does it? Pointing the gun was jusitified and defensible legally, pulling the trigger was not.
English idea's on property and life haven't changed in over 200 years.
Thank god American ideas on life have changed - or otherwise you'd still be defending institutionalized racism and refusing the vote based on colour of skin, well into 21st century.
I don't know where you get your history from, but I suggest you do a bit more reseach. There has been many changes to the legal and governmental institutions in the last two hundred years. However, I don't advocate that the UK is some kind of paradise, where their is no injustice, by the way - there is always room for improvement.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 10-05-2000).]
-
>The thing is, most normal people find it very difficult to read the mind of another individual. Or do you mean that they looked like they would beat him to death? That legally justifies killing someone, does it? Pointing the gun was jusitified and defensible legally, pulling the trigger was not.
And that is where we part ways, why do I (or Tony Martin) have to determine what is in a crimminals mind while they are commiting a crime?
You said "I'm sure they would have left if he had pointed the gun at them" - so YOU can read the minds of other people? Wow!
>Hehe - What you fail to realize is that Tony Martin was a farmer; it common knowledge that farmers have shotguns. ALL the farmers I've ever known carry shotguns. So Tony Martin being armed didn't act as a deterrent did it?
But it did, as soon as he shot one of the perps the crime was over! So ownership did deter them in the end. If you ask me (but I can't read minds as well as you do), those boys were EMPOWERED with the knowledge that he could not use lethal force to protect his property. Maybe the next hoodlum will think on that before they rob..er burglarize another english farmer eh?
>Similarly, the law states that you cannot use unnecessary force to protect property or yourself.
The law is too vague and the wording is open to interpretation, what is unnecessary force? A better, clearer law would be "you cannot kill another human being in defense of your property or person." That is real clear, and that's what your saying.
>Thank god American ideas on life have changed - or otherwise you'd still be defending institutionalized racism and refusing the vote based on colour of skin, well into 21st century.
And this is relevant to the gun issue in what way? I see that you can predict the future as well as read minds.
Hehe, argue all you want, you guys took a lawful citizen and locked him up because some kid decided to take his property. None of you know what was in the minds of those boys, had Tony Martin not had a shotgun you are about as qualified to say what they would have done as I am. The fact that they were attempting a burglary says plenty about what kind of loss they (he) were to your society. No loss at all in my book. Tony Martin on the other hand was a valuable, producing member of society.
Wrench
-
Originally posted by Igloo:
Caveman, you misunderstood my post. He was drawing parallels between cars and guns. I showed the difference. You cannot logically draw parallels between the two.
What he was drawing a parrallel to was inanimate objects and how they are blamed for deaths. That is what you missed. When a gun is used to kill someone everyone automatically assumes the gun is evil and did it on it's volition. They forget all about the evil mutha that's sittin on deathrow who pulled the trigger.
I totally agree with Dowding, you do not deserve to be shot for burglery. If someone breaks into your home, you do not have the right to kill them. You do have the right to defend yourself accordingly, but unless it is self defence, you are a murderer if you kill that individul.
So, let me get this straight, and keep in mind I have 3 children, 2 of which are 3weeks old today.
2 people break into my house in the middle of the night. I hear a noise and investigate. Looking at thier silhouettes they appear to be carrying a tire iron and a baseball bat. They start down the hallway where my sleeping children and wife are.
Now, they may only intend to steal my VCRs and some jewelry and do no harm to anyone in my house. But how do I know what thier intentions are? They're armed, in my house when they aren't supposed to be, and heading towards where my kids are sleeping.
Two dead stunninghunks for the corner to worry about, plain and simple.
Do you fail to realise that there is a very serious problem with guns in american society? Are you denying this? Seriously, I would like to know your stance on this. If you believe nothing should be done with guns, and there is a serious problem with them in your society, that is an utterly selfish stance to take.
There is a problem with guns in America, but it's not the problems that the media and anti-gun crowd plaster all over national news. The problem is the lack of education and people not taking responsibility for thier own actions or stupidity, which ever the case may be. I do everything I can to promote education for gun owners. Most of my friends consider me an expert on firearms and will seek my advice/assistence on purchasing one. Before we even head for the store to look I'm drilling them on safe firearm handling.
On another note, I have talked several friends out of buying guns because I knew they were not ready to be responsible gun owners. All but one actually listened and dinnae buy a firearm, and the one that went ahead and got one bought a shotgun instead of the handgun he wanted. He figured it would be a good first step to learning how to be responsible. To this day he is now one of the most safety concious, responsible gun owners I know. But all of this only covers accidents. You can prevent accidents at home with education and responsible handing, but those won't stop crime.
Take the guns from the criminals and they'll use knives. Take away thier knives and they'll use hammers. Take away thier hammers and they'll use bricks. If a person wants a weapon bad enough, they'll find or fabricate one.
Toad, can you find how many/what percentage of those gun deaths were perpetrators shot by police officers and what percentage were accidental shootings?
"I like my gun, if someone can't handle theirs, that's their fault"
Wrong, that's roadkill. Like it or not, that same selfish attitude is the root of this problem not being dealt with. If those (how many million did you say died per year as a result of guns?) individuals die as a result of misuse or criminal use of guns, then it is your obligation as a moral human being to step up to the plate and do something for others.
I DO step up and make it my obligation to do something for others. I educate people who know absolutely nothing about guns on safe gun handling. Out of all my friends I've helped over the last 10 years only 2 have had accidents (1 accident each), and both were non-fatal, and I was with each one when he made his goof. One was extenuating circumstances, which led to an accidental discharge and a 9mm slug going through my right calf. I'll tell ya the story someday. The other was just plain stupidity, which resulted in a .357mag slug punching a hole in a plaster ceiling, rapidly followed by a slap to the back of head.
But you seem to think that's not enough. You give the impression that you think I should lead the charge and collect all of my friends guns and turn them in to be destroyed.
A wise man named Gandhi once said, "You must be the change you wish to see in the world". And rightly so, you must put away the ego, the selfish attitude that is entirely focused on what you think you need and take a step back, look at the problem as a whole and do something about it.
Or is it not important that millions of people die from guns in your country every year, as long as you can have yours?
See above for my spiel on educating people. that's the change I wish to see the in the world. Education on safe firearm handling and people being responsible for their own actions.
You want mandatory fire arm training before you can purchase a gun? I have no problem with that at all. Matter of fact I like that idea. It would be a big step in preventing accidents at home. The course should cover safe handling, safety devices (safes/trigger locks/etc), and touch on shooting (make sure of what's behind your target before you fire). There should also be a bit about how to talk to kids about guns.
DO NOT sensationalize guns to kids. Hollywood does that enough. I hate to tell all you anti-gun people this, but you and the media are responsible for alot of the shooting incidents that happen. Look at the coverage given to Columbine. After that circus every kid in American knew that if they wanted alot of attention all they had to do was take a gun to school and fire a few rounds off.
Has everyone forgotten that kids are drawn to what they aren't supposed to have? I know I was. Mom says "stay away from that!" and as soon as she turned'er back I was right there, doing what I wasn't supposed to.
Guns were never a big deal when I was growing up. When I was 12 I allowed to keep my rifle in my bedroom closet because I had demonstrated that I was responsible enough to do so. A year later I was allowed to keep my .357mag in my dresser drawer. And yes, I had the ammo for both on the closet shelf.
That's sickening.
What's sickening is that there's no campain to reduce traffic fatalities more. It's an "economic infeasibility" to do away with cars, even though they cause more deaths than guns. If you're cry about gun deaths, you'd better cry about traffic deaths. Or are the people killed by a drunk driver not important to you because "a car wasn't designed to kill". ALL life is precious. And this last bit goes for everyone and is not pointed specificly at Igloo.
-
A better, clearer law would be "you cannot kill another human being in defense of your property or person." That is real clear, and that's what your saying.
No, no and no - that is not what I'm saying. You can defend yourself with lethal force, but the circumstances have to fit. The reason why it is so vague is because we leave the decision to the judge and jury - it can be made based on the facts specific to the case, not some clumsy pseudo-coverall statement like the one you give above.
So ownership did deter them in the end.
It did not deter the thieves from breaking into the house, despite the fact they KNEW he was an eccentric loner armed with a shotgun, who was known for his less than friendly attitude to strangers. That is an example of deterence failing, not succeeding.
>Thank god American ideas on life have changed - or otherwise you'd still be defending institutionalized racism and refusing the vote based on colour of skin, well into 21st century.
And this is relevant to the gun issue in what way? I see that you can predict the future as well as read minds.
I'm not the one who implied that England was some early 19th century draconian state. You said that English ideas on life had not changed for 200 years; I was implying that attitudes that are OVER 200 years old were still present in the US only 40 years ago. And if things hadn't changed then, the state of affairs in the South of your country MIGHT have persisted into the 21st century. Thank god things did change.
The fact that they were attempting a burglary says plenty about what kind of loss they (he) were to your society. No loss at all in my book. Tony Martin on the other hand was a valuable, producing member of society.
I say again - capital punishment should not be dished out to anyone for burgalry. Let's say for sake of argument that the 16 old had not been shot, that they over-powered Martin and tied him up (without harming him). They turn the place over and escape. Eventually the lad is nicked for the crime and is sentenced to a jail term. Who's to say he would not be rehabilitated (which is one of the key ideals behind prisons in this country), and becomes a worthwhile member of society - doesn't he (or anyone else) deserve that chance?
As an aside - I wouldn't want the British public to get their hands on hand-guns. Some recent stories highlight how stupid a proportion of the public is, and how much damage they could do. We've had a lot of controversy over paedophiles living within the community over here this summer. This led to demonstrations, where large groups of parents trawled their housing estate 'outing' suspected paedophiles (the only evidence they had was hearsay and rumour). Vigilante action in any form is abhorrant, but these guys took it a little further. They went to a paedeotrician's house and kicked her and her family out of it, simply because she was a paedeotrician (i.e it sounded close enough to paedophile for them to be satisfied they were that kind of person). Imagine if they could get their hand's on guns rather than stones and firebombs.
CavemanJ - saying that anti-gun supporters are responsible for things like Columbine is utter rubbish, and you know it. Guns being so readily available has to have some bearing on the situation. Without anti-gun lobbyists you reckon the event would have gone unreported? I hope you don't really believe that.
-
I've read most of the gun debate threads and the thing that strikes me is this: The anti-gunners seem to feel threatened by anyone with a gun, including law abiding citizens.
As if you give the average persom a gun and he'll say "gee, now there's no reason NOT to rob that convenience store, or blow away that pesky neighbor. This gun makes it so easy".
The vast majority of people these days play by society's rules and are should be allowed to live their lives freely.
Then there are those few who make it their business to prey on others. It is these people that must be watched and regulated, or removed from society altogether.
-Regurge aka the pilot formerly known as Spinout
[This message has been edited by Regurge (edited 10-05-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
CavemanJ - saying that anti-gun supporters are responsible for things like Columbine is utter rubbish, and you know it. Guns being so readily available has to have some bearing on the situation. Without anti-gun lobbyists you reckon the event would have gone unreported? I hope you don't really believe that.
It would have been reported.
It would not have been sensationalized.
That's what all the constant interviews and reports and everything else ad nauseum about the victims were about, sensationalizing the incident to try and give the anti-gun people more ammunition.
And along came all of the copy cats, who were looking to get thier 15 minutes of fame.
But it's all moot until the anti gun people can answer this question:
When is the last time you saw a gun jump up off a desk and kill someone on its own?
-
Originally posted by Igloo:
Caveman, you misunderstood my post. He was drawing parallels between cars and guns. I showed the difference. You cannot logically draw parallels between the two.
Really? You cannot draw parallels between cars and guns?
Are they both inanimate objects designed by man to serve as his tools?
Have they both been of great use to man throughout their existience as tools?
Can either a car or a gun "act" without input from man?
Can an inanimate car or gun be "good" OR "evil" all by itself?
Can MAN use these tools for "good" or "evil" by acting irresponsibly, without the permission of the particular inanimate object?
In 1997 in the US, were guns involved in 32,436 deaths, while CARS were involved in 41,967 deaths, resuling in very similar "deaths/per" percentages?
(Deaths per Gun: .00016, Deaths per Vehicle: .00021)
Are MOST cars and MOST guns in the US totally uninvolved in violent deaths?
Is it a very, very small % of the existing cars and guns that ARE involved in violent deaths?
Can both cars and guns are used by people BREAKING THE LAW and that this MISUSE can result in violent death?
I see all these parallels and more.
It seems that some people just cannot accept the fact that a PERSON is ultimately responsible for all violent crime.
It's so easy to place the blame on an inanimate object. It requires no thought, it requires no unpleasant facing of reality. It's simplistic problem solving with no problem solved at all.
The statement "guns were designed to kill" is simply a fallacy of logic; it's a "red herring." A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.
The fact that guns were designed to kill may in fact mean that they are a poor design. After all, Man designed cars and they kill more efficiently than do guns! But neither of these considerations has anything to do with gun control.
FACT: In 1997 (and statistics are almost the same for any year you wish to choose) 99.99984% of the existing firearms in the US were NOT used in violent crime. Wouldn't it make more sense and be much more efficient to devote our attention to the .00016% that are? (Project Exile and Project Ceasefire)
FACT: In 1997 (and statistics are almost the same for any year you wish to choose)9,531 MORE people died as traffic fatalities than as gun fatalities. Incredibly, 38.6% of these deaths were alcohol-related. Even more incredibly, DUI is NOT a Felony in 27 of our 50 states! In 19 of the 23 states that DO class it as a Felony, ONLY the 3rd or 4th Offense within 10 years is a Felony!
Now THAT is a crime!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
I say again - capital punishment should not be dished out to anyone for burgalry. Let's say for sake of argument that the 16 old had not been shot, that they over-powered Martin and tied him up (without harming him). They turn the place over and escape. Eventually the lad is nicked for the crime and is sentenced to a jail term. Who's to say he would not be rehabilitated (which is one of the key ideals behind prisons in this country), and becomes a worthwhile member of society - doesn't he (or anyone else) deserve that chance?
I suppose that is where we will never see eye to eye.
You see in your little scenario, the only WILL taken into account is the boys (crimminals). The will of the citizen is not considered. You expect him to bend to the desires and will of the gang of boys. If he is hurt or even killed while they do their bidding, your judges and juries will dole out punishment (rehabilitation).
In the scenario I support, Tony Martin is a free man with a will of his own. A gang of boys foolishly attempts to overpower and subdue him for only they know what purpose. Tony Martin isn't overpowered and subdued. The surviving boys, whose plans and actions, resulted in the death of a friend, are tried for manslaughter. They are then rehabilitated by a guy named bubba for a few years, and required to compensate Tony Martin for any counseling he may need after such a disturbing encounter.
These are very different scenario's, one assumes both parties have free will, the other assumes 1 man must submit to anothers will. Now that isn't a draconian ideal at all is it?
Your commentary on your countrymen is enlightening, and I tend to agree. After all they allowed themselves to be disarmed (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
Wrench - clumbsy but clear (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by Toad:
In 1997 in the US, were guns involved in 32,436 deaths, while CARS were involved in 41,967 deaths, resuling in very similar "deaths/per" percentages?
(Deaths per Gun: .00016, Deaths per Vehicle: .00021)
Toad, are you suggesting the cars are overmodeled ?? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Dowding and Igloo
How many career criminals and antisocial families must we succumb to before we decide it's time to look after ourselves ??
Dowding - the "boy" you talk about was a known career criminal from a family of the same. These people have absolutely no respect for you or I or our property or well being. A prison term is a risk of their occupation and their occupation is feeding off those they percieve as weak. I refer to my previous post - they have utterly NO respect for anyone else in the society which actually protects them. As far as I am concerned then let the risks of the job fit the profession - if a North Sea oil rig diver dies in an accident in a very dangerous and law abiding role no-one raises a hand and charges the crew cheif with murder, it's a known risk of the job, - so why do we wring our hands when someone who chooses to invade another persons property and life without regard to the trauma, personal loss or impact of his actions on the victim in any way shape or form meets an untimely end. Your dramatisation "put a hole in him the size of a football.." is typical of the tools used to fire people up to protect the criminals rights and it sickens me. Death is messy - it always is.
I ask you this - how long do you think it would have taken to turn this "boy" into a person who repsects and looks after others - a couple of months in prison - I think not. Take a person from a violent, crime ingrained family and try to re-educate them in the values that we see as acceptable ?? your talking years if ever - and in the meantime we are expected to just accept the criminal behaviour they inflict upon us and actually protect them from us !! . I'm sorry but that is the real sickness in our society.
As for guns in the UK - yes I would like one and before I got one I would go to the training courses and register it and keep in the way I would any other dangerous piece of equipment. I own a circular saw you know and to date I haven't killed anyone with it yet or even had an accident. But a circular saw can be an pretty dangerous weapon...
I am 100% with Toad and Cave on this - the object does not cause the crime - the person in charge of it does.
Oh and before anyone starts on "you live in the UK how do you know", my wife is from rural North Carolina where guns are as much a part of everyday life as lawn mowers and blenders. She was taught gun safety at school and raised by a father who taught her from an early age what a gun could do and how to handle it safely and with the respect it deserves. My father-in-law taught me on moving out to the States how to handle guns and how to shoot safely - why - because they were around. The guns don't kill and cars don't kill PEOPLE DO - ARROGANT IGNORANT PEOPLE WITH NO RESPECT FOR THEIR FELLOW MAN so why do we protect tehm and punish the victim ????
[This message has been edited by Sparks (edited 10-06-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Sparks (edited 10-06-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Sparks (edited 10-06-2000).]
-
Go Sparks Go! Tell it brother! The True Gospel now! Responsibility! Accountability! Yeah!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Naso, I'm thinking we should have armed our troops with 1975 rusted out Chevy pickups with a cooler full of beer and a bottle of Four Roses whiskey on the front seat and sent them into battle!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Oh my, Toad. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/eek.gif)
This will violate the START Threaty, this kind of weapons are crime upon humanity. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
I suppose that is where we will never see eye to eye.
True, true. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
CavemanJ - our media sensationalizes everything. Just look at the Gulf War, Waco etc.
Anti-gun people aren't responsible for that - it's the nature of our media.
-
Originally posted by Sparks:
As for guns in the UK - yes I would like one and before I got one I would go to the training courses and register it and keep in the way I would any other dangerous piece of equipment. I own a circular saw you know and to date I haven't killed anyone with it yet or even had an accident. But a circular saw can be an pretty dangerous weapon...
I am 100% with Toad and Cave on this - the object does not cause the crime - the person in charge of it does.
Oh and before anyone starts on "you live in the UK how do you know", my wife is from rural North Carolina where guns are as much a part of everyday life as lawn mowers and blenders. She was taught gun safety at school and raised by a father who taught her from an early age what a gun could do and how to handle it safely and with the respect it deserves. My father-in-law taught me on moving out to the States how to handle guns and how to shoot safely - why - because they were around. The guns don't kill and cars don't kill PEOPLE DO - ARROGANT IGNORANT PEOPLE WITH NO RESPECT FOR THEIR FELLOW MAN so why do we protect tehm and punish the victim ????
Very well said. This shows intelligence. I like the idea of a mandatory training class on safe firearm handling as it would cut way back on the accidents in the home. I've heard Connecticut, the state I live in, requires people to provide proof they have attended such a course before they can purchase a firearm. About the only good thing I've heard about Connecticut, at least they got something right.
Your father-in-law sounds like someone I'd get along with just fine, taking the time to teach you about gun safety. Maybe if more gun owners stepped up and did this, or (in alot of cases I'd imagine) were recognized for thier efforts, maybe the anti-gun crowd would wake up, smell what they're shoveling, and LEARN something instead of forcing thier morals, beliefs, and fears on responsible gun owners.
Dowding, yes, the media sensationalizes everything to some extent.
the Gulf War
Di's funeral
the list goes on and on.
The difference is the anti-gun lobby likes to push the sensationalism of incidents like Columbine to use them as scare tactics, and scare the "unwashed masses" about guns and make them look evil.
Columbine happened because 2 kids had serious problems and no one bothered to see the signs and try to help them. Society failed those boys, and now blame thier failure on firearms so they dinnae have to admit to failing. And firearms can't stand up to defend themselves, and we gun owners have all been labeled as crazy nuts by the media.
I think it should be noted that had those 2 boys not had access to firearms the devastation could have been much worse. Thanks to all the media coverage of Timothy McVae's (sp?) exploits in Oklahoma City the entire world knows what kind of blast you can get out of fertilizer and fuel oil. What would have happened had those two concocted something like that and set it up in the school? Would there even be a school left?
Bottom line is, you can't stop a person who is determined to wreak havoc, short of locking them up or killing them. And if they haven't done anything before you won't know they need to be watched. They WILL find something to accomplish thier goal of mass destruction/death and wreak havoc on those they have targeted for whatever reason.
I guess the anti-gun lobby is just gonna sleep through all of the wakeup calls.
-
...and no one bothered to see the signs... Society failed those boys...
You'll be blaming it on them having a 'bad childhood' next, you bleeding heart liberal!
Wait a minute! That's the accusation that gets levelled at me... now I'm confused... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
The media has alot to answer for when it comes to 'capturing the heartfelt sentiment of the public', or IMO, 'whipping up hysteria' regarding a particular subject. Take Di's funeral. Sure it was tragic and should have been avoided, but millions of people die everyday, after living a life of abject misery. The media seemed to me to give the impression that there was an appropiate emotional response that we all had to share; if you didn't feel that way, then somehow you were an insensitive deviant. It was a good job most people my age did not really care that much about it. It was the same recently over here about paedophiles - they gave the impression that there was some monster in every street. Things just get blown out of all proportion.
Sparks - gun ownership doesn't bother me per se (I don't advocate banning guns outright), but unregistered, unregulated ownership does. The possession of a gun should not be a right, but a priviledge only given to those who are responsible citizens. Run your country how you like, I couldn't really give a rat's ass, but in the UK this is how I would like to see it done if guns were ever to become popular again (which is unlikely). (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 10-06-2000).]
-
registration is the first step to confiscation.
a man with a gun is a citizen, a man without a gun is a subject.
Two truisms for ya (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I personally dinnae believe in registration. The yellow sheet filled out when a gun is bought is good enough for the ATF to start tracking one down. When I sell a gun I get the person's name and driver's license # for my records (personal transaction) and I'll offer mine to a person I buy a gun from.
Did you know the ATF started making an illegal database from all of the yellowsheets they have stored? Yup, getting a headstart on locating guns so they can go take them away from law abiding gun owners to please the crybabies who can not take responsibility for themselves.
-
I don't think anyone against guns believes Columbine was purly a gun issue. The point is, should those boys have been in a country with strict gun control laws, they would have had one heck of a hard time finding automatic weapons.
I'm not against guns. I am against the accessibilty of getting guns. If you make it that easy, you cannot expect everyone to be educated about them.
Britian, Denmark, France, Canada...all of these countries have strict gun control laws. These countries also have low crime rates. Do you see this as a coincidence?
Everyone in these countries live in a free society. Nobody has their rights violated for having strict gun control laws. So, what's the big deal with the US? As I've said before it's time to join the 21st century with the rest of the free world.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
You afraid they are gonna take yer car, cave?
After all, it is just a tool, like the gun.
What about social security number?
StSanta, very much a citizen, not a subject.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
-
The point is, should those boys have been in a country with strict gun control laws, they would have had one heck of a hard time finding automatic weapons.
They didn't have automatic weapons. They had semi-automatic weapons. They also had pipe bombs.
Automatic weapons are only easy to get in the movies.
I'm not against guns. I am against the accessibilty of getting guns. If you make it that easy, you cannot expect everyone to be educated about them.
Actually, most people are for this wether they like to admit it or not. The main problem comes from the snowball effect that comes from conceding one point. Its not like everyone just stops and says "well, that's good enough for me". They move on to the next one.
One side is fighting to hold on to rights.. the other is fighting to remove them. Wich one needs to ease up a bit to get anything done?
AKDejaVu
-
Two cliched sound-bites that don't really explain anything, Caveman. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Just because something rhymes doesn't mean its worth two dimes. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
originally quoted by Igloo
"Britian, Denmark, France, Canada...all of these countries have strict gun control laws. These countries also have low crime rates. Do you see this as a coincidence?.."
Errr pardon ????
Britain - yes lets see - no guns, no siree all gone - they have to be since Mr good policeman rounded them all up and destroyed them.....
violent crime increasing at the highest rate since records began.....
this last week or so so far we've had a crucial eye witness to a road rage attack shot in the head in his car in a Halfords (car accessory) parking lot, a man armed with a handgun takes hostages in a garden centre an holds them for nearly a day, oh yes an a mental patient (yes mental patient) in a hospital (yes IN a hospital) takes a hostage with a gun.
Yep - doing away with guns is working here alright.
When oh when are we going to realise that the ONLY problem we have is the high rate of criminal behaviour across the board.
If you think about it there could even be a more worrying conclusion here - the good and moral people who ban this and that "because access is too easy" are failing to realise that the criminals may just be smarter than them because they know where and how to get the weapons and how not to get caught with them. Do any of you who advocate a no gun policy, and live in the UK for instance, know where to get a gun ??? - I doubt it but they are clearly available. And if you do why aren't you telling the authorities?? - maybe scared that in this secure society of ours you may get killed and no-one will be around to defend you?? Remember the eye witness shot in his car I just told you about ?? well he was the key witness to put a career gangster away for murder after seeing this guy kill someone on the side of the M25 after the victim cut him up in traffic. Apparently eye witnesses said he plead for his life before the hit man executed him - my guess if he had a 9mm in his glove box (licensed, registered and instructed in it's use by the police because the police considered him in danger) then he may have been alive today and his family would still have a father.
I refer to my first post to show you the root of this latest gun death:-
1. A career criminal with no respect or feelings for anyone else has an incident with someone on a busy motorway - his reaction to this is to stop the guy and stab him to death on the side of the road.
2. The witness to the attack steps forward and is willing to testify in court to put him away - a man braver than me.(remember no death penalty here or even whole of life sentaences here in jolly old UK - this guy will be out in 10-15)
3. He is given no full time protection and in our morally correct society is unable to even own a gun at home to defend himself.
4. In the course of a family shopping trip another career criminal executes him with ..... A GUN !!! lord help us the guns have killed another !!!!
5. The career ganster in custody who obviously ordered the killing is "questioned by police".
6. Career ganster now stands good chance of getting off murder charge on both counts due to lack of evidence and two more innocent families fall victim to our wonderfull justice system.
Aren't we glad we don't have the evil scourge of guns hanging over us - after all this career gangster will be a changed man after his brush with the law and when you next meet him on the road he won't stop and stab you but wave cheerily and beckon you on...
GET REAL PEOPLE !!!!!
ahhh - what's the point........
-
Originally posted by Igloo:
I don't think anyone against guns believes Columbine was purly a gun issue. The point is, should those boys have been in a country with strict gun control laws, they would have had one heck of a hard time finding automatic weapons.
DJV already pointed this out, so I'll nae do it again.
But if they couldna found guns they'd have had more, and probably larger, home made bombs. See above about the fuel oil/fertilizer in a previous post of mine.
Dowding they may be cliched, but they're still truisms, and I was in a goofy mood when I posted them, hence to real meat to the post (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
DJV I think it's the anti-gunners turn to lighten up. Most of my friends had no problem with the Brady bill. I kind of wish they'd added something about attending a mandatory training class before you can pickup/purchase your firearm. Hell I'd even be quite if they added a 1% tax to guns/ammo/reloading supplies to pay for it.
BradyII and it's lists of bans was a different story.
Santa they know right where my car is if they ever decide they want to take it. But as has already been pointed out in this thread, it's economically unfeasible to do away with the car. So instead they go after another inanimate object to make themselves feel better for saving lives and so they dinnae have to admit that society itself is broken, and that they're a part of said broken society.
I could also go on and on about seat belt laws and helmet laws (both of which I'm verra against).
-
DJV I think it's the anti-gunners turn to lighten up.
I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, they've spent the last 20 years instilling defensive reactions that this will be extremely difficult.
I do know this, if the anti-gun people were to stop demonstrating... more liberal gun laws would not be passed. If the NRA was to stop fighting the anti-gun activists (politically of course), I shudder to think what would happen.
AKDejaVu
-
Cave:
I was referring to the government, not thieves (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). They have regisyration on your car, but haven't banned it yet.They'll prbobably onfiscate it once the great war with you citizens begins (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
Seatbelts and helmets. You Americans donø't wear 'um, voila, the airbag was developed (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
Seriosuly, most people who've worked at a hospital and seen victims of car crashes agree with the law. Here, it also makes economical sense; the government is paying through taxes for medical care of all patients. People not wearing seatbelts are much more prone to serious injury or death, and the former puts a serious strain on the budget. In the US the situation is diffeent, but I personally think it is idiotic NOT to use the seat belt when the stats on car accidents are the way they are.
But, you're an adult, you pay for your own treatment. With children the decision is different I think, and a mandatory law there would be in place.
Helmes help motocyclists to some extent but even wth them, my sister refers to motorcyclists as "future organ donors". Nevertheless, we'll both get bikes when we can afford it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
the government is paying through taxes for medical care of all patients. People not wearing seatbelts are much more prone to serious injury or death, and the former puts a serious strain on the budget...but I personally think it is idiotic NOT to use the seat belt when the stats on car accidents are the way they are.
I'm just too dang busy these days to really pitch into these furballs! I'm missing a lot of the fun! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
What you say IS right. It's just a few cultural differences that make us disagree on the "big picture". (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Your government is paying for every-dam-thing. Of course, you realize that in the end YOU are paying for this stuff with high taxes and what-not. So YOU are paying for every-dam-thing, not the government. Even in Denmark, I suspect the "government" is really the collective "YOU". (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Next you'll be telling me how great the "free education" is but complaining that these high gas taxes have got to be reigned in! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Sorta like what Al Gore wants to do here, but I digress. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But there are some of us that DON'T WANT to pay for every-dam-thing....we actually want LESS government.
Further,some of us think that people ought to take the primary responsibility in caring for themselves.
I would never infringe on someone's right to be an idiot. If they want to ride/drive around without a helmet/seatbelt, who am I to tell them how to risk their life?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) They are "big boys now.
I agree with you that not wearing belts and helmets is the mark of an idiot. However, my interpretation is, "hey, if they don't want to wear them...they are idiots. Therefore, no loss to the gene pool if they "X" themselves out in a crash.
If they crash while NOT wearing a helmet/belt and LIVE, then they are TOTALLY responsible for their own medical bills."
That might give rise to a whole new industry, "Idiot Insurance" that would cover their medical in these cases.
Capitalist-Pigdog insurance salemen could buy themselves big boats and houses on the lake with the profits from insuring these non-helmet/non-belt wearing individualists.
Almost sounds "win-win" doesn't it?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Guess I'm just not the total liberal yet, am I?
Gotta run, TTFN![/
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-09-2000).]
-
Toad:
I am not disagreeing with you on this.
But. In this country, *I* pay for the idiots who get seriously injured when no waring a seatbelt. I.e the seat belt law makes sense here. Also, it makes sense fo children: what an adult does or doesn't do is up to him or her, but for chrissakes, don't let that stupidity cost the lives of their children. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Education is still "free" in the sense that I don't have to cash in to get it. Chances of me earning enough to pay for it before I am 25 are small. My parents is another issue.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 10-09-2000).]
-
You make Britain sound like Harlem, Sparks. Deliberately or not.
Firstly, violent crime may be on the increase - but having everyone armed will not solve the problem. Look at America - guns are easily obtained, but they still have a higher amount of violent crime. Or look at South Africa - the problem is even worse.
I wouldn't want the police routinely armed in this country - crims. will be more willing to use arms against them. I have family in the police - I don't want that.
We have always had violent crime - look at the Krays. But the point is you highlight examples that have had a huge amount of media coverage. There are some errors in your info:
1) Kenneth Noye stabs Stephen Cameron in road rage incident. Depending on the witness, Cameron instigated the fracas - if he had a 9mm, perhaps he would have done the killing? How many other people would have been hurt?
Noye kills him with knife, pleading self-defense.
2) Alan Decabral steps forward, and his testimony (along with other witnesses) is used to convict Noye - he has been given LIFE. He is not going to 'get off' this charge, as you say.
3) Decabral REFUSES police protection.
4) Decabral (who has criminal connections) is shot in supermarket carpark.
5) Noye is currently being questioned about this second murder. Police are going on several theories besides the Noye connection.
You won't be meeting Noye for a very long time. As for this latest killing - you use it as an example that guns are widespread throughout the UK, and all crims are armed. This ain't the case. My cousin has been inside, and has experience of the shadier side of life. Most crims wouldn't dare use a gun - our laws are very, very tough when it comes to armed criminals.
It ain't perfect in the UK - there is gun crime, but giving everyone a gun will not solve the problem.
-
damn.. go for a good night's sleep and the thread get's hijacked. Never shoulda mentioned seatbelts....
Least ya'll coulda started a new thread on this debate (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
But while we're here...
Santa I'll let you tell the parents of a kid who was cut in half by his seatbelt when his car got T-boned since the law makes so much sense. Only part that makes sense is having the kids strapped in and using thier car seats. They aren't old enough to understand.
Keep in mind my POV comes from where I can get ticketed for exercising my freedom of choice. Yup, less g'ment is what we need.
now back to the real discussion (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Firstly, violent crime may be on the increase - but having everyone armed will not solve the problem. Look at America - guns are easily obtained, but they still have a higher amount of violent crime. Or look at South Africa - the problem is even worse.
A few years back, and I'd have to dig to see if I still have the magazine, an editor of one of the gun magazines was interviewing juvenille gang members that had been incarcerated. One of the questions asked was who the gang members prefered to pick for targets, and the answer was tourists. When asked why tourists, the gang member says "cause we know they aren't carrying guns". Nuff said. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Although people are shot and killed with illegal firearms in Canada and the UK, the numbers are much, much lower. That alone is a great reason to restrict gun ownership.
It saves lives - plain and simple.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
Plain and simple, Igloo:
Show me ONE instance in the US where increased registration/purchase restriction/training/background checks or licensing has lowered violent gun crime rates to a degree greater than the overall decline nationwide.
There are cities that have done some/all of these things in an attempt to lower their crime rates while the rest of the country just went along with "business as usual".
Should be easy to find via the internet.
Spare us the opinion this time, please. Show us some hard numbers.
Then to make it truly impressive, find even ONE that lowered the violent crime rate 60% in one year, the way Project Exile did in Richmond.
Exile did not include registration/purchase restriction/training/background checks or licensing BTW.
It simply locked up criminals that used guns in crimes.
Wow, what a concept! So complex, eh?
-
"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees." [Pres. Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993]
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of firearms is the goal." - Janet Reno, December 10th, 1993 [Associated Press]
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." — Adolf Hitler, 1935.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-10-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
You make Britain sound like Harlem, Sparks. Deliberately or not.
No not deliberately - but it is not the peaceful haven of the world others would make it out to be either.
Firstly, violent crime may be on the increase - but having everyone armed will not solve the problem. Look at America - guns are easily obtained, but they still have a higher amount of violent crime. Or look at South Africa - the problem is even worse.
It is my perception (NOTE the use of the word perception) that the violent crime that is on the increase is that of violent robbery and attacks on innocents. It is also my experience that in the states the majority of gun or violent crime is drug related - criminal against criminal. It is also my experience here in Peterborough that I genuinely fear for my safety in MOST areas of the city after dark - not a fear of getting killed but of being violently attacked - a feeling I didn't experience in the US. Yes there were areas of every town that it was not advisable to go in but what I'm talking about here in my town in the UK is a constant threat of getting a good beating off an individual or group for no reason other than entertainment. People are being attacked on a daily basis - yes daily even in broad daylight. There is a pervasive disrespect for others amongst a section of our society that is based entirely on the power held by intimidation and violence that is left unchecked by our justice system. This abandonment of respectful members of the society leaves them weak and gives power to the criminal and violent which in turn threatens the stabilty of the society. It also alienates those respectful law abiding citizens from the law and justice systems - the very mechanisms that were created by the society to protect them and their way of life - and lets not forget that laws are there to protect a way of life, the standards we want to see as a minimum. I think that the right to carry arms and an armed police force redresses the balance and aligns the law abiding population more with the law and justice systems.
I wouldn't want the police routinely armed in this country - crims. will be more willing to use arms against them. I have family in the police - I don't want that.
I simply disagree with you on that - I would welcome the day that when I call the Police for someone in my garden I know that they will come suitably equiped to protect themselves and my family.
We have always had violent crime - look at the Krays. But the point is you highlight examples that have had a huge amount of media coverage. There are some errors in your info:
Yes I got some of it wrong in the detail but I would make two points; first the Krays to my knowledge committed their violent acts mostly against other criminals - that goes with my earlier post as a "risk of the job" ; second the level of violence that the Krays operated at would no longer make the news today.
Now to the detail:-
1) Kenneth Noye stabs Stephen Cameron in road rage incident. Depending on the witness, Cameron instigated the fracas - if he had a 9mm, perhaps he would have done the killing? How many other people would have been hurt?
First if we allowed ownership of guns maybe Cameron would have thought twice about instigating the incident. Second even if Cameron had decided to instigate the incident maybe Noye would have thought twice about drawing a kinfe in a simple roadside arguement.
Notice again though how an inanimate object - the knife - is used to kill someone - we going to destroy or register all knifes now?? - what about pointy sticks??
Noye kills him with knife, pleading self-defense.
For the court to decide
2) Alan Decabral steps forward, and his testimony (along with other witnesses) is used to convict Noye - he has been given LIFE. He is not going to 'get off' this charge, as you say.
Yes I was wrong - I thought he was still on remand, I didn't realise he had been convicted. But just what does "life" here mean then - the rest of his natural? 40 years? - 30 years? no, 15-20 and maybe 2/3 of that with parole - in my book he still gets off
3) Decabral REFUSES police protection.
Didn't realise - dumb move on his part - concede that one.
4) Decabral (who has criminal connections) is shot in supermarket carpark.
It was a hit plain and simple.
5) Noye is currently being questioned about this second murder. Police are going on several theories besides the Noye connection.
You won't be meeting Noye for a very long time.
I'm sorry but why should we consider a man like Noye back into our society EVER again - I personally do not like the idea that I might ever meet him - no length of time in prison is going to change that mans view of his position in our society or his view of others - he respects NO-ONE.. and this is my point. This assertion that a prison term of a fixed length serves our society is rubbish - the education of repsect for others, for accountabilty and responsibilty of your position in a society is what is required and if you have to take a teenage career criminal and keep him out of society in some way for 20 years until he/she learns it then so be it. It's sad but why should innocent people pay the price untill they learn or die??
As for this latest killing - you use it as an example that guns are widespread throughout the UK,...
They clearly are
... and all crims are armed.
I never made that assertion.
This ain't the case. My cousin has been inside, and has experience of the shadier side of life. Most crims wouldn't dare use a gun - our laws are very, very tough when it comes to armed criminals.
Well we will have to plain disagree on that one and, as I said in my original post, I simply don't believe that criminals consider the punishment before they pick up a weapon - they have no respect and so they don't consider getting caught because they believe they are the powerful one. In their eyes the gun is merely a tool for increasing their power in any situation - if guns didn't exist it would be crossbows or something else. The gun is merely available, convenient and easy to use - the best tool for the job.
It ain't perfect in the UK - there is gun crime, but giving everyone a gun will not solve the problem.
No "giving everyone a gun" like you are going to mailshot everyone a rifle is not the answer and that is not what we are talking about - the legal right of a citizen to hold a gun in a lawful way is. A gun is a tool - a means of hunting, a sporting device and yes a means of defence. What the US has is a population who are fiercely proud of what they have and who are willing to fight to defend it - they don't all have guns but they all know they have the right to one if they need it. When I lived there I didn't own one but I knew if I felt I needed one I had the right to buy one and the resources to learn to use it properly. Whether you like it or not the feeling that you have the means to look after yourself and family no matter what gives you a feeling of security in your future - thats something lacking in the UK to my mind. The people are becoming powerless and afraid and that is more dangerous in the long term. In some ways I agree that the UK is now not ready for legalised firearms - there are too many people who are too afraid and that is a tinderbox waiting to be lit. The lynchmobs looking for peadophiles in Plymouth shows my point, the individual feels they cannot protect themselves or their family adequately and so look to others to join them and give them the strength they need.
-
Toad, your name suits you.
You know as well as I do that finding out how many lives were saved via gun restrictions is virtually impossible. We do know, however, that lives were saved, and that in itself is a good enough reason.
Are you trying to tell me that restricting gun ownership will not save lives? Is that what you're saying? You're saying that more people will die if guns are regulated, than if the insane gun lobbying were to continue?
Talk about selfish logic.
It is a very simple concept. Restrictions on guns saves lives. Is your gun so loved by you that this in itself is not a valid enough purpose to lay down your firearms?
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
Interesting post Sparks. Thanks for a view of the "other" side of paradise!
Sorta sounds like Jefferson and Madison et al still are relevant.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Thank you Igloo!
When you get down to using my UserName as a slam, I know you have run out of ideas and airspeed at the same time!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Originally posted by Igloo:
.You know as well as I do that finding out how many lives were saved via gun restrictions is virtually impossible.
I absolutely do not know that. Studies on this topic are going on continuously. However, YOU can't find a single one that supports your position?
We do know, however, that lives were saved, and that in itself is a good enough reason.
No, we absolutely DO NOT "know" that. That is YOUR OPINION. You can't find anything to support it either, can you?
Must really make you upset! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Are you trying to tell me that restricting gun ownership will not save lives? Is that what you're saying? You're saying that more people will die if guns are regulated, than if the insane gun lobbying were to continue?
I'm saying you have ABSOLUTELY no evidence to support your contention that "registration saves lives." In fact, there is AMPLE evidence showing that it has NO EFFECT.
Further, there is strong evidence that prosecuting criminals that use guns in crimes IS the most effective and efficient way to reduce violent crime.
I'm saying that registration is simply a "feel good" measure that has no discernable effect on decreasing the rate of violent crime. It gives the perception of "doing something" while accomplishing nothing.
I'm saying it is a waste of time and money and we have none of either to waste. There are programs that work and we need to use both of these resources on those that do.
I don't think that's a bit selfish. I think that's an intelligent approach. Fund what works. Devote your time and effort to what works. A common sense approach...not wishful thinking based on opinion, like your favorite idea.
It is a very simple concept. Restrictions on guns saves lives. Is your gun so loved by you that this in itself is not a valid enough purpose to lay down your firearms?
Your concept is so simple that you cannot support your premise with anything other than your opinion; producing hard data is beyond your capability.
You present your prejudice as your proof. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
....Lay down your firearms...."
Oops! Liberal slip there Janet Reno! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Weren't you the guy saying you weren't against all guns? Weren't you the guy saying registration would not lead to confiscation?
What is this? Did you just reveal the real you? The real you that's just like every anti-gun liberal? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Igloo, you know what opinions are like...and so does everyone else.
Let's see some documented support for the premise you keep spouting...instead of "opinion".
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-10-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-10-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Sparks:
It is my perception (NOTE the use of the word perception) that the violent crime that is on the increase is that of violent robbery and attacks on innocents. It is also my experience that in the states the majority of gun or violent crime is drug related - criminal against criminal. It is also my experience here in Peterborough that I genuinely fear for my safety in MOST areas of the city after dark - not a fear of getting killed but of being violently attacked - a feeling I didn't experience in the US. Yes there were areas of every town that it was not advisable to go in but what I'm talking about here in my town in the UK is a constant threat of getting a good beating off an individual or group for no reason other than entertainment. People are being attacked on a daily basis - yes daily even in broad daylight. There is a pervasive disrespect for others amongst a section of our society that is based entirely on the power held by intimidation and violence that is left unchecked by our justice system. This abandonment of respectful members of the society leaves them weak and gives power to the criminal and violent which in turn threatens the stabilty of the society. It also alienates those respectful law abiding citizens from the law and justice systems - the very mechanisms that were created by the society to protect them and their way of life - and lets not forget that laws are there to protect a way of life, the standards we want to see as a minimum. I think that the right to carry arms and an armed police force redresses the balance and aligns the law abiding population more with the law and justice systems.
I agree with most of what you say here; I come from a pretty rough part of the country. Barnsley and its environs suffered massive unemployment (with no work available) after the Tories worked their magic, and crime increased as a result. In the old mining village near to where I used to live, buses stopped running after 6.00pm because of the frequency of attacks against bus drivers. You know not to stop as you drive through at night. In Barnsley, its a pretty tough crowd on a weekend and stabbings happen almost every weekend. My cousin was beaten up by a bunch of lads, and when he saw one of these people a few weeks later he beat him toejamless. Unfortunately, a CCTV camera saw the whole thing and he got three months.
Then I went to study in Durham, amongst a similar community where unemployment is high due to the wholesale destruction of the old mining and heavy industries. Student beatings were quite high (compared to the national average) - although I never had any problems (mainly because I hung around with lads from the Karate club). Numerically, only a handful of people were ever attacked while I was there (for 4 years).
My point is - I have experience of what you talk about, I don't come from some cushy middleclass background or live 'down south'. The way I see it, most of the criminality you describe is petty and oportunistic. At the moment, it is only the organised criminals who get their hands on firearms (as it has always been). I cannot see how relaxing the laws on gun ownership will not cause arms to proliferate down to the lower criminal classes, and muggings will be at gun point. How does that solve the problem and address the anti-social attitudes you describe? Having householders armed will not deter the criminal - the same drives will be there. And this time the burglar will be armed. When it comes to armed police, I really do think that criminals will find it more justifiable to use arms against the police. At the moment, if most people saw someone with a gun, they would be pretty scared and call the police immediately. If guns became more widespread, and therefore more acceptable, I'm sure this would not be the case.
It is simple, indisputable fact that sentences are heavier for armed crime than unarmed (especially against the police), and I think this goes someway to prevent criminals using arms in crime.
In their eyes the gun is merely a tool for increasing their power in any situation - if guns didn't exist it would be crossbows or something else. The gun is merely available, convenient and easy to use - the best tool for the job.
I don't see people rampaging around the country with crossbows. I also disagree that the gun is easy to obtain over here. Perhaps you know better?
You assert that arms are widespread throughout the UK. I think this is not true. There are 60 million people in the UK, yet there very few cases where arms are used against the public (as you say, crims shooting crims is a hazard of the job). Each case gets coverage, because armed police brandishing MP5s makes a great opening 'shot'. It's not as though there are unreported cases. Take the most recent one, where the Noye witness is murdered in his car. It made every newspaper and TV news bulletin for days. Or how about those couple of lads who went on a drive-by spree in a BMW a couple of years ago. These are isolated cases, and the odds of being caught up in them are greater than being hit by a meteorite.
The lynchmobs looking for peadophiles in Plymouth shows my point, the individual feels they cannot protect themselves or their family adequately and so look to others to join them and give them the strength they need.
I don't understand how you can make this statement. Are you saying that if people had access to guns, paedophiles would not exist, or at least be unable to operate? If this is true, then why are there paedophiles in the States?
I'm sorry but why should we consider a man like Noye back into our society EVER again...
Well, one of the key ideas behind the prison system is not only the protection of society, but is also rehabilitation. This is decided on a case by case basis. Not all lifers get out early (the Krays, Mira Hindley, the Yorkshire Ripper). I personally believe that there should be room also for appeal, if new evidence comes to light. The alternative is a system which still contains 'The Birmingham Six', 'Guildford 4' etc. One reason case is appropiate here. A man was sentenced to life for the rape and buggery of a women in 1984. The women turned out to be a drug addict and confessed 15 years later to a friend that she had made the hole thing up. The friend told the police and the man is released. In the meantime his son has been adopted and told his father is dead, he has suffered greatly since he would not go to a secure wing and was treated badly by the other imates because they thought he wa a nonce. In your system, where life means life, would there be room for rehabilitation or reviews of sentencing?
You also made the point in an earlier post "...remember no death penalty here or even whole of life sentaences here in jolly old UK...".
Considering the f**k ups in the judicial system, thank god we don't.
-
Toad, I made reference to your username because you made reference to Hitler in an attempt to nullify the opinions of anyone who would like to see guns off the street.
Do I seriously have to produce numbers that show regulation of guns saves lives? Are you that hard headed against the idea? It is common sense. People use guns to kill other people. Regulation of guns limits the accesibility of guns, thereby lowering the percentage of individuals with guns who shoot people.
Have guns been seriously regulated in the US? No, so how is it possible for me to get numbers on this? Perhaps comparing the number of gun related deaths in the US to countries with gun restrictions? Fine.
265 people a day were shot in 1997. - Sadly, this is the lowest number yet.
"The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found. The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000." -- The Associated Press.
"The study used 1994 statistics supplied by the 36 countries. Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States accounted for 45 percent, said Dr. Etienne Krug, a CDC researcher and co-author of the article." - The Associated Press.
"Also at the bottom of the list were South Korea with .12 per 100,000 people, followed by Hong Kong with .14, Mauritius with .19, Singapore with .21, Taiwan with .37 and England and Wales with .41." The Associated Press.
"The study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in America than in Europe, Canada or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia."
"The CDC said the 21 percent decline in the gun death rate occurred during a period in which violent crime also fell 21 percent,
as reported by the U.S. Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics." -- This shows that violent crimes and guns are very related.
Restricting guns is only one step towards solving this crisis. Education is key too, but both have to be implimented.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
My turn
Originally posted by Igloo:
Toad, I made reference to your username because you made reference to Hitler in an attempt to nullify the opinions of anyone who would like to see guns off the street.
Let's see.... looks like an attempt to destroy Toad's credibility to me, since Toad brought up a quote from Hitler. Course I guess the anti-gun liberals have forgotten that after Hitler had all of the guns registered he had them all confiscated, and along came the era we love to celebrate in this simulation.
Do I seriously have to produce numbers that show regulation of guns saves lives? Are you that hard headed against the idea? It is common sense. People use guns to kill other people. Regulation of guns limits the accesibility of guns, thereby lowering the percentage of individuals with guns who shoot people.
Regulation will have a small effect on the number of deaths. Take the guns away from the law abiding owners and accidents at home will become zero. But those deaths will be replaced by the criminals killing more people who can't defend themselves. There are hundreds of gun laws already on the books, but there is no enforcement. Do you really think more laws are the way to go? What about enforcement of current laws?
I'm sure every criminal in the US is waiting for the Uncle Sam to say "ok boys, hand in the guns, you can't play with them anymore." Then all criminals will line up to turn in thier guns. NOT!
So how's this going to "lower the percentage of individuals with guns who shoot people"? Most of the people who kill other people are criminals.
Have guns been seriously regulated in the US? No, so how is it possible for me to get numbers on this? Perhaps comparing the number of gun related deaths in the US to countries with gun restrictions? Fine.
We can look at numbers of deaths. Just like the good anti-gun liberal you try to make guns look evil. Of course the US is going to have alot more gun related deaths than anywhere else in the world.
"The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found. The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000." -- The Associated Press.
[/b]
hmmmm... how many guns per 100,000 people does the US have, and how many guns per 100,000 people does Japan have? Then those numbers you're throwing around might mean something.
Restricting guns is only one step towards solving this crisis. Education is key too, but both have to be implimented.
They're already resticted more than cars are (and cars cause more deaths). Education is sorely lacking and really needs to be beefed up.
Get rid of the criminal element and you'll get rid of most of the gun problem.
Ooops, sorry, forgot, you liberal types believe the guns are evil and make people into criminals
-
Originally posted by Igloo:
"The CDC said the 21 percent decline in the gun death rate occurred during a period in which violent crime also fell 21 percent,
as reported by the U.S. Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics." -- This shows that violent crimes and guns are very related.
Ooops, missed one.
Right here you make our point for us. A 21 percent drop in gun death rate occurs simulteanously with a 21 percent drop in violent crime rate.
Musta been that week I was in the bed sick and dinnae leave the house.
Seriously, tell me how MORE regulation is going to affect anything, other than accidents at home (which should be prevented with education). Go read all the laws about guns already on the books, and quit pushing for more knee-jerk, feel-good legislation that only tries to sweep the problem under the rug instead of fixing it
-
Sorry, I have a hard time believing stats and polls. Numbers are so easily distorted for one's agenda I doubt their accuracy. Having worked for several marketing research firms, I can tell you first hand, the facts are only as accurate as the one recording them. You can ask a question 10 different ways to get the answer you are looking for, depending on who is performing the poll/interview and why. It amazes me when people take the results of these polls as gospel or the fact that a poll maybe based on as few as 1000 selected candidates but Joe six pack think it’s the way the nation thinks.
Eagler
Oh please disregard the above post if the recent polls show Bush in the lead (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Eagler, lol, you guys are the ones that asked for the stats.
"how many guns per 100,000 people does the US have, and how many guns per 100,000 people does Japan have? Then those numbers you're throwing around might mean something."
That is my point! The number of guns per 100,000 people in Japan is much lower, thereby accounting for the lower ratio of deaths from guns. How much clearer do I have to write this for you?
Regarding Toads post. He/She was trying to associate the regulation of guns with hitler. That is very clear and a very manipulative course to take.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
Originally posted by Igloo:
Eagler, lol, you guys are the ones that asked for the stats.
"how many guns per 100,000 people does the US have, and how many guns per 100,000 people does Japan have? Then those numbers you're throwing around might mean something."
That is my point! The number of guns per 100,000 people in Japan is much lower, thereby accounting for the lower ratio of deaths from guns. How much clearer do I have to write this for you?
So let's have the numbers of guns for Japan then. We can figure out the deaths per gun, like Toad compared at the top of this thread for guns and cars.
Regarding Toads post. He/She was trying to associate the regulation of guns with hitler. That is very clear and a very manipulative course to take.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Manipulative? Getting paranoid are we?
He was pointing out a historical precendent. Go read history dude, that really happened. And it weren't all the good it was cracked up to be neither.
Heed the lessons from past, lest ye be doomed to repeat them.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I agree with most of what you say here; I come from a pretty rough part of the country. Barnsley and its environs suffered massive unemployment (with no work available) after the Tories worked their magic, and crime increased as a result. In the old mining village near to where I used to live, buses stopped running after 6.00pm because of the frequency of attacks against bus drivers. You know not to stop as you drive through at night. In Barnsley, its a pretty tough crowd on a weekend and stabbings happen almost every weekend.
Why should we tolerate this - is this an enviroment you consider quality and safe - I don't.
My cousin was beaten up by a bunch of lads, and when he saw one of these people a few weeks later he beat him toejamless. Unfortunately, a CCTV camera saw the whole thing and he got three months.
Why did they beat him ?? because they knew they had power over him....
Then I went to study in Durham, amongst a similar community where unemployment is high due to the wholesale destruction of the old mining and heavy industries. Student beatings were quite high (compared to the national average) - although I never had any problems (mainly because I hung around with lads from the Karate club). Numerically, only a handful of people were ever attacked while I was there (for 4 years).
You seem to contradict yourself here.
My point is - I have experience of what you talk about, I don't come from some cushy middleclass background or live 'down south'.
I had never made that suggestion.
The way I see it, most of the criminality you describe is petty and oportunistic.
I don't class a violent beating as petty and opportunistic - traumatising possibly - petty no.
At the moment, it is only the organised criminals who get their hands on firearms (as it has always been). I cannot see how relaxing the laws on gun ownership will not cause arms to proliferate down to the lower criminal classes, and muggings will be at gun point. How does that solve the problem and address the anti-social attitudes you describe? Having householders armed will not deter the criminal - the same drives will be there. And this time the burglar will be armed. When it comes to armed police, I really do think that criminals will find it more justifiable to use arms against the police. At the moment, if most people saw someone with a gun, they would be pretty scared and call the police immediately. If guns became more widespread, and therefore more acceptable, I'm sure this would not be the case.
Believe me if you see someone with a gun you call the police pretty quick no matter wher you live.
It is simple, indisputable fact that sentences are heavier for armed crime than unarmed (especially against the police), and I think this goes someway to prevent criminals using arms in crime.
Well lets see what the Home Office Crime Survey says about whether criminals are using guns less.
I don't see people rampaging around the country with crossbows. I also disagree that the gun is easy to obtain over here. Perhaps you know better?
Maybe not crossbows but it was an example only. As far as gun availability is concerned - I'll try to illuminate that in a minute.
You assert that arms are widespread throughout the UK. I think this is not true. There are 60 million people in the UK, yet there very few cases where arms are used against the public (as you say, crims shooting crims is a hazard of the job). Each case gets coverage, because armed police brandishing MP5s makes a great opening 'shot'. It's not as though there are unreported cases. Take the most recent one, where the Noye witness is murdered in his car. It made every newspaper and TV news bulletin for days. Or how about those couple of lads who went on a drive-by spree in a BMW a couple of years ago. These are isolated cases, and the odds of being caught up in them are greater than being hit by a meteorite.
Again - let me give some numbers to these "rare cases"..
I don't understand how you can make this statement. Are you saying that if people had access to guns, paedophiles would not exist, or at least be unable to operate? If this is true, then why are there paedophiles in the States?
Of course I'm not saying if people had guns peadophiles would not exist - I do think if people held arms they wouldn't feel the need to form a mob as they would feel more empowered to protect themselves.
I did a bit of research today at the Home Office web site and found some very interesting data (for me anyway)
First thing to remember is that from 1 July 1997 the ownership of a handgun over .22 calibre was made illegal.
Second and importantly a shotgun IS NOT a Firearm in these statistics they are dealt with separately.
Ok - the Firearms Certificate Statistics for England and Wales, 1997 (issued 19 Nov 1998) says this:-
Certificates on issue end 1997 was 133,600 - down from 141,900 from end 1996 - a decrease in people cetified to hold weapons of 6%.
The weapons covered by the certificates fell from 418,300 in 1996 to 305,000 in 1997 - a fall of 27%
Clearly the law abiding gun holders had done their bit and complied with the legal requirements and surrendered their weapons.
So how has a decrease in the legally owned weapons of 27% reduced gun related crime
I'll turn here to the Recorded Crime Statistics April 1999 to March 2000:-
Firearms act offences 1998/99 - 3,325 (quite a few for such "rare instances" don't you think - nearly ten a day.
Firearms act offences 1999/200 - 3,143 - a fall of a massive..... 5.5%
So while registered weapon ownership falls by over a quarter gun related crime falls by only 1/20th - so where is the link of legal gun ownership to gun related crime levels ??
So what have we seen during this widening of the social power gap between the crimanl classes and the justice system / law abiding classes ??
Once again I'll turn to the 1999/2000 Crime figures.
"Offences of violence against the person showed a 16% rise compared to a 10% fall the previous year. Sexual offences rose by 4% and robberies increased by 26%"
Violence against the person crimes rose from 502,788 to 581,036....
"The largest percentage increases within violence against the person were in harrassment, assault on a constable and common assault."
Harrassment rose by 25%
assault on a constable rose by 21%
Common assault rose by 28%
Now I'll move on to your last point:-
Well, one of the key ideas behind the prison system is not only the protection of society, but is also rehabilitation. This is decided on a case by case basis.
Oh so we rehabilitate our criminals ??
Lets see what the Home Office says...
Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate Research Findings No.118
"The Prison Population in 1999 A statistcal Review"
Key Point
"57% of prisoners discharged from prison in 1996 were reconvicted of a standard offence within 2 years of release"
Now thats not just charged in 2 years, that's charged, appeared in court and convicted within 2 years.!!!!! and more than half of them !!!!!
Not all lifers get out early (the Krays, Mira Hindley, the Yorkshire Ripper).
I think you'll find that those people had multiple life sentences to run consecutively.
I personally believe that there should be room also for appeal, if new evidence comes to light. The alternative is a system which still contains 'The Birmingham Six', 'Guildford 4' etc. One reason case is appropiate here. A man was sentenced to life for the rape and buggery of a women in 1984. The women turned out to be a drug addict and confessed 15 years later to a friend that she had made the hole thing up. The friend told the police and the man is released. In the meantime his son has been adopted and told his father is dead, he has suffered greatly since he would not go to a secure wing and was treated badly by the other imates because they thought he wa a nonce. In your system, where life means life, would there be room for rehabilitation or reviews of sentencing?
Of course there should be an appeal system - I never suggested there shouldn't...
All in all the figures show me at least that the problem is the growth in power of the criminal society not the legal ownership of firearms.
I end with this :-
Again from "The Prison Population in 1999 A statistcal Review"
These are quotes:
"There were 4200 prisoners serving life sentences on 30 June 1999 - three quarters of these were convicted murderers".
"The number of prisoners in England and Wales expressed as a rate per 100,000 population was the second highest in Western Europe in 1999"
"The greatest proportion of male sentenced prisoners (21%) was held for 'violence against the person offences'"
And yet with all those sickos out there you would think there would be a lot of refusals of firearms certificates - "Two percent of applications for new firearms certificates made during 1997 were refused, much the same as in 1996" " The percentage of applications for renewal of firearm and shotgun certificates that were refused in 1997 were both less than half of one percent" - obviously these gun owners are a bunch of right wing loonies set to shoot the milkman at the first opportunity...
On 31st December 1997 there were 1,648,057 shotguns and firearms legally held and registered in the UK - this is AFTER the removal of large bore handguns - and yet less than half of one percent of the certificate holders were seen as unfit to hold them at renewal time.
-
Toad was attempting to draw parallels between hitler and people who are for gun regristration. Or could you not see that?
LOL, read up on some history? I am a historian by profession. An archaeologist to be more percise.
Anyways, what's the use? You love your guns and will stick with them regardless of any facts I produce. You'll stick with what you have already concluded to be true, regardless of any new information. So, what's the point? Seriously...
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
Igloo,
Parallels?
You said I attempted to draw parallels between guns and cars. In fact, I DID draw parallels and they are valid.
You chose not to respond or attempt to disprove the parallels. Because you can't.
There IS a parallel in that post that upsets you.
Clinton talks of restricting Constitutional rights. Reno talks of confiscating guns.
Hitler favored registration.
You can't see a parallel there? You can't see the leaders of two different societies at different times proposing the same solution to violent crime? You can't see that the solution DID NOT WORK EITHER TIME?
You chose not to respond or attempt to disprove this parallel. Other than (http://www.geocities.com/thk_pix/board/smilies/cry_ani.gif) "Mommy, Mommy! Toad said HITLER!!!" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) ) Because you can't.
You can't see these parallels because you close your eyes.
Not ONE TIME in all your posts have you ever provided ANYTHING but your opinion as support for your positions.
You can't prove or justify a single thing you say. Yet of course you ignore indisputable facts. You simply dodge the issue and throw out another "red herring".
Tell me this Igloo:
How do you explain the success of Project Exile in Richmond, VA? I posted the link to two sites that discuss it. Read those and tell me how you conclude that registration will save more lives than locking up violent criminals that use guns?
Violent crime is down 60% in Richmond in ONE YEAR.
Then show me a place where Registration has done that.
No opinion now, Igloo...show me a successful registration program that dropped violent crime.
Enough OPINION...put up or shut up.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-10-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-10-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Igloo:
Toad was attempting to draw parallels between hitler and people who are for gun regristration. Or could you not see that?
LOL, read up on some history? I am a historian by profession. An archaeologist to be more percise.
Anyways, what's the use? You love your guns and will stick with them regardless of any facts I produce. You'll stick with what you have already concluded to be true, regardless of any new information. So, what's the point? Seriously...
Archaeologist huh? That's cool. Guess I'll have to start calling your Dr. Jones (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Granted my knowledge of archaeology is limited, but isn't it mainly ancient history and piecing together fragments from long, long, long, long ago? A little difference there between archaeology and recent history.
Yes, I love my guns and, yes, I'll defend my right to keep them to the end. I have first hand experience with how dangerous they, and I'll show you the scars on my calve to prove it. Then I'll show you the 9mm slug that made those scars, as I put it on a chain to wear.
Toad has made the point much more eloquently than I could with his last post. You're very opinionated on this, and that's fine. But it seems that your education on the subject is somewhat lacking.
Yes, there is a problem in the US. Responsible, law-abiding gun owners, such as myself, try to do our parts to promote education and solutions that really work to solve the problem. Emotional, uneducated (on this matter) liberals scream that guns are evil and are working to have them banned and force thier morals and way of life on the rest of us. BTW, the problem isn't the guns, it's the criminals and the lack of proper instruction on firearm safety/handling/storage.
"how many guns per 100,000 people does the US have, and how many guns per 100,000 people does Japan have? Then those numbers you're throwing around might mean something."
That is my point! The number of guns per 100,000 people in Japan is much lower, thereby accounting for the lower ratio of deaths from guns. How much clearer do I have to write this for you?
Where are the numbers so we can calculate the deaths per gun? Or have you already done that and been surprised by the result and dinnae want to say?
Gun related deaths are going to be less in any country that won't let thier people have guns. That's a basic fact. But when you start comparing the ratios of the number of people in a country to the number of guns those people have to the number of gun related deaths you'll get a surprise.
Some like to compare England/UK to the US in the great gun debate. What's the population of England? 1/10th that of the US? More? Less? (too lazy to dig it up right now). You can't compare that directly, so you gotta look at the ratios. And when you do that the numbers the anti gun crowd love to scream dinnae look that bad. And it really pisses the anti-gun people off, so they try to keep that from the uneducated public who believe everything they hear/see on good morning America. Crying shame that so many are trying to dupe thier fellow Americans so they can force thier beliefs on the rest of us I think.
Toad for President (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Well, like you said, you love your gun and will stick with it to the end. Is there anything I could say that would change your opinion?
I'm not for outlawing guns. Putting restrictions on them, as well as attacking the criminals will have a better affect than just doing one or the other.
I'm an Egyptologist (an archaeologist working with the ancient Egyptian civilization). I've also done some work with the war of 1812. Your right to bear arms comes from that time and those conditions which were present to allow for same do not exist anymore today. That is my point. The constitution, in some respect, is outdated.
Countries like Canada, who have serious gun restrictions, are doing just fine with them. Nobody is having their rights violated and the number of gun related deaths is one of the lowest in the world. You said it yourself, the number of guns in society is a direct ratio to the number of gun related deaths. IF you attack those criminals, yes, gun related deaths go down. But if you attack the crimanals and work to seriously regulate guns, you nap it in the butt at both ends.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
[This message has been edited by Igloo (edited 10-11-2000).]
-
I never said we should tolerate such an environment. My point is that throwing guns at the situation will not solve the problem of violent crime.
When it comes to my cousin, are you saying that he should have been armed while going round the pubs and clubs? If not, then I don't see what you are trying to say.
'Petty' refered to theft (like in car stereos) and 'opportunistic' referred to getting beaten up in the street (i.e. no prior planning). All crime is traumatising.
Believe me if you see someone with a gun you call the police pretty quick no matter wher you live.
Did you see 'Louis Theroux's Weird Weekends' on Monday? He was in South Africa talking to the Boars. Many of them were armed with handguns (and heavy calibre automatic weapons), and people didn't even bat an eyelid, nevermind call the police. They were all licensed, legally held weapons.
I do think if people held arms they wouldn't feel the need to form a mob as they would feel more empowered to protect themselves.
So you concede that guns will not eradicate the paedophile or his filthy actions. I'm not against the mob specifically, put the wrongful targeting of people based on rumour (in the traditional Arthur Miller style). Considering that the activity would still proceed, if people were armed with guns, wouldn't innocent people still get hurt?
Your information is interesting (saved me the trouble, I guess (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)).
Firearms act offences 1998/99 - 3,325 (quite a few for such "rare instances" don't you think - nearly ten a day.
Firearms act offences 1999/200 - 3,143 - a fall of a massive..... 5.5%
Firstly, ten a day isn't really that significant compared to the crimes more likely to affect you - e.g. mugging, car theft, alcohol induced violence, maybe even rape. I'll try to find out the exact figures for these. Also, a firearms offence is much more likely to be 'detected' (to use Police terminology), by its conspicuous nature. The crimes I gave above, probably have much lower detection rates (especially rape).
Another point, is that it has been to soon since the change in legislation, to make any real conclusions from any of the data given. Any change could be idiosyncratic of the statistics not of reality; maybe in ten years there will be an official report commissioned to look at the data.
In reply to your statistics describing an increase in criminality - are you saying this a direct consequence of the decrease in the number of weapons from "...418,300 in 1996 to 305,000 in 1997..."? Or that if guns hadn't been restricted, crime levels would have remained the same? I have no answer as to what has caused the increase - but there are far more factors to consider than simply the raw data. Changes in the way the police report crimes, and the policy behind 'quotas' might have an effect, for instance.
Deterrance is often used as an excuse to justify household gun ownership - I personally believe that having one gun per 120 people has never deterred any criminal.
I never said that prisons were successful in rehabilitation (read my post again) - I said rehabilitation was a key idea behind the prison service. I personally think criminals should serve their sentence, unless an appeal is successful. But the key question here, I think, is whether the tax payer will pay the BILLIONS needed to build the new prisons already needed by a prison service at bursting point?
All in all the figures show me at least that the problem is the growth in power of the criminal society not the legal ownership of firearms.
Might be the case, might not. This growth in 'power of the criminal society' can't simply be attributed to the removal of 27% of guns from society. They were never widespread enough before the new legislation.
As for the refusal of licences - the police have to have very concrete grounds for removing such a 'fundamental' right (as seen by our American brothers). They gave that nutter in Dublane a license for years - very little was known by the police about his strange behaviour. That goes for all social deviants - they tend to hide it pretty well. That might also explain the low refusal rate.
-
Igloo,
Nice dodge. Again. Don't like to talk about Project Exile? Holding the criminals accountable?
How about something REAL simple then.
Explain how registering firearms will absolutely reduce the number of gun deaths please.
Tell us why a registered gun will not be used in a violent crime.
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Igloo,
Nice dodge. Again. Don't like to talk about Project Exile? Holding the criminals accountable?
How about something REAL simple then.
Explain how registering firearms will absolutely reduce the number of gun deaths please.
Tell us why a registered gun will not be used in a violent crime.
First, Toad, he must tell us how all the firearms held by criminals are going to registered. THEN he can tell us why a registered gun will not be used in a violent crime.
-
OK - my last post on this.
Toad - what are your thoughts on the re-offending statistics here in the UK and applying that finding to the overall effect of the VA program?? If you are putting repeat offenders away for 5 years then surely the crime rate will fall accordingly. I'm not saying it's wrong to do it but maybe there are other factors in the overall sucess??
Dowding - I think maybe you have mis-interprated the general outline of my views on this - probably I haven't explained myself well. The main points of your arguements seem to be based around the carrying of arms whereas the arguement here is about the legal right to own arms - to me there is a difference. Merely as an illustration my father-in-law in the states owns probably 4 to 6 weapons but never carries one of them.
I think I need to summarize where I'm coming from here.
I think the legal right to own a firearm maintains the power balance between the lawful section of society and the lawless. It is not having millions of people carrying handguns on the streets but the simple right of ownership. The statistics demonstrating the increase in criminality since 1997 are proof to me that the criminal society see a softening of attitudes in terms of protection of the lawfull. The government has in effect said that law abiding citizens are incapable of holding a firearm without it falling into criminal use.
This erosion of law abiding citizens percieved capabilty is amplified by the prosecutions of people defending themselves or their property.
The balance of power shifts to the criminal and that is where we are today.
I think this addresses this point of yours
In reply to your statistics describing an increase in criminality - are you saying this a direct consequence of the decrease in the number of weapons from "...418,300 in 1996 to 305,000 in 1997..."? Or that if guns hadn't been restricted, crime levels would have remained the same? I have no answer as to what has caused the increase - but there are far more factors to consider than simply the raw data. Changes in the way the police report crimes, and the policy behind 'quotas' might have an effect, for instance.
Might be the case, might not. This growth in 'power of the criminal society' can't simply be attributed to the removal of 27% of guns from society.
The statistics on refusal of certificates is used to demonstrate that there is no evidence to suggest that law abiding citizens are incapable of owning arms while not allowing them into criminal use.
The statistics comparing the fall in legal registered firearms against and almost level incidence of firearms offences to me shows that the firearms used in offences do not come from the legally owned sector - if they did then restriction of supply would have given a much more pronounced and ongoing fall in firearms offences.
To look at the last couple of points
Firstly, ten a day isn't really that significant compared to the crimes more likely to affect you - e.g. mugging, car theft, alcohol induced violence, maybe even rape. I'll try to find out the exact figures for these. Also, a firearms offence is much more likely to be 'detected' (to use Police terminology), by its conspicuous nature. The crimes I gave above, probably have much lower detection rates (especially rape).
Well thats just a definition of rare - I thought you were saying that the only firearms crimes were those we saaw on TV - I was trying to point out it was more prevalent than some may realise. I agree that violent crimes of other nature are more common - my post gave the figures as they are in the crime survey - and most crime goes unreported. I still do not consider moree than 3000 recorded firearms offences rare in such a highly retgulated enviroment.
I never said that prisons were successful in rehabilitation (read my post again) - I said rehabilitation was a key idea behind the prison service. I personally think criminals should serve their sentence, unless an appeal is successful. But the key question here, I think, is whether the tax payer will pay the BILLIONS needed to build the new prisons already needed by a prison service at bursting point?[/b]
I did read your post - what I simply totally disagree with is that rehabilition can hope to be achieved in a fixed sentance system. I used the re-offending rate to try and illustrate how it very clearly doesn't. I beleive sentencing and type of imprisonment should be based on the individuals ability to reform, not the offense. If my taxes were to go up to provide the infrastructure to achieve that then so be it - I would get it back from reduced insurance premiums and a better quality of life.
Deterrance is often used as an excuse to justify household gun ownership - I personally believe that having one gun per 120 people has never deterred any criminal.
I think to conclude this is where we differ. First, and as I said in the first paragraph, I don't believe that the right to own a firearm automatically determines 100% ownership and physical ownership is not a deterrent - it is last resort.
The right to own combined with the support of the law system to those defending themselves or property IS a detterant to crime in my opinion.
Certainly a legally held weapon legally used in self defence has stopped criminals from creating another victim.
The basis of anti-gun legislation is that:-
1.The guns used in criminal activity coem from legal holding sources - there is no evidence of that.
2. Legal gun holders commit large numbers of firearms offences - there is no evidence of that (yes there will always be the odd looney...)
3. Legal ownership has no benefit to society - I think there is evidence to the contrary.
Americans - fight hard and long .....
Sparks <out>
-
I'm glad you said it was your last post - I think I am getting a little tired of the gun issue. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I think maybe the problem is that we disagree quite strongly with each other.
. Legal ownership has no benefit to society - I think there is evidence to the contrary.
This is where we differ. I believe the statistics you quote are gathered over too short a lifespan; changes in the way data is collected might account for data, for instance. It would have been better if handguns had been outlawed over 20 years ago. We'd then have more data on crime rate trends. I guess things will become clearer in 10-20 years.
I think the legal right to own a firearm maintains the power balance between the lawful section of society and the lawless.
One of the points I was trying to make was that the crime you described in one of your first posts (viz Peterborough), could not be stopped by gun ownership - i.e. the only way it could be stopped would be if people carried guns in the street. I just can't see how that kind of society would any more pleasant to live in. The crimes of assault, robbery etc happen in the street, not in the home (which is where you would leave your gun, since carrying a firearm is illegal in this country).
My main point is that I doubt gun ownership will affect the crime rate, since it was pretty rare before the nre legislation.
Can I ask a personal question? I'm not trying to offend (I'm just interested (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)), but how long have you lived in the UK, considering your American extraction? Maybe our disagreement might have something to do with our backgrounds (and maybe mindsets) - its just that I don't think I know anyone who would advocate legal gun ownership, based on other discussions I've had with them.
-
No offense Dowding - born in UK (here in Peterborough in fact) - lived in UK in various locations until 1985 - lived in the states basically til 1990 (short breaks 1985 to 87 then permanent resident). Been back in UK since 1990 and wish I was back stateside.
American wife.
-
Dowding,
A couple points to help fan the flames. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Assaults and robberies DO happen in the home and in stores (or other business). There have been quite a few in the past. Where do criminals think they will find money? In a store or other business doing retail operations. That is why those locations have cash registers. A Jewelry store was invaded in Nogales and the occupants were sprayed with gasoline which was ignited by the assailant. The store was a loss. The occupants were badly burned and most of a family including 2 kids died. A second jewelry store was robbed at gunpoint about a week later. The occupants were complying with the demands of the suspects. When one of the suspects screamed they were not acting fast enough and pointed a pistol at two kids in the store, the store owner pulled hiw weapon and shot the suspect. Both suspects fled and the wounded one died shortly after. (good riddence) No one in the store was injured.
Home invasions do happen. The fact is that most burglaries occur in the daytime in the US. Why? That is the time when the home is likely to be empty due to the prevalence of the 2 wage earner lifestyle. A burglar does not want to confront a homeowner as they are likely to be defending their home from the burglar. (This is from personal contact with a few burglars in my previous profession)
Occupied Home invasions also occur. There have been several where te invadors were attempting to use police "swat like" tactics and clothing to gain compliance from their victims. This makes it less likely the victims will attempt to defend themselves if they believe it IS an eroneous police action or not. If the suspects in the home invasiuon think there are no weapons they are more likely to strike as they have less to fear from their actions. They know full well that after notification, police response time will be several minutes. Unless there happens to be an officer nearby.
Another point. About 27 years ago there was a police strike in my community. The labor situation was grim for Officers and the city just kept ignoring them. Finally the rank and file walked off of the job. The situation was well pulicized and the strike was known to be coming. The papers also noted from interviewing many gun store operators that there was a buying spree going on. When the strike happened thinkgs got pretty quiet. There were police on duty, primarily supervisors and the few who absolutely couldn't get along without the paycheck due to finances. Calls for service and crime dropped to practically nothing. When some career burglars were questioned about the lack of activity later they stated they knew they were likely to be met by gunfire from the victims and decided that a low profile was a good idea.
Whether the danger to the burglar was real or not is a moot point. They felt it was dangerous and backed off. The result was a very quiet and reduced crime period of time.
Mav
-
I don't like cars either (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
------------------
Rickenbacker (Ricken)
-ISAF-
the Independent Swedish Air Force
-
I haven't been to America, but I like Britain (despite its problems). I'm proud to be called British and would defend our way of life to the death. Despite the fact that the word 'British' has racist undertones apparently and we should crucify ourselves for our collective 'colonial guilt' everyday. I also dislike the 'americanisation' of everything as though the US is shining example of how to run our affairs. Our culture and history is comprimised, I feel, in a way that most Americans would hate. Having said this, I'm not 'anti-america'.
Sparks, I kind of guessed you preferred the States to the UK (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif).
Mav - I just don't believe guns truly deter criminals and are the 'cure-all' people seem to proclaim. You still get crime. Take a look at South Africa, where people carry guns in the street, and look at the crime level. I don't believe in banning guns, but they should be strictly regulated and registered, with the more powerful weapons restricted to registered gun clubs. How long did the police strike last? I'm just not sure the 'quiet period' you describe would last; afterall, crims. have got mouths (and addictions) to feed (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif).
This may come as a bit of a shock (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif), but I regard myself as a moderate patriotic socialist. I'm no Che Guevara. I believe that government should not 'regulate' everything, or indeed provide everything for everyone. But guns are an example of where goverment should be involved.
IMHO. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 10-13-2000).]
-
Sparks:
Toad - what are your thoughts on the re-offending statistics here in the UK and applying that finding to the overall effect of the VA program?? If you are putting repeat offenders away for 5 years then surely the crime rate will fall accordingly. I'm not saying it's wrong to do it but maybe there are other factors in the overall success??
The Virginia criminals get 5 years to reevaluate their lives. If they just bide their time, content with what they are and are unwilling to self-evaluate and change, then they will soon be back in prison. In this case, whatever it costs to keep them locked away is relatively cheap for society overall.
OTOH if they are smart enough to realize that prison is not the place to be, they can make the personal decision to change their lives. There are education opportunities and programs to help them but we could and should do more. I’d like to see money wasted on idiot, pointless programs redirected into this area.
"57% of prisoners discharged from prison in 1996 were reconvicted of a standard offence within 2 years of release"
I haven’t gone looking for recidivism rates in the US and in any event, Project Exile and Ceasefire are so new no recidivism data would be available. It will be 4 years before any of them get out. Early indications are positive, however in two areas. In Richmond now there are several documented instances of, criminals throwing up their hands and yelling “no guns, no guns, Project Exile” when confronted by police. This indicates to me at least that the criminal element is aware of the situation and is taking steps to avoid guns. Secondly, Exile and Ceasefire have incredibly high (and expedited) conviction rates with few (nil) reversals. I think the certainty of jail time without parole is also having a positive effect.
As I said though, the key to recidivism lies in the individual. They have to want to change, have to believe they will be caught if they return to crime. Further, society has to provide them with a viable “way out”. They can’t change if they have no options. We could definitely do a better job here...but we simply p*ss away all of our resources. We have to focus on improving the individual, not punishing the inanimate objects.
-
Dowding: I don't believe in banning guns, but they should be strictly regulated and registered, with the more powerful weapons restricted to registered gun clubs
Dowding, perhaps YOU can explain how this program would help lower the violent crime rate.
First, do you believe the criminals will comply with the restrictions and registration?
Second, do you believe the law-abiding citizens that WOULD register are a major cause of violent crime?
Lastly, how does one define “more powerful weapon”? Caliber? Muzzle velocity? Magazine capacity? If such a determination can be made and such a restriction enforced, will you not once again be restricting the people that are absolutely the least likely to participate in violent crime?
Enquiring minds want to know!
-
Gun registration may not lower the violent crime rate, but, in a few years, it will lower the rate in which guns are used in a violent crime.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
Originally posted by Igloo:
Gun registration may not lower the violent crime rate, but, in a few years, it will lower the rate in which guns are used in a violent crime.
Yup, I'll give ya that one. You wanna know HOW it's going to lower the rate? That's easy. Uncle Sam is gonna come knockin on doors and take away (without compensation mind you) all the registered guns. That's what all the anti-gun people who are pushing for registration are after.
Barring that, registration WILL NOT lower anything. Criminals DO NOT care for the law, which is why they're called criminals. They'll go steal someone's registered gun, use it in a crime, and ditch it somewhere. Then if the authorities can identify the gun they'll go kick in the door of who it's registered to, even though it was reported stolen, and harrass an innocent person. And dinnae tell me it won't happen. Cops want to get the bad guy, and it would be easy for them to 'forget' to check if a gun was reported stolen before they go kick in doors.
-
Toad -
I think we are strongly agreeing here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I think the 5 year term is a good step in the direction of taking repeat offenders off the street and as you say only the time after the first releases will show the re-offending rate.
I think the only place we differ is in sentencing structure....
...If they just bide their time, content with what they are and are unwilling to self-evaluate and change, then they will soon be back in prison. ...
...OTOH if they are smart enough to realize that prison is not the place to be, they can make the personal decision to change their lives....
...the key to recidivism lies in the individual. They have to want to change, have to believe they will be caught if they return to crime. Further, society has to provide them with a viable “way out”. They can’t change if they have no options....
I agree wholly with your reasoning - IMHO it is the only sane way forward. Again IMHO though the ONLY "viable way out" should be re-formation of their lives. If someone is willing to bide their time for 5 years and come out and re-offend, and we let them, then I think we have failed the victim of their next offense. If we need to increase our prison institutions and resources by a faactor of 10 it will still be better than knowingly allowing repeat criminals back into our lives. Fixed sentencing turns prison into a quantifiable risk for a criminal "if I get caught I'l only do 18 months...".
Igloo:-
Gun registration may not lower the violent crime rate, but, in a few years, it will lower the rate in which guns are used in a violent crime.
Did you not read or understand the Home Office data??? We have done exactly what you preach in the UK since 1997 - in fact we have removed OVER A QUARTER OF ALL FIREARMS FROM THE REGISTER AND DESTROYED THEM. It has barely affected the rate of firearms offences!!! STATISTICAL AND CURRENT PROOF THAT WHAT YOU SAY IS WRONG.
Firearms used in crime rarely come from the legally held pool because they are too easy to trace - that is simple common sense. More proof. In the UK even before 1997 firearms were registered, if and owner lost one and couldn't prove theft or a route of legal sale then he would have his/her permit revoked - what is the refusal of renewal rate then ??? - less than half of one percent!! Gun owners in the UK know how to keep their weapons safe.
Anyway that was DIFINITELY my last post on this.. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Dowding,
Irrespective of your belief about guns detering crime, I have noted it in dealing with some of these criminals. Again the main time to burglarize a home is in the daytime to avoid confrontations with the occupants. Burglars are not interested in the confrontation as that makes the risk of getting caught and being hurt / killed by the home owners cvery significant.
Irregardless of the deterance aspect. With a firearm the home owners have a chance to defend themselves from the home invader, particularly the infirm or aged victim. Why do societal predators pick on the old? Because they are EASIER pickings. There is much less to fear from those who cannot defend themselves.
Mav
[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 10-15-2000).]
-
This may signify the "End of Days". Repent!
First I find Santa turning "conservative" in another thread....
Then Dowding agrees with me and I with him....
...and Dowding even slaps Igloo with the frozen salmon of reality!
This probably does mean "The End Is Near".
(http://smilecwm.tripod.com/net3/outtahere.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-15-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-15-2000).]
-
Conservative?
That's ham in a metal box.
Now, I have muscles of steel, but beneath it lies not ham, but incresdible charm, with and intelligence.
And a good dose of humility.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
-
lol Toad (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Maverick - I agree to some extent with what you say, but over here (where you are unlikely to find a gun in the average house), most burgalries occur when the occupants are not present, just like the States. Perhaps the crims. do this to avoid being identified or involved in a confrontation; in addition to the risk that they might get killed or injured by the householder, a confrontation might result in them injuring the same householder, which would make them more traceable from evidence at the scene (blood, fibres etc).
StSanta - I've never said it, but your grasp of English is superb! I just wished they taught foreign languages to any decent degree of depth in British schools, instead of relying on everyone to speak English. I remember what Eddie Izzard said about Holland, where virtually everyone speaks English well (apparently) - he said asking people if they spoke English was like asking them if they could count to two, going by the reactions they gave.