# Gun Control Debate



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

This was taken from 1911forums.com. I figure that our gun control debates shouldn't be in the VT related threads, so I started a place for us to be able to have this debate if we choose to. As you probably know, I'm pro-gun and when I saw this post on a gun forum, I just had to post it up here.




To those civilized nations with gun control 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see the whining about gun control already starting in the news.

Nowhere do I see that it was illegal to carry the gun at a college.

America is such a uncivilized place because we all have guns etc.

Just to point out a few things to our CIVILIZED world neighbors.

I seem to remember a young man shooting up a Canadian college
not to long ago. Gee, doesnt Canada have some strict gun laws.

We did not have Muslim youths running thru our towns and cities burning everything in view. Here they would have been shot on the second or third night. (this would be France)

We do not have hundreds of cops showing up for minor ball games because the fans are rioting in the stands. (UK)

We dont have college student rioting and throwing gasoline bombs at police.
(South Korea and other places)

We dont have terrorists taking over school for three days raping young children and murdering adults (Belsan Russia)

We dont have people taking over and continuing to kill people because they are the only ones with guns. (Port Arthur Massacure in Austrailia)

People in glass house shouldnt throw stones.

You dont like our gun laws, stay out of MY country.
Because we know gun control doesnt work.

And when Meth gets to your country, life is gonna get worse.
Meth users are some of the most dangerous drug users in the world.


Here's the link for this thread in it's entirety: http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?p=1509883#post1509883


----------



## Makelele (Apr 19, 2007)

We have none of those things, and we don't have people going into schools shooting either.

Here's some interesting statistics:

Murders with firearms (per capita): 0.0279271 per 1,000 people (USA)
Murders (per capita): 0.042802 per 1,000 people (USA)

Murders (per capita): 0.0283362 per 1,000 people (Finland)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

I honestly never look at per captia stats. I just don't like them for some reason. DId you know that twice as many kids drown in a bath tub or pool as are involved in accidental shootings? And only 1/3 of those in shooting end up dying.


----------



## Drew (Apr 19, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> Because we know gun control doesnt work.



 

NLB, we've talked about this ad nauseum. 

People who post things like this are confusing "gun control" with "gun bans." I am totally FOR gun control. I don't like guns, however if a majority of americans are for them, then as a member of a democracy I don't necessarily like it but I respect the fact that many of my fellow citizens will want to carry them. I'm cool with that. 

However, I am in favor of cun _controls_, and you know what, NLB? I know for a fact you are too. I believe no one should be allowed to buy a gun without a liscense. I believe that in order to get a liscense you need to go through a background check involving an extensive evaluation of your criminal record, psychological history, and current psychological state. I'm in favor of waiting periods before the purchase of guns. I'm in favor of mandatory gun safty education classes before purchases for whatecer class of weapons you're trying to purchase. And, I'm in favor of very stiff penalties for anyone who violates any of these controls. 

Is any of that so bad? I don't think so. I see gun ownership as a SERIOUS responsibility, since you're in posession of an item that can end life with the pull of a trigger. As such, I think we need to make sure that no one can buy a gun without taking that responsibility just as seriously as I do. 

Posts like that are just the sort of knee-jerk "pro gun" or "anti-gun" statements that cloud the debate, and serve no purpose whatsoever. And after our discussions of the last day or two, I didn't expect that from you.

Your response is going to be that many of these laws are already in place. And you know what? You're right. However, not all of them (I believe no psychological evaluation is done before the purchase of a firearm, which frankly is crazy) are, and furthermore most of them are very laxly enforced. And a lot of that is because of this very knee-jerk "They'z tryin' to take awah mah guns!" NRA reaction to any serious debate about gun control (NOT ban, but control). Whenever something like this VA shooting happens, most gun owners go up in arms to defend their constitutional right to own guns and paint the dialogue in black-and-white issues, without even stopping to think if maybe there's some common ground in the debate, where one side respects the others's rights to own guns, provided the other respects the first's belief that a gun in the wrong hands is a very dangerous thing, so every step should be taken to ensure that people likely to hurt others with them are not allowed to posess guns. 

It's no different then a driver's liscense, in my eyes - a car in the wrong hands is a thing that can easily hurt, maim, or kill people, so there are millions of people in this country who are not able to get driver's liscense, either due to age, phsyical or mental illness, or criminal record. Why should a gun, in light of Supreme Court definitions acknowledging gun ownership is these days largely a recreational activity, be any different?


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

I was looking at this post as more of an argument against some of the ridiculously strict bans that other countries have on guns. To the point that some countries have complete bans on them and still have serious violent crime issues which is the basis for alot of arguments for stricter gun controls and bans. 

I certainly remember your viewpoint, Drew. Guns are something that our society will likely always have and you accept that. And if you remember, I do agree that there should be some increase in gun control laws, however I strongly disagree with some of the bills up on the table right now like HR 1022.

I'm not a fan of gun bans or gun control so strict that law abiding citizens can't get them. Because quite honestly, the bad guys will always find a way to get their hands on guns. And with the police response times in my area exceeding 10 minutes, I won't have time to wait for them in an emergency and I'd rather rely on my shooting skills than those of very poorly trained (firearms training) police officers. Statistics show that only 10% of shots fired by police officers in stress fire situations hit their targets, where legally armed citizens hit their target closer to 80% of the time.

And you're right Drew. That is the kind of post that you wouldn't have expected from me, however I simply meant it as a means of debate rather than saying "Hey, this dude's got an awsome point" However, he did raise an interesting point is showing that just because the public doesn't have guns doesn't mean that crime ends. That's all. I certainly think that this guy is a little over the top as far as his view on the issue, but again, I simply added it as a means of debate.

EDIT: I edited my first post to clarify how I feel about what he says. Do you still love me Drew


----------



## Grom (Apr 19, 2007)

This guy may be right or wrong, I don't care. But I still find it a pity that people died under bullets who could have been prevented with a simple license ... Even if in my country Muslim guys set fire to cars, less people die simply because a moron used his gun irresponsibly. FAR LESS people stupidly killed.

Do you really think that all the Americans who bought a gun thought they did it to protect themselves against the gov, as your Constitution implies ? They mainly do it to protect themselves because assholes have bought them too. When you have to protect yourself with a lethal weapon because you believe that dangerous persons are also using it, there's something to do. And quickly.


----------



## Drew (Apr 19, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> I'm not a fan of gun bans or gun control so strict that law abiding citizens can't get them. Because quite honestly, the bad guys will always find a way to get their hands on guns. And with the police response times in my area exceeding 10 minutes, I won't have time to wait for them in an emergency and I'd rather rely on my shooting skills than those of very poorly trained (firearms training) police officers. Statistics show that only 10% of shots fired by police officers in stress fire situations hit their targets, where legally armed citizens hit their target closer to 80% of the time.



Well, that's kind of a defeatist attitude, though. If you limit private gun ownership and then take serious steps to crack down on guns illegally entering the country and guns owned illegally, initially more of the "bad guys" than the good guys will have guns, but that number will drop as guns are confiscated by police, and the supply of guns coming into the country illegally dries up. 

That's neither here nor there, though, because like you I accept gun ownership by law-abiding, mentally healthy citizens as constitutionally grounded. 

As for that statistic, I actually think that's an argument against private ownership of guns, or at the very least a strong argument for more training. Cops are trained from day one to use guns safely and accurately in stressful situations. Private citizens are not. Just because only 10% of their shots are a "hit" does not necessarily prove this is not the case - I would suggest that most of that is because the police force, trained to use lethal force only as a last resort, is more inclined to fire warning shots or to shoot to disable, whereas a private citizen, without such training, is more likely to shoot to kill in a time of stress. 

Again, that's neither here nor there, as I'm prepared to accept gun ownership. In fact, if anything it suggests that mandatory stress-based "how to disable an assailant without killing" classes should be required for handgun owners to reduce fatalities in situations like this. 

My personal feelings are, I think if the country were founded today and we had a blank slate, I'd push for a ban on gun ownership because starting from zero I really do think it'd make the country a safer place. However, guns are already at large, and there's a 250 year history of gun ownership, so that's clearly no longer an option. As such I accept the reality of a gun culture, but I just want to make sure that the only people who can legally carry guns, just like the only people who can legallly operate a motor vehicle, are the ones liscensed to do so safely.

And of course I still love you, in that very masculine, non-homosexual way.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

Romain, you're right and wrong. We do have to get a license in some states. In every state, we have to go through a background check when we purchase a firearm and then there's a waiting period based on the type of firearm you're buying. If, during that background check, there's something that would legally prevent you from buying a gun, the store calls you in, refunds your money, and then tells you that you're not allowed to own a gun. Then you're name is flagged in the system in case you try again. The problem is that the background checks aren't thorough enough. Drew and I both agreed in our PMs about this that we need some sort of psychological profile included when buying a gun to make sure that you're not some whack job off to do damage. And I also agreed with him that gun handling courses should be a requirement and even a prerequisite to gun ownership.

My problem is with the extent of control that people are asking for. I don't think that only law enforcement should be allowed to own guns. And the current bill up for review would take firearms away from police as well. Then, who has the guns?? ONLY the bad guys. And that would be a terrible tragedy. Our culture is so deeply ingrained with guns that it's really not feaseable or, IMO< advisable.

I think that you're right about it being sad and something needs to be done that people just don't feel safe enough to not carry a gun. I had to do some extensive training to be able to get my permit to carry my gun outside of my home. With that, there were all sorts of fees to pay and even more extensive background checks than you get when you purchase a gun. The problem is that it's really only the guys that follow the law that go through all that.


----------



## Drew (Apr 19, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> The problem is that it's really only the guys that follow the law that go through all that.



So what you do is seriously up the penalties for violating gun laws. Realistically, five years for a gun violation isn't that much, since you'll probably be paroled in one or two. If simply carrying a gun concealed without a liscense came with a mandatory ten year jail sentence, regardless of any extenuating circumstances and with no chance of parole, then this would begin to drop. If you make selling a gun in violation of gun laws a felony treated as if it was third degree murder, and institute serial-number based tracking so that guns can be quickly traced to their sources (as well as upping the penalty for removing a serial number to a similar height), then suddenly a gun dealer's going to be much more careful about complying. The ones who don't will quickly find themselves with homicide charges on their hands, which is a pretty big deterrant, I'd think.

The problem is existing gun laws don't include any psychological profiling, vary from state to state, and are poorly enforced. On the other side of the coin, I'm sure gun smuggling into and out of the united states is prevalant. Introduce a strict but fair national gun law (which makes sense, since the right to bear arms is a constitutional and not state right, and thus should be federally regulated) with hefty punishments in line with the potential seriousness of the offenses on one hand, and then launch a dedicated campaign to crack down on gun smuggling to ensure that every gun on the streets is one that was lawfully bought and is lawfully owned, and this will clear up. Sure, it'll require federal funding, but I'm willing to pay it if it'll make the american streets safer and save innocent lives.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

Drew said:


> As for that statistic, I actually think that's an argument against private ownership of guns, or at the very least a strong argument for more training. Cops are trained from day one to use guns safely and accurately in stressful situations. Private citizens are not. Just because only 10% of their shots are a "hit" does not necessarily prove this is not the case - I would suggest that most of that is because the police force, trained to use lethal force only as a last resort, is more inclined to fire warning shots or to shoot to disable, whereas a private citizen, without such training, is more likely to shoot to kill in a time of stress.



Actually, police firearms training is almost non existant. In Florida, they get between 3 and 5 days of training in the police academy. And then, they only have to qualify once a year by hitting a target the size of a person from 10 feet. Not a difficult task. I'm sure that the first time you shoot, you could do the same exact thing and pass. Most lawfully armed citizens go through much more extensive training than this. ALso, alot of police officers have other training requirements that they have to do after work. Things like how to properly handcuff someone without discomfort, dealing with domestic disputes, etc. That keeps them off of the gun ranges. And as a private citizen, I go at LEAST once a week to stay proficient. Police just don't have the opportunity unfortunately.

And to your post above Drew....I completely agree. Part of the problem with our current gun control is that it is not enforced properly. I think that some states have the right punishments for violating gun laws, it's just a matter or A) catching these guys, B) following through in court for a conviction (they always plead down to lesser charges) and C) follow up a conviction with the strictest punishment that is allowed. I'm all for that. Down here, we have the 10-20-Life law. 10 years in a gun is used in the commission of a crime, 20 if a shot was fired, and life if someone was shot or dies. That's the kind of law that needs to be all over the country. The problem we have with it is that people will plead to a lesser charge and the court accepts their plea because it prevents a lengthy and expensive trial.


----------



## Drew (Apr 19, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> Actually, police firearms training is almost non existant. In Florida, they get between 3 and 5 days of training in the police academy. And then, they only have to qualify once a year by hitting a target the size of a person from 10 feet. Not a difficult task.



NLB, I don't even have to make the obvious comment here, do I? You know exactly what I'm thinking reading this?


----------



## Chris (Apr 19, 2007)

Note: 5 murders (all different incidents) involving weapons from the SAME SHOP that the VT shooter bought his gun at.


----------



## Chris (Apr 19, 2007)

Drew said:


> NLB, I don't even have to make the obvious comment here, do I? You know exactly what I'm thinking reading this?



That Joe thinks he's Chuck Norris?


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

Drew said:


> NLB, I don't even have to make the obvious comment here, do I? You know exactly what I'm thinking reading this?



Drew...I know you probably think I pulled that out of my back side, but it's true. When I do get to go to the range with a cop friend, I outshoot him every time. Ask any cop down here and they'll tell you they've probably fired 200 shots in their life. It's sad, but it's reality.

And I'm better than Chuck Norris. I'm NLB!!!!


----------



## Drew (Apr 19, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> Down here, we have the 10-20-Life law. 10 years in a gun is used in the commission of a crime, 20 if a shot was fired, and life if someone was shot or dies.



That doesn't go far enough, though. I'm not just talking about carrying a gun in a crime - I'm talking about carrying a gun without having a liscense to do so. If someone gets pulled over for having a taillight out, or happens to drop a gun in the presence of a cop, and doesn't have a permit, do they get ten years? 

My point is, given the amount of training I think should be required to obtain a license, I think they should if they try to circumvent that.


----------



## Grom (Apr 19, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> My problem is with the extent of control that people are asking for. I don't think that only law enforcement should be allowed to own guns. And the current bill up for review would take firearms away from police as well. Then, who has the guns?? ONLY the bad guys. And that would be a terrible tragedy. Our culture is so deeply ingrained with guns that it's really not feaseable or, IMO< advisable.



I dont't really understand why the police would be denied the access to firearms, in this case ... could you explain me ??? Don't forget that I come from a country where this way of thinking is at best ... unconceivable.



> I think that you're right about it being sad and something needs to be done that people just don't feel safe enough to not carry a gun. I had to do some extensive training to be able to get my permit to carry my gun outside of my home. With that, there were all sorts of fees to pay and even more extensive background checks than you get when you purchase a gun. The problem is that it's really only the guys that follow the law that go through all that.



I understand your point, even if I don't really see where I'm wrong, though ... A question arises : you explain that you had to pass all sorts of tests to know if you were allowed or not to carry a gun. Do you think that someone intending to kill anybody or use it as a menace would even think of doing so ? Something has to be done DURING the purchase, and as you said, the test is not that effective. The "psychological test" could be a solution, actually.


----------



## Drew (Apr 19, 2007)

Chris said:


> Note: 5 murders (all different incidents) involving weapons from the SAME SHOP that the VT shooter bought his gun at.



Dude should be spending the rest of his life in jail, then. his actions were directly responsible for a LOT of people being killed, and I think he should be punished accordingly. 

Chuck Norris - no, not even close.  I'm thinking that it's absolutely ridiculous officers should be allowed to carry guns with that little training, especially in light of all the police brutality cases we've seen. If private citizens should go through psychological evaluations and safety training before carrying arms, that's doubly true of our law enformecent officers.


----------



## Chris (Apr 19, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> Drew...I know you probably think I pulled that out of my back side, but it's true. When I do get to go to the range with a cop friend, I outshoot him every time. Ask any cop down here and they'll tell you they've probably fired 200 shots in their life. It's sad, but it's reality.
> 
> And I'm better than Chuck Norris. I'm NLB!!!!



You do have a tendency of telling us all what a badass you are, sir.


----------



## Chris (Apr 19, 2007)

Drew said:


> Dude should be spending the rest of his life in jail, then. his actions were directly responsible for a LOT of people being killed, and I think he should be punished accordingly.



Every sale was 100% legal, to someone with the proper licensing and paperwork required to purchase a gun.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

Right. Carrying a gun off of your property with out a CCW is a crime down here. You're right though, there's not a stiff enough punishment for it other than the person can't own a gun for at least 7 years. If they violate that, then they're in some real trouble, but I think they should be in real trouble before hand, like you said. I had to pay ALOT of money and spend ALOT of time training to be able to get my CCW and I believe that other people who have theirs to be safe and responsible gun owners. It's the guys that don't that piss me off. They're already breaking the law and they probably don't know how to be safe. Also, alot of people (getting this from a cop friend, not sure if it's totally accurate) who carry a gun with out a permit don't use a holster, they simply tuck it into their waistband. That's some dangerous stuff right there. CCWers DO use holsters because of the level of safety that they offer.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

Chris said:


> You do have a tendency of telling us all what a badass you are, sir.



That's just because I am


----------



## Chris (Apr 19, 2007)

Drew said:


> Chuck Norris - no, not even close.  I'm thinking that it's absolutely ridiculous officers should be allowed to carry guns with that little training, especially in light of all the police brutality cases we've seen. If private citizens should go through psychological evaluations and safety training before carrying arms, that's doubly true of our law enformecent officers.



I disagree here. I think the majority of police offers can handle a weapon just fine, and I'm glad they have them. For every one brutality case there are 5,000 completely competent police officers doing the public a service. 

Make the qualifications to BE a police officer harder, sure. But if they're a cop, I want them to have a gun.


----------



## Chris (Apr 19, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> That's just because I am



I love you man, but when you say you drink a 12 pack of coke, smoke two packs of butts and then are a primed Van-Damme style killing machine in the same breath, it kinda smells like bullshit.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

Chris said:


> Make the qualifications to BE a police officer harder, sure. But if they're a cop, I want them to have a gun.



Totally agree. It's way to easy to get a gun and be considered a responsible gun handler. They really aren't. Down here, I would never want to depend on the police to stop somebody. I've seen the way our cops shoot and it's sickening that they're even given guns in the first place. Now, SWAT guys get TONS of basic gun training. Cops should have to have the same kind of training that I've had. It's simple, but effective. They just don't have the time to do that training or keep up with it with practice.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

Chris said:


> I love you man, but when you say you drink a 12 pack of coke, smoke two packs of butts and then are a primed Van-Damme style killing machine in the same breath, it kinda smells like bullshit.



Hey now, I never said I was still any good. That's why I carry a gun 

I'd have a hard time beating up a shadow let alone a person. It's just that my health is still good. Maybe it just hasn't caught up to me, except in the belly department


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

Back to the issue though. Here's a simple question with some tough answers:

What kind of gun control would be effective enough to allow law abiding citizens to still be able to own guns and keep them out of the hands of the bad guys? And for now, let's forget about buying guns illegally out of someone's trunk.

So far we have:

Enforcing stricter punishments for gun law violations
Psychological testing at time of purchase
Standardized training for gun owners


----------



## Chris (Apr 19, 2007)

Minimum age of 30 to own. Nobody under 30 that isn't a LEO needs a gun anyway.

[action=Chris]opens a can of worms[/action]


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

Chris said:


> Minimum age of 30 to own. Nobody under 30 that isn't a LEO needs a gun anyway.
> 
> [action=Chris]opens a can of worms[/action]



I can kind of see how you came up with that. But why 30? Why not 50? Or 21? What is it that happens at 30 that makes a person more able to own a gun? I would assume it would have something to do with maturity level. Or the fact that most violent offenders are between 21 and 35....


----------



## D-EJ915 (Apr 19, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> I can kind of see how you came up with that. But why 30? Why not 50? Or 21? What is it that happens at 30 that makes a person more able to own a gun? I would assume it would have something to do with maturity level. Or the fact that most violent offenders are between 21 and 35....


well all the other ages were pulled out of someone's ass at one point, so why not this one?


----------



## Drew (Apr 19, 2007)

Chris said:


> Every sale was 100% legal, to someone with the proper licensing and paperwork required to purchase a gun.



Ahh. Then that speaks more of the need for psychological examinations as part of the background check. The VA Tech guy's psychological history was such that not allowing him to purchase a gun should have been a no-brainer. 

I mean, hindsight is 20-20 and all, but we also have to learn from past mistakes...


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

I like that. And who's ass would be better than the almighty adminishredder?


----------



## Drew (Apr 19, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> What is it that happens at 30 that makes a person more able to own a gun?



That's when you have to stop trusting them, dude.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

Exactly. Those old men are some cranky mo-fo's.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

Honestly, I can't understand why they dropped the required age from 21 to 18. I can't think of many 18 year olds that can keep their cool. And once you hit 21, you're nice and mellow from all the booze.


----------



## Drew (Apr 19, 2007)

Chris said:


> I disagree here. I think the majority of police offers can handle a weapon just fine, and I'm glad they have them. For every one brutality case there are 5,000 completely competent police officers doing the public a service.
> 
> Make the qualifications to BE a police officer harder, sure. But if they're a cop, I want them to have a gun.



As do I. "Police brutality" wasn't brought up because I think it's a concern here, but as more of a "cover your ass" talking point. I mean, every time a shooting goes bad, there's a realistic chance that allegations of police brutality will crop up. So, from a reputational standpoint, it makes sense to have the force be able to point to the extensive training procedures cops are put through so that in high stress high risk situations they keep their cool. 

I'm not suggesting cops shouldn't have guns - that's crazy. I'm just saying that, since they're carrying guns, they sure as fuck should recieve at least as much if not more traiining as a private citizen should. It's common sense - on some level they're professional gun-carriers. You expect your professional doctors to have better training than someone who's taken a neighborhood course to get certified in first aid, no?


----------



## Drew (Apr 19, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> Honestly, I can't understand why they dropped the required age from 21 to 18. I can't think of many 18 year olds that can keep their cool. And once you hit 21, you're nice and mellow from all the booze.



I for one am opposed for the gun age and drinking age to be the same for one reason - you don't want someone going out to buy their first legal bottle of booze and first gun on the same night. 23 or 25, maybe, or if you want 21 then drop the drinking age to 18 (which I'd support anyway). But, not both together. Added responsibility and added boooze don't mix.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

Right on. Unfortunately, alot of off duty training involves things like political correctness and how to be nice to guys that are trying to kick your butt. I think it goes without saying that cops need to have more time to train. Even if it's requiring them to go to the range once a month and pay them for their time there. At least that would be a step in the right direction.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

Which is why it's illegal to be around a gun after drinking. You're not allowed in bars with a gun, even if you don't drink. And you're also supposed to have them safely locked away and unloaded while drinking at home. But of course, enforcement is everything. It's not enforced as far as I've seen.


----------



## Drew (Apr 19, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> Which is why it's illegal to be around a gun after drinking. You're not allowed in bars with a gun, even if you don't drink. And you're also supposed to have them safely locked away and unloaded while drinking at home. But of course, enforcement is everything. It's not enforced as far as I've seen.





nitelightboy said:


> Right on. Unfortunately, alot of off duty training involves things like political correctness and how to be nice to guys that are trying to kick your butt. I think it goes without saying that cops need to have more time to train. Even if it's requiring them to go to the range once a month and pay them for their time there. At least that would be a step in the right direction.



So, increase funding for law enforcement in the united states. Find a diplomatic solution to the war in Iraq ASAP so we're not dumping $100B into a civil war abroad, and divert even a quarter of that towards domestic police payroll and training. Get more cops assigned to a given detail, so they have more time to train on firearms and enforce gun laws. Kill two birds with one stone - three, if you count Iraq.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

Drew said:


> So, increase funding for law enforcement in the united states. Find a diplomatic solution to the war in Iraq ASAP so we're not dumping $100B into a civil war abroad, and divert even a quarter of that towards domestic police payroll and training. Get more cops assigned to a given detail, so they have more time to train on firearms and enforce gun laws. Kill two birds with one stone - three, if you count Iraq.



OMG Drew, I love you


----------



## Drew (Apr 19, 2007)

It's common sense, dude. We're spending something like half the national deficiet every 8 months in Iraq. Stop doing that shit, and not only do we stop pissing off the entire mideast (and maybe even win some points back if we help make serious diplomatic strides in the area), but even if we figure we'll still want half that figure for aid to Iraq to rebuild after the war, we can afford to use the remaining quarter to combat the thread illegally owned and used guns are posing to American civilians at home, while still having $25 billion to spend on education and paying off the american deficit. 

And, guess what, you spend part of that $25b on the "gun problem" to hire more police officers, you'll even create a couple hundred thousand new jobs in the process.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

That really is some awsome logic. The likes of which only you possess. But you know as well as I that nothing like that would ever happen unfortunately. It's a shame to see how we waste our money the way we do when a small portion of what we waste can be so well used here to make things better for Americans in America.


----------



## noodles (Apr 19, 2007)

Now just legalize marijuana and regulate/tax the hell out of it (like alcohol and cigarettes). Suddenly you stop pouring money down the useless "war on drugs" hole, free up police offers to fight real crime, stop persecuting private citizens who are currently operating under the "misguided" principal that they have control over their own bodies, free up the courts from hearing pointless possession cases, and rake in a few billion more a year in tax revenue.

The revenue and free manpower could be used to fight gun violence. American farmers get a huge boost from a big cash crop. The government is no longer hypocritical for carrying on a vendetta against a substance that is scientifically proven to be far less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol.


----------



## Drew (Apr 19, 2007)

...and suddenly we're in libertarian/green territory. 

Fuck it. I'm with Dave. I don't even buy the "gateway drug" crap - for me it was always a gateway to more Dorritos.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

And it's hard to commit a crime after smoking a joint. You're either watching Mork & Mindy reruns, totally vegged out, or trying to find a freakin Taco Bell that's still open at 3am.


----------



## noodles (Apr 19, 2007)

As Dennis Miller said, unlike a drunk, a stoner never breaks a pool cue in half and tries to stab someone with it. He's too busy laughing at the balls.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

You said balls.


----------



## drshock (Apr 19, 2007)

Drew said:


> So, increase funding for law enforcement in the united states. Find a diplomatic solution to the war in Iraq ASAP so we're not dumping $100B into a civil war abroad, and divert even a quarter of that towards domestic police payroll and training. Get more cops assigned to a given detail, so they have more time to train on firearms and enforce gun laws. Kill two birds with one stone - three, if you count Iraq.



This seems productive but let me indulge a passage from the second amendment primer on the Police's duty to serve and Protect. No this isn't just me slamming the police and saying how bad of a job they do either. (And I had to type of of it myself so I hope someone reads the whole thing.)


Passages taken: Power and Responsibility, A Nation of Cowards, Do You Feel Lucky?, The Florida Expierience

Is your life worth protecting? If so, who's responsibility is it to protect it? If you believe that it is the police's not only are you wrong- since the courts universally rule that they have no legal obligation to do so- but you face some difficult moral quandaries. How can you rightfully ask anotehr human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself? Because taht is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is of incalculable value, but his is only worth the 30,000 dollar salary we pay him? If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assualt, how can you call upon another to do so for you?
Do you believe that you are forbidden to protect yourself because the police are better qualified to protect you, because they know what they're doing but you're a rank amateur? Put aside thi is equivelent to believing that only concert piantists may play the piano and professional athletes may play sports. What exactly are these special qualities possessed by the police and beyond the rest of us mere mortals?
One who values his life and takes seriously his responsibilities to his family and community will possess and cultivate the means of fighting back, and will retaliate when threatened with death or grevious injury to himself or a loved one. He will never be content to rely solely on others for his saftey, or to think he has done all that is possible by being aware of his surroundings and taking measures of avoidance. Let's not mince words: He will be armed, will be trained in the use of his weapon, and will defend himself when faced with lethal violence....

...When a man pulls a knife on a woman and says, "You're coming with me," her judgement that a crime is being commited is not likely to be an error. There is little chance that she is going to shoot the wrong person. It is the police[who are likely to shoot and innocent] ,because they are rarely at the scene of the crime when it occurs....

...The police however are not personal bodyguards. Rather they act as a general deterrent to crime, both by thier presence and by apprehending criminals after the fact. As numerous courts have held, they have no legal obligation to protect someone in particular. You cannot sue them for failing to prevent you form being the victim of a crime.

Insofar as the police deter by thier presence, they are very, very good. Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of them. Unfortunatley the corollary is that you can pretty much bet your life (and you are) that they won't be there at the moment you actually need them.

 Should you ever be a victim of a assault, a robbery, or a rape, you will find it very difficult to call the police while the act is in progress, even if you are carrying a cell phone....  

...Crime is not only a complete disavowal of teh social contract, but is also a commandeering of the person or liberty.If the individual's dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in acts of his own free will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim's dignity. It is, in fact, an act of enslavement. Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is, and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist.


----------



## Drew (Apr 19, 2007)

drshock said:


> lots 'o stuff



Um, with all due respect, I fail to see what that has to do with anything. 

We're talking about how to keep guns out of the hands of people likely to use them against others, by strengthening and enforcing existing crime laws, but not by banning gun ownership for private citizens. 

What does pointing out that the police are not infallable when it comes to protecting citizens have to do with that? You're adding a lot of firey rhetoric to the debate, but not actually _*saying*_ anything.

Frankly, dude, I don't even know what point you're trying to make here. Did you read the last couple pages of discussion?


----------



## drshock (Apr 19, 2007)

Did I misqoute you???? I believe you said 'and divert even a quarter of that towards domestic police payroll and training. Get more cops assigned to a given detail, so they have more time to train on firearms and enforce gun laws.'

I'm just commenting on how the police aren't going to save your life when they take five mintures to respond to a call, let alone how are you going to call them when you are being robbed, assaulted etc.


----------



## Drew (Apr 19, 2007)

drshock said:


> Did I misqoute you???? I believe you said 'and divert even a quarter of that towards domestic police payroll and training. Get more cops assigned to a given detail, so they have more time to train on firearms and enforce gun laws.'
> 
> I'm just commenting on how the police aren't going to save your life when they take five mintures to respond to a call, let alone how are you going to call them when you are being robbed, assaulted etc.



No, you didn't. 

However, you evidently didn't bother to read virtually every other sentence I posted, where I mentioned that:


I am not opposed to private ownership of guns, given that the carrier passes a thorough background check.
Nor am I opposed to carrying concealed weapons.
I think the focus of "gun control" (which is controlling, and not banning, gun useage) should be on keeping guns out of the hands of people who are likely to use them on others, and not out of the hands of people who aren't, and
I think a lot of the reason this hasn't been more sucessful is that our current police force is woefully undertrained and underfunded, so prosecuting gun violations and stopping the illegal sale of guns, smuggled or otherwise, into this country has been difficult.

As such, I fail to see what my ability to defend myself if someone pulls a weapon on me has to do with my belief that the federal government needs to do a better job funding and enforcing programs to keep guns out of the hands of likely criminals, and only in the hands of those who will use them safely.


----------



## drshock (Apr 19, 2007)

I've already read some of your posts and I believe I have agreed with you a couple times. That entire post was not made soley to shoot down all your ideas, or to contradict what you have said before. Again it was about the efficiency of the police force when you are faced with a criminal and how legally owning/carrying a weapon doesn't make you paranoid or insecure, or a redneck, it's an efficent way of stopping a crime.


----------



## Drew (Apr 19, 2007)

drshock said:


> Again it was about the efficiency of the police force when you are faced with a criminal and how legally owning/carrying a weapon doesn't make you paranoid or insecure, or a redneck, it's an efficent way of stopping a crime.



Then I think this is where our confusion lies. 

For the first part of that sentence, I'm not suggesting that enforcing gun control laws will make people any safer during a crime. To claim so would be admittedly absurd. Rather, my argument is that by enforcing existing ones and toughening them a bit, adding harsher penalties and psychological background tests, as well as also launching a federal campaign to cut down on gun smuggling in and out of our borders, you can take steps to decrease the chance of that criminal victimizing you even HAVING a gun. No gun = better odds for the victim. 

For the second part, again, it doesn't matter if I like private citizens carrying guns - I'm willing to accept it as the price of being in the minority of a democracy. As long as it's handled intelligently and safely, and there are checks in place to ensure that the only people carrying guns are the ones not likely to use them against others except in legitimate defense of their life, then I'm cool with you carrying a gun. 

It's arguments like the ones you posted that rely more on gut-level fear than facts, that are generally used to argue against any restrictions on guns, that I take offense to. If guns are going to be in the hands of private citizens, then it's my right as someone who doesn't want to carry a gun to not HAVE to, and the best way to ensure that is to make sure that it's done safely by those who decide to. 

So, if you drill past the rhetoric, I suspect we're in agreement - I respect your right to carry a gun, and you respect mine not to. Cool?


----------



## drshock (Apr 19, 2007)

Sure I agree, I've just been trying to advocate the idea of an honest armed-citizen.


----------



## Drew (Apr 19, 2007)

drshock said:


> Sure I agree, I've just been trying to advocate the idea of an honest armed-citizen.



Which I've been trying to stress from page one that just because I'm for gun _control_, doesn't mean it's an idea I'm against. 


I just believe that the risks are too high if it's done badly, that it needs to be done in an intelligent and carefully thought out manner, and at the federal level so that gun laws are uniform from state to state.


----------



## drshock (Apr 19, 2007)

Drew said:


> Which I've been trying to stress from page one that just because I'm for gun _control_, doesn't mean it's an idea I'm against.
> 
> 
> I just believe that the risks are too high if it's done badly, that it needs to be done in an intelligent and carefully thought out manner, and at the federal level so that gun laws are uniform from state to state.



I know you have but if anyone else is reading this and they are interested in what I'm saying then great- I've only been using a few of your statements as examples in order to talk about the right to carry.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

Drew said:


> and at the federal level so that gun laws are uniform from state to state.



Alot of gun enthusiasts would agree with that. It's so inconsistant from state to state that it's a joke. There are guns that have to be approved by certain states in order to be allowed to be purchased in those states. There are a few states the require that a brand new gun be fired at the factory 1 time and the spent case included with the gun to prove it. I mean, some states find the dumbest laws to prevent people from owning guns even though they are legally allowed to by the federal government. It's sucks!


----------



## Drew (Apr 19, 2007)

Yeah but the way you're doing it is a touch antagonistic.  Appeal to logic rather than fear, and we'll be arguing on the same side, dude.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

But Drew, if you don't carry a gun, you're going to die  

[action=nitelightboy]couldn't resist[/action]


----------



## Drew (Apr 19, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> There are a few states the require that a brand new gun be fired at the factory 1 time and the spent case included with the gun to prove it.



That's probably for two reasons, though - one to make sure the gun is operational and won't backfire and explode when it's shot for the first time, and two, most likely to create a "ballistic fingerprint" of the gun, which in a number of states is, I believe, kept on file as a way to identify (or, on the other side of the coin, prove concretely that it wasn't) a gun used in a crime. This is something I'd support at the federal level, and honestly if you think making sure a gun is fired once before you can buy it is too much of a hassle and a "unconstitutional" hurdle to legal gun ownership, then you're lazier than even I gave you credit for.


----------



## drshock (Apr 19, 2007)

Drew said:


> Yeah but the way you're doing it is a touch antagonistic.  Appeal to logic rather than fear, and we'll be arguing on the same side, dude.



Well, this is the internet and we all know that sometimes being able to actually hear what someone is saying makes a difference in how you hear it, rather then reading it.


----------



## Drew (Apr 19, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> But Drew, if you don't carry a gun, you're going to die
> 
> [action=nitelightboy]couldn't resist[/action]



And if I did, I wouldn't trust myself not to shoot someone. Hence, it's a chance I'll take.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

Drew said:


> then you're lazier than even I gave you credit for.



You seriously underestimate my laziness. I can tell you all sorts of stories about how lazy I am. I just don't feel like it.

I know, there are times that I hate having a gun on me. It means I have to be mature and walk away from confrontations. But at least it keeps me out of trouble too.


----------



## noodles (Apr 19, 2007)




----------



## drshock (Apr 19, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> You seriously underestimate my laziness. I can tell you all sorts of stories about how lazy I am. I just don't feel like it.



Reminds me of a shirt that says: Procrastinators Unite!




Tomorrow.


----------



## Drew (Apr 19, 2007)

My favorite is "Bad Spellers of the World, Untie!"


----------



## Rick (Apr 19, 2007)

I think on an episode of Family Guy the sign at the school said something to the effect of "Procrastinators Anonymous meeting moved to tomorrow."


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

Drew said:


> My favorite is "Bad Spellers of the World, Untie!"



I saw one that said Dislexics of the World Untie...

I think mine is funnier


----------



## drshock (Apr 19, 2007)

lol


look at how we're all friends now


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

No we're not  I hate you all 

The debates in the Politics section can get heated. Outside of here, we all love each other a disturbing amount


----------



## drshock (Apr 19, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> No we're not  I hate you all
> 
> The debates in the Politics section can get heated. Outside of here, we all love each other a disturbing amount



this forum: 

other forums:


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 19, 2007)

Shit, if i still lived in tampa bay, i _might_ have bought a gun by now. They have this bigass indoor shooting range there on US19.
Last time i went to a shooting range, it was badass. granted, it was a 22 cal. bolt action rifle, but it was still fun. 
Seeing as i don't live near a range, don't feel like spending money on a gun, nor can justify any reason for having one in my home, i don't see the point currently.

if you couldn't guess, i think gun ownership should be allowed. I'm on the same page as Drew though -- 



smartest lush ever said:


> I am not opposed to private ownership of guns, given that the carrier passes a thorough background check.
> Nor am I opposed to carrying concealed weapons.
> I think the focus of "gun control" (which is controlling, and not banning, gun useage) should be on keeping guns out of the hands of people who are likely to use them on others, and not out of the hands of people who aren't, and
> I think a lot of the reason this hasn't been more sucessful is that our current police force is woefully undertrained and underfunded, so prosecuting gun violations and stopping the illegal sale of guns, smuggled or otherwise, into this country has been difficult.


----------



## Rick (Apr 19, 2007)

I agree with both of you guys.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Apr 19, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> if you couldn't guess, i think gun ownership should be allowed. I'm on the same page as Drew though --
> 
> Originally Posted by smartest lush ever
> 
> ...




Besides, like a wise man said... 

We don't need gun control. We need BULLET control.


----------



## Drew (Apr 19, 2007)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Besides, like a wise man said...
> 
> We don't need gun control. We need BULLET control.



 His bit on "if bullets cost $50,000 a peice" is spot on, and probably WOULD lower violent crime.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 19, 2007)

"Guns don't kill people...Guns just make bullets go really really fast!" 
I forget who said that, but i had to laugh.


----------



## Stitch (Apr 19, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> Back to the issue though. Here's a simple question with some tough answers:
> 
> What kind of gun control would be effective enough to allow law abiding citizens to still be able to own guns and keep them out of the hands of the bad guys? And for now, let's forget about buying guns illegally out of someone's trunk.



Here os a point however - you say "law-abiding citizen" - what constitutes a law-abiding citizen?

Someone who isn't an active fugitive? The VA shootings weren't done by someone on the run from the law. Granted, he was a bit unhinged (obviously from shocking new 'death' metal and video games such as pacman) but that is past transgressions.

Or perhaps someone who doesn't have a criminal record. But then that begs the question - what about people who broke the law and didnt get a record?

Smoking weed is illegal. Drinking underage is illegal. Underage sex is illegal. Double parking is illegal, as is jumping lights and breaking the speed limit. Are you honestly saying you, as a law-abiding citizen, have never broken any of those laws? 

I, personally, coming from a gun-free country am totally against gun ownership. I've been alive almost 18 years now and in my whole life I am very proud to say I have never been accosted by a gun. The only ones I have ever seen are the ones held by the military at airports. Plenty of nutjobs with knives are on the streets here but actual crime, outside of REALLY shady parts is actually very low.

I think someone hit the nail on the head elsewhere on this forum - guns are REALLY dangerous because they are 'relatively' simple to use - it does not take much training or knowledge to kill or maim someone with a gun, as opposed to, say, karate or jiu-jitsu and are very very easy to use in the heat of an angry moment.

I'll keep going when I recharge my angry cells.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Apr 19, 2007)

To all those who blame the tools (guns) for the actions of these homicidal maniacs, I give you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

It's telling Mcveigh was apprehended for having a concealed weapon, but... that could be sen in either light. I could make the argument that it only proves the gun laws we have are working, since it gave law enforcement the basis for arresting the suspect.


----------



## drshock (Apr 19, 2007)

stitch216 said:


> (obviously from shocking new 'death' metal and video games such as pacman)



 

If you're saying that you're outside of shady areas then I can see why you wouldn't ultimately need a gun, but in other higher crime areas people are much more likely to be attacked. Of course we've all bent a few rules, but I think you're getting a little carried away- we're talking about obvious, unforgving criminals, not people who have gotten in trouble for a citation or misdemeaner.



The Dark Wolf said:


> To all those who blame the tools (guns) for the actions of these homicidal maniacs, I give you...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
> 
> It's telling Mcveigh was apprehended for having a concealed weapon, but... that could be sen in either light. I could make the argument that it only proves the gun laws we have are working, since it gave law enforcement the basis for arresting the suspect.



Yes but that didn't stop him from doing the bombing.


----------



## Stitch (Apr 19, 2007)

drshock said:


> If you're saying that you're outside of shady areas then I can see why you wouldn't ultimately need a gun, but in other higher crime areas people are much more likely to be attacked. Of course we've all bent a few rules, but I think you're getting a little carried away- we're talking about obvious, unforgving criminals, not people who have gotten in trouble for a citation or misdemeaner.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but that didn't stop him from doing the bombing.



I am to a degree but that doesnt mean I am totally outwith it. The really sady areas here can be so impoverishered its inconcievable that they would have access to find, fund and nurture a gun - they'd probably spend it on Buckfast and fags first.

And the point I was making about criminals is what constitutes "obvious, unforgiving criminals"?
The chap in the VA bombings had a history of mental 'treatment' and 'light' stalking, but Nathan Dale had no such history - only of fanaticism for old school Pantera and look what he did. 

Do you see where I am coming from at least with my second point?


----------



## drshock (Apr 19, 2007)

stitch216 said:


> I am to a degree but that doesnt mean I am totally outwith it. The really sady areas here can be so impoverishered its inconcievable that they would have access to find, fund and nurture a gun - they'd probably spend it on Buckfast and fags first.
> 
> And the point I was making about criminals is what constitutes "obvious, unforgiving criminals"?
> The chap in the VA bombings had a history of mental 'treatment' and 'light' stalking, but Nathan Dale had no such history - only of fanaticism for old school Pantera and look what he did.
> ...



Well I guess I speak for myself on this one but If someone had a gun at the show -and was trained to use it, they could have stopped the situation from getting any worse. I mean the incident was stopped when a cop came in and shot him. (with a gun) 

And It was Nathan Hale if I remember correctly.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Apr 19, 2007)

drshock said:


> Yes but that didn't stop him from doing the bombing.


That was my point exactly. 

The issue I raised is nuts do that stuff with or without guns.


----------



## drshock (Apr 19, 2007)

The Dark Wolf said:


> That was my point exactly.
> 
> The issue I raised is nuts do that stuff with or without guns.



I know I was agreeing
 wink wink


----------



## Stitch (Apr 19, 2007)

drshock said:


> Well I guess I speak for myself on this one but If someone had a gun at the show -and was trained to use it, they could have stopped the situation from getting any worse. I mean the incident was stopped when a cop came in and shot him. (with a gun)
> 
> And It was Nathan Hale if I remember correctly.



But if he hadn't had access to a gun in the first place Dimebag would never have been killed then!
Preventing it from getting worse doesnt avoid the key issue - the nutter got a gun. Easily.

And yes, it was Hale. My bad!


----------



## drshock (Apr 19, 2007)

stitch216 said:


> But if he hadn't had access to a gun in the first place Dimebag would never have been killed then!
> Preventing it from getting worse doesnt avoid the key issue - the nutter got a gun. Easily.
> 
> And yes, it was Hale. My bad!



He could have killed Dime with a switchblade, the guy was a former Navy seal.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Apr 19, 2007)

stitch216 said:


> But if he hadn't had access to a gun in the first place Dimebag would never have been killed then!



That's a good point, but *Drew mode on* it has a logical fallacy.

The point implicit in your argument, even if not expressly stated, is the gun = Dime's death. That alludes that somehow the gun made the guy shoot Dime.

Not so. In fact, your argument that no gun = Dime never murdered MAY be true, but then again, _maybe_ _not_.

All that is the long-winded way of saying - the gun didn't make Dime's shooter nuts. He was nuts anyway. And likely, if he had no access to a gun, he would have found another way to murder Dime (a knife, convenient, easy to hide, and lethal if used correctly comes to mind).

Really, if a killer has that kind of motivation, there isn't much in the preventative measures process that can deter them. The movie 'Full Metal Jacket', makes a great point of this, as the Marine Drill Sergeant praises Lee Harvey Oswald (who was himself a marine-trained shooter) with the memorable line -

_It is your killer instinct which must be harnessed... Your rifle is only a tool. It is a hard heart that kills._


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 19, 2007)

stitch216 said:


> I've been alive almost 18 years now and in my whole life I am very proud to say I have never been accosted by a gun. The only ones I have ever seen are the ones held by the military at airports.



I've been alive 23 years now, and in my whole life i am very proud to say I have never been accosted by a gun. The only one's I've ever seen are the ones i've shot personally, the ones the cops use, the ones at the airport, gun ranges, etc.
You can't say that just cause you've never been assaulted with a gun is because you live in a 'gun free' country.


----------



## dpm (Apr 19, 2007)

> We dont have people taking over and continuing to kill people because they are the only ones with guns. (Port Arthur Massacure in Austrailia)


 
OK, I'm not going to read this whole thread thoroughly. I've read enough gun control threads to know there is no reasoning with pro-gun people with BS statistics. What I will point out relates only to Australia.

First up, the usual Port Arthur argument is massively oversimplified. Port Arthur is, for those who don't know, a former convict settlement which is now a tourist attraction. It's extremely isolated, lacks communication facilities etc. Read about it here. Bryant managed to obtain his weapons with no gun licence at all. Gun control laws introduced since then have made that impossible. If you wanted to obtain rapid firing weapons for mass murder use here now you would have to approach organised crime figures, of whom the majority would probably shoot you for behaving like a dickhead rather than sell you a gun or three.

The other stat used a lot by non-Australian gun fans relates to an increase in gun related deaths since 1998. It looks impressive if you're looking at percentages. Not so impressive when you take into account that statistical increase is purely related to a series of retributional mob killings (incidentally, only 29 over almost 10 years - ). Remove those killing from the equation and you get a steady decrease in gun related crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

What shits me here is the use of a single incident to generalise an entire country's situation, inaccurately, for political argument. Get the facts right, and put them in context.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 20, 2007)

dpm said:


> What shits me here is the use of a single incident to generalise an entire country's situation, inaccurately, for political argument. Get the facts right, and put them in context.



What that post was arguing is the people on the anti-gun side who say no guns means no crime. Simple as that. If you read too much into it, than yes, it is out of context. I'm very pro-gun and I think I tossed in some pretty useful stats in this thread and I'll be happy to search for some more if you like. But the reality is that the people who are pushing gun bans say that if people can't have gun then they won't commit any crimes and nobody will be murdered. I think that's a total fallacy and it's been proven wrong time and again but people don't listen.


----------



## dpm (Apr 20, 2007)

I've never heard of anyone saying eliminating guns would eliminate crime. That's just absurd. Maybe there are some anti-gun nutcases who spout that crap, maybe it's pro-gun misinterpretation, I don't know. 
What restriction on weapon types and sales does achieve is a reduction in gun related crime, and consequently a reduction in deaths (guns aren't outright banned anywhere in the world to my knowledge). The problem with guns is not so much that they can be used to kill - just about anything can kill - it's that it's very _easy_ to kill with a gun, both physically and emotionally. By their nature guns are a detached weapon.

I'm all for the skill needed for target shooting, and to me hunting for food is acceptable. What I don't like to see is the sale of firearms specifically designed to rapidly kill human beings.

Let's go through the first post point by point, not for the sake of arguing, just to show some alternative situations (that I don't necessarily agree with) -



I seem to remember a young man shooting up a Canadian college
not to long ago. Gee, doesnt Canada have some strict gun laws.

_Meh, Canada, who cares.... _/me couldn't resist 

We did not have Muslim youths running thru our towns and cities burning everything in view. Here they would have been shot on the second or third night. (this would be France)

_then the Muslim youths would shoot back - South Central LA anyone?_

We do not have hundreds of cops showing up for minor ball games because the fans are rioting in the stands. (UK)

_yeah, hooliganism sucks, but imagine the mass murder if everyone brought automatic weapons!_

We dont have college student rioting and throwing gasoline bombs at police.
(South Korea and other places)

_you should. America's government is shit, your health and education systems are terrible and getting worse. Head to the streets kids._

We dont have terrorists taking over school for three days raping young children and murdering adults (Belsan Russia)

_Does this advocate that weapons should be standard issue for school teachers? Children maybe? This is quite a disgusting example to use considering the crimes in question were perpetrated by long term combatants at war._

We dont have people taking over and continuing to kill people because they are the only ones with guns. (Port Arthur Massacure in Austrailia)

_Already talked about this one._

People in glass house shouldnt throw stones.

_um, yeah, so what's the author doing starting a thread like this?_

You dont like our gun laws, stay out of MY country.

_OK, as long as I can visit NYC some time to catch a few gigs. Don't worry, the musicians I want to see are mostly Jews, Italians, and Latinos, not proper Americans._

Because we know gun control doesnt work.

_no you don't, you've never tried it._

And when Meth gets to your country, life is gonna get worse.
Meth users are some of the most dangerous drug users in the world.

_see above regarding health. I do believe Meth is everywhere, we certainly have it here. If they shit you off that much then kill them._


What I'm trying to point out is that every argument can be countered. It seems the point of the original post was to endorse the preventable murder of 32 innocent people as acceptable by proving that shocking crimes are perpetrated elsewhere. 

We all know crime existed everywhere in the world well before guns were invented. It's pretty stupid to have to point that out (not you NLB, the original poster) and I find it incredibly disrespectful to the victims of the crimes listed to use them as such a petty argument.

The fundamental difference as I see it is that the USA was founded by violent means. It is ingrained in American culture that gun = freedom, and it is very hard for people raised within that culture to view it objectively.

To Australians weapons aren't a symbol of achievement or freedom. In fact, from a historical viewpoint the Australian use of guns can be seen to represent our position as canon fodder. Our freedom was gained peacefully through negotiation.

All I want to see is an end to US pro-gun lobbyists attempting to distort world events for their purposes. If they are so confident that gun control measures won't work why not allow them to be trialed? Prove the anti-gun side wrong once and for all. I doubt the US government could spare the funds for a buy-back scheme (paying people for their recently outlawed weapons), and I sincerely doubt it could be enforced without force and the consequent loss of lives. There are way too many guns already in circulation, and way too many people who strongly oppose such a plan.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 20, 2007)

We did have a massive gun ban in 1994. Private gun owners protested repeatedly. And you would be amazed at just how much MORE crime there was during the time that this ban was in place. Criminals KNEW that civilians weren't armed and therefor had no real deterrant. States that have extremely strict gun laws have the MOST violent crime and states with the most lax gun laws have the LEAST amount of violent crime. Over the course of my life, Florida has changed it's view on guns dramatically. A few years ago, there were murders, rapes, home invavsions and every other type of very violent crime happening on a very regular basis. Since FL loosened up it's gun laws and allowed us to carry guns concealed, these crimes have dropped DRAMATICALLY. I think that's a good argument alone that gun control can actually have the opposite effect on violent crimes when it's taken too far. I'm all for gun control in moderation. I think that law abiding citizins should be allowed to carry guns. But I wouldn't mind them making it a more thorough process as far as background checks and even psychological evaluations.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Apr 20, 2007)

Dear dear dear, i'd hoped that with positng this there's be some argument other than what is a very very narrow world view littered with stereotyping.

I kinow you didn't write this, but quite frankly, as an opening post in what is bound to be a heated debate it's kind of like tripping over the ball at kick off...



nitelightboy said:


> I seem to remember a young man shooting up a Canadian college
> not to long ago. Gee, doesnt Canada have some strict gun laws.


You cannot quote one incident as a justification or as counter argument. In essence you really do need to look at statistics per capita. Gun deaths/Number of people is a statistic that is pretty much impossible to bend, and even that is not counting woundings, lifetime disabilities and other horrific permanent injuries.



nitelightboy said:


> We did not have Muslim youths running thru our towns and cities burning everything in view. Here they would have been shot on the second or third night. (this would be France)


Protests. The fact that "muslim" has been bought into this just shows sheer ignorance. Ever since 9/11 the word muslim has come to be the new communist, the new scapegoat. The riots in france were caused by a goverments denial of an entire generation of people, locking them in inner city slums in effect, and these people had enough of being second class citizens.

Now, in parallel, you wouldn't call then end of american apartheid a bunch of muslims tearing up the place on a regular basis now would you? 

THe fact that this argument (well, i'll call it an argument, but it's really just a load of BS) includes the line "Here they would have been shot on the second or third night" just makes it even more horrific. So basically a riot, which in effect is a protest, should be counteracted by murder? Possibly the most insane thing I have heard for a long time.



nitelightboy said:


> We do not have hundreds of cops showing up for minor ball games because the fans are rioting in the stands. (UK)


70's and 80's yes, and still minor incidents from time to time. Yet, Poland, Italy and a lot of other countries have exactly tyhe same problems. AS Roma, an italian team, has some of the worst in the world. 

But, it is very rare that anyone dies, last major occurance was the Heisel stadium in belgium, which was also very much due to poor crowd control at the time.

Football hooliganism is a problem, but you'll find it's more "firms" (gangs of supporters) who go and fight other "firms", not just random violence.



nitelightboy said:


> We dont have college student rioting and throwing gasoline bombs at police.
> (South Korea and other places)


No, but i bet you would if you had something injust being done to you. See the french bit.



nitelightboy said:


> We dont have terrorists taking over school for three days raping young children and murdering adults (Belsan Russia)


Nope, you don't have terrorists, lucky for you. And riussia is hardly what i'd call a safe place, or anything comparable to the US. 



nitelightboy said:


> We dont have people taking over and continuing to kill people because they are the only ones with guns. (Port Arthur Massacure in Austrailia)


Well, the fact he freely managed to purchase this arsenal:


> "Bryant also withdrew many thousands of dollars during this period. He used at least some of this money in late 1993 to *purchase an AR-10AR-15 rifles in other gun shops. He later purchased an AR-15 from Terry Hill, a local gun shop owner. In April 1996, he also purchased cleaning kits for a .30 calibre weapon and 12 gauge shotgun. He purchased a sports bag and told a shop attendant that it would need to be strong enough to carry large amounts of ammunition, measured out with a tape measure.* semi-automatic rifle through a newspaper advertisement in Tasmania. In March 1996, he had his AR-10 repaired at a gun shop. He made enquiries about He told his girlfriend, Miss Petra Wilmot, a different story about the purpose of the bag. He also hid the weapons and a large amount of ammunition at his house. His girlfriend was initially employed as a gardener by Bryant, and she never saw any weapons or ammunition in the house."





nitelightboy said:


> People in glass house shouldnt throw stones.


People with uninformed arguments shouldn't post them as fact without doing cast iron research into what they mean.



nitelightboy said:


> You dont like our gun laws, stay out of MY country.
> Because we know gun control doesnt work.


Do you? Unless it's been tried you don't know. Gun control isn't a ban on guns, it's making sure that a weapon that requires little skill to kill, wound or permanently maim has less chance of falling into the hands of someone who will use it for that purpose.



nitelightboy said:


> And when Meth gets to your country, life is gonna get worse.
> Meth users are some of the most dangerous drug users in the world.


WTF? I've heard 5 year olds come up with better arguments than this.

I know you cut and pasted it from another site, but all of it is just uninformed and not very well thought through.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Apr 20, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> I honestly never look at per captia stats. I just don't like them for some reason. DId you know that twice as many kids drown in a bath tub or pool as are involved in accidental shootings? And only 1/3 of those in shooting end up dying.



You don't like per capita stats? Is that like being scared of numbers? Statistics can lie, yes, but per capita, ie (occurances of event/people in population) is preeety reliable. 

And all in all, you could say it's unlikely to get hit by lightning, doesn't mean i'm going to go out and stand with a rod on top of a hilltop...


----------



## dpm (Apr 20, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> I think that law abiding citizins should be allowed to carry guns.


 
Within the USA I would tend to agree, purely because of the massive number of guns already in circulation. In a place where guns are not in circulation, like here in Australia, allowing citizens to carry firearms would be a huge mistake.



> But I wouldn't mind them making it a more thorough process as far as background checks and even psychological evaluations.


 
Absolutely, this is the first step. Essentially, this is one of those issues that really shows the real flaw of modern democracy. Everything is done for short term political goal. Unfortunately there are certain things that need a long term solution which is not going to be popular with the voters, and which, if implemented in spite of that, can later be reversed or sabotaged by opposing governments. Environmental issues come to mind here too.

In a lot of places other than the USA the only time the average citizen sees a real life gun at any time in their life is when it's worn holstered by a cop. I think this is something so culturally different that it's almost impossible for some people to accept


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Apr 20, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> Back to the issue though. Here's a simple question with some tough answers:
> 
> What kind of gun control would be effective enough to allow law abiding citizens to still be able to own guns and keep them out of the hands of the bad guys? And for now, let's forget about buying guns illegally out of someone's trunk.
> 
> ...



These are very very sensible measures. You're never going to get rid of the illegal arms trade, London and black on black shootings here are testament to that.

And please don't take my comments over the top, (past 2 posts), it's more a case of that this is always something i've been passionate about, but do realise that a full ban is as impractical as anything. Ban isn't the answer, and wouldn't work, however control, strict enforcement and tougher sentences on violations, along with measures to ensure that people's sanity is intact at regular intervals is very sensible. It doesn't stop you from owning a firearm, unless you're a few cans short of a sixpack. For anyone who abides by the law, and just has one for protection, it's a small price to pay to retain the right. 

Driving a car can kill in the wrong hands, driving whilst drunk the same, yet wielding a handgun whilst intoxicated would be legal? A car mows people down, a gun puts bullets through people.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 20, 2007)

7 Dying Trees said:


> Ban isn't the answer, and wouldn't work, however control, strict enforcement and tougher sentences on violations, along with measures to ensure that people's sanity is intact at regular intervals is very sensible. It doesn't stop you from owning a firearm, unless you're a few cans short of a sixpack. For anyone who abides by the law, and just has one for protection, it's a small price to pay to retain the right



That's what I've been saying throughout this thread 

I just posted that argument from another thread as a dicussion starter. I think that he attepmted to make a valid argument that just because there are strict gun control laws, crime doesn't neccesarily stop. He sure could've done it better, but like I said, it was a conversation starter.


----------



## dpm (Apr 20, 2007)

I have to add that per capita statistics are the only reliable way of stating anything within this debate. Percentages say nothing - eg. total deaths in a place increases from 30/year to 40/year, that's a 30% increase which could potentially be explained by a single incident.

Here's Australia's gun deaths stat for the day (to tie in with the Port Arthur discussion)

Murders with firearms (per capita): 0.00293678 per 1,000 people 

vs.

USA

Murders with firearms (per capita): 0.0279271 per 1,000 people


----------



## dpm (Apr 20, 2007)

And we'll add the United Kingdom to that for 7dt

Murders with firearms (per capita): 0.00102579 per 1,000 people


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 20, 2007)

My issue with per capita stats is that it really doesn't tell you anything. They don't explain what areas are the most succeptable to types of crime. They don't explain succeptable situations. I live in one of the more highly populated (read crowded) areas in FL. We're FAR more likely to have violent crimes than some of the smaller and less crowded areas. Naturally, every area is subject to any type of crime, but some places are more likely than others to have higher rates of certain types of crime.

Also, I have yet to see per capita stats that show crime rates based on gun laws. Which I think is a very important statistic for this type of argument.


----------



## dpm (Apr 20, 2007)

It probably wouldn't be too hard to cross reference this list (thanks Markus) with each countries general gun laws.

Thing is, considering the pro-gun argument is being thrown around on a national scale doesn't it make sense to look at the stats as national per capita? We can't use actual death numbers (Aus = 302, USA = 12658, India = 37170).

I know one thing for certain though. There is no fucking way I'm moving to South Africa!


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 20, 2007)

dpm said:


> I know one thing for certain though. There is no fucking way I'm moving to South Africa!



Oh come one!!! WHy not?


----------



## Samer (Apr 20, 2007)

The way i look at it is this, in the perfect country (perfect world)
would you rather every one had guns, or no one had guns?

Obviously this isn't practical however we should aim for one or the other.
The way i look at it personally is that no civilian should be able to own a firearm out side of hunters, and if you are a hunter the firearm should be placed in a safe in a hunting club. And also the rifle should be bolt action, and not semi automatic. 

I believe the police should not have pistols ether, if they need a gun for some reason there should be a higher level cop who has a gun and comes to the scene.

In my opinion i would prefer to live in a world like this than i world full of guns.
I don't have any guns in my home and never plan on owning any. I don't believe in taking anyones life and i believe that if i respect the life of others that for the most part people will respect my life.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 20, 2007)

Samer said:


> I believe the police should not have pistols ether, if they need a gun for some reason there should be a higher level cop who has a gun and comes to the scene.



But what about those situations where an officer is under fire out of nowhere? SHould he have to wait several minutes before somebody can assist in the situation, possibly risking civilian lives??


----------



## Samer (Apr 20, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> But what about those situations where an officer is under fire out of nowhere? SHould he have to wait several minutes before somebody can assist in the situation, possibly risking civilian lives??



When a officer is under fire he calls for back up anyway, its very rare that he will go in alone as far as i know. 

For example in Virginia tech if you look at the footage the cops didn't run in there to save the civilians they waited for the swat team. 

Of course the way the country is now the cops need guns, however if we aim for a more civil society one day they wont.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 20, 2007)

When a cop approaches someone on the street and they start shooting, it's the cops duty to return fire immediately to prevent loss of civilian life. There's a difference between the daily duties of an officer and something like going onto a school campus into a building in which there are many ways for a suspect to ambush police officers. That's why they had to wait for a team of people. They also didn't know how many shooter there were. Just that shots were being fired and people being killed.


----------



## Samer (Apr 20, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> When a cop approaches someone on the street and they start shooting, it's the cops duty to return fire immediately to prevent loss of civilian life. There's a difference between the daily duties of an officer and something like going onto a school campus into a building in which there are many ways for a suspect to ambush police officers. That's why they had to wait for a team of people. They also didn't know how many shooter there were. Just that shots were being fired and people being killed.



The way the country is now it would not work, however in other countries like the U.K. cops do not have pistols, and they have way fewer gun deaths the we do here. 

Its a matter of attitude and wanting to do the right thing.

Taking some ones life should be the last resort, all that guns are good for is ending life there is no good values to them.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 20, 2007)

Guns are also great for sporting. I don't know if you've ever heard of IDPA (International Defensive Pistol Association). It's one of the LARGEST sporting associations in the country. A bunch of people running around specially designed courses shooting at specified targets. It's tons of fun. Then what about Trap, Skeet, and Sporting Clays. There's more to guns than killing people.


----------



## Samer (Apr 20, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> Guns are also great for sporting. I don't know if you've ever heard of IDPA (International Defensive Pistol Association). It's one of the LARGEST sporting associations in the country. A bunch of people running around specially designed courses shooting at specified targets. It's tons of fun. Then what about Trap, Skeet, and Sporting Clays. There's more to guns than killing people.



Thats a good point, i was mainly talking about pistols, or semi automatic rifles. Sporting and hunting is fine in my opinion. I just think this country has gone way out of control with guns and how easy they are to buy. 

I personally love to play paint ball and air soft. So i do see were you are coming from. My main problem is gun violence.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 20, 2007)

Samer said:


> So i do see were you are coming from. My main problem is gun violence.



That's my problem too. I know it only perpetuates the cycle, but I carry a gun to keep myself safe from some psycho that's trying to kill me faster than I would be able to get away.


----------



## BigM555 (Apr 20, 2007)

Ya know, one of the things I have to wonder after reading some of these stats in the last few days.......

How many of the gun related deaths that are pumping up the US average are a result of law enforcement taking out a danger to society? Were these removed? If not, would they not be skewing the results?

Just a thought.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 20, 2007)

That is a good thought. If I'm not mistaken, LEO related shooting deaths would be included in the total.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 20, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> That's my problem too. I know it only perpetuates the cycle, but I carry a gun to keep myself safe from some psycho that's trying to kill me faster than I would be able to get away.



Where do you live? Compton?


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 20, 2007)

Plantation. Right outside of Ft Lauderdale. It used to be a nice area, but FT Lauderdale scared out all the pushers and it seems like they moved to my area. Now the crime rate is way the hell up there.


----------



## drshock (Apr 20, 2007)

Samer said:


> The way i look at it is this, in the perfect country (perfect world)
> would you rather every one had guns, or no one had guns?
> 
> Obviously this isn't practical however we should aim for one or the other.
> ...



I think we ruled out that this is pretty much impossible. Also, an intereesting fact for you is that Nazi Germany outlawed all firearms 2 days before kristallnacht.


EDIT: 

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjective people to carry arms have prepared their own fall." 


-Adolf Hitler


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 20, 2007)

I did not know that.


----------



## drshock (Apr 20, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> I did not know that.



I have a copy of the Second Amendment Primer by Les Adams. You should look it up.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 20, 2007)

I think I just might do that.


----------



## ElRay (Apr 20, 2007)

Chris said:


> Note: 5 murders (all different incidents) involving weapons from the SAME SHOP that the VT shooter bought his gun at.


Another isolated statistic: When I was in LA, there was a period where over 1/3 of the guns confiscated by the LAPD had already been in LAPD possession and were recorded as having been destroyed. 

Anything over 0% is inexcusable.

Ray


----------



## drshock (Apr 20, 2007)

If you google it type in Les Adams also becasue I tryed typing in 'second amendment primer' and didnt get the one I have.


----------



## ElRay (Apr 20, 2007)

BigM555 said:


> How many of the gun related deaths that are pumping up the US average are a result of law enforcement taking out a danger to society?


That's the problem with the US statistics. They include the obvious Criminals killing victims and law enforcement, but they also include: would-be-victims killing their assailants, law enforcement killing criminals, criminals killing criminals, law enforcement killing innocents and accidental gun deaths.

I don't recall the actual percentages the one time I saw the total broken down, but as an aggregate, police killing criminals and criminals killing criminals comprised the vast, vast majority of the total.


Ray


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 20, 2007)

ElRay said:


> That's the problem with the US statistics. They include the obvious Criminals killing innocents, but they also include: would-be-victims killing their assailants, police killing criminals, criminals killing criminals and accidental gun deaths.
> 
> 
> Ray



Which is yet another reason why I'm not a fan of per capita stats. They don't take anything into account other than how much of x to every 1000 people.


----------

