| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/18/2007 09:47:18 AM · #126 |
Do the people advocating universal armament as a solution see that as a desireable way to live, or the only solution, or is gun ownership just a matter of personal preference/enjoyment?
|
|
|
|
04/18/2007 09:53:51 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Do the people advocating universal armament as a solution see that as a desireable way to live, or the only solution, or is gun ownership just a matter of personal preference/enjoyment? |
Let me clarify by stating that I do NOT support "universal armament". I believe that gun ownership is a matter of personal preference. I don't really think there is much wrong with current gun laws. If we outlaw guns, then the criminals will be free to terrorize all law-abiding citizens without fear of action because true "law-abiding" citizens will not have guns... The present laws add an element of unknown... If a criminal breaks in to someone's house, they don't know whether or not the owner has a weapon... In a sense, they are taking their lives into their own hands (consciously or subconsciously). It is that element of unknown that will ultimately discourage some would-be criminals...
ETA:
If guns are outlawed and a criminal breaks into my house and threatens my family and I kill him in an act of self-defense, would I not go to jail??? Possession of an illegal firearm at the very least??? Where is the justice in that???
Granted I would gladly go if it meant keeping my family safe, but honestly does that seem fair?
Message edited by author 2007-04-18 09:57:15.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2007 09:59:47 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by JawnyRico:
Originally posted by deapee:
Maybe we need to split the USA into a North and a South...or an East and a West. On your side, guns will be outlawed and only outlaws will have guns. On my side, everyone will own a gun, and everyone will carry that gun proudly...and everyone will be polite and respectful.
|
I would bet my life on the fact that the side that owned guns, you would never hear of 20-30 people dying in one shooting again. |
Yes, you would be betting your life. While there might not be mass slaughters of this type, the chances that there would be 20 more domestic disputes which escalate to murder goes up with gun prevalance.
All statistics I've heard show that most gun killings are between people who know each other, whether family members or opposing gang members. A relatively small percentage of gun killings are committed as part of another crime against ordinary citizens.
Just look at the statistics of countries where guns are harder to obtain/illegal and see whether shootings of innocents by criminals actually goes up.
I'd love someone to compare the number of:
-Citizens killed as victims of a concommitant crime
-People killed by a family member/close friend/acquaintance
-Criminals killed by other criminals or police
-Teenager suicides by guns/accidental shootings in the household
-Criminals killed by citizen self defense action
I'm going to guess the following percentages for those gun deaths in the US -- let's see how close I can get:
-5%
-60%
-10%
-24%
-1% |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:01:13 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by "hsolakidis":
Is this the price of living in the land of the free? Sleeping with a gun under your pillow? No thanks.... ' |
No, the price of living in a free land in this mucked up world is that at least some of us need to sleep with our guns within near reach of our pillows.
This nation would not be a free nation if it were not for the gun. We would never have overthrown the British with mere rhetoric.
Originally posted by "rayethier":
Would I want to live in a society where all citizens carried a gun... perhaps if it were in the middle east, but other than that NO." |
A civilized society where everyone armed with guns. Is far safer to me than an uncivilized society with sticks and stones.
That said, if we could live in a world with only plowshares and no murder in peoples hearts. I would certainly choose it.
The fact is, I know criminals have guns. I also know that police are extremely ineffective for protecting in the immediacy as I have experienced in all my times of need. (I have actually not had a successful response to a 911 call yet. All 6 times I have called 911 for concern of my safety have gone unresponded.)
Originally posted by "rayethier":
"The sad fact about the comments made by the Saj is that they are speculative in nature, with no tangible evidence that anything said can be supported by empirical evidence." |
There is an element of truth to this, but also an element that doesn't quite hold up. I would say non-passion crime (in other words premeditated criminal crime) tends to be lower in areas where residents are known to be armed.
But you are right, the odds of a gun being used in a domestic dispute go up. I am of the opinion that regardless of the existance of a gun those domestic disputes would likely still result in the death of many women. Although I think guns allow for the death of more men in domestic disputes than otherwise would occur. I do not think most women are able to stop their empassioned domestic males in drunken rage from killing them even without the use of a gun.
As for children. We had guns in the house when I was a very young child. But I was trained properly. With near reverence to the gun and what it was capable of. My father would not even let me point a water pistol at another person when I was a child.
I will be purchasing a firearm in the near future. I know have a wife and a child on the way to protect. Before I was married I had considered it after realizing my police were incapable of protecting me. I weighed things carefully and realized that it was only me. I did not have a lot to lose, nor a lot to take away from someone else. I decided I'd rather lose my life than take one. I believe my soul secure. However, with a family - things change. It is not just about me. Where as I might be willing to die instead of killing my fellow man. I am not about to let my wife or child reach such a fate easily. Nor myself anymore as both my wife and child are reliant upon my well-being now as well.
However, I plan on also purchasing a biometric safe for my fire arms that will respond to my wife or my fingerprints. I will train my child to respect and fear guns. She will know that a gun is always loaded and never empty. That it should never be pointed to any living thing unless you are willing to kill that thing. And that it is her right to bear that weapon but that with any right there also comes responsibility.
Originally posted by "DowseDesigns":
OK, he purchased the gun legally. Don't you think that if a mentally unstable person wants to go on a killing rampage they will find SOME way to do it? The guns were purchased over 1 month ago... that's PREMEDITATION!!!! Tougher gun laws would not have prevented this!!! |
Actually, one law would have. The preventing of foreign nationals not citizens from owning and purchasing guns without cause.
Hmmm....
***************
One thing to remember is that we come from different walks of life. All of us. We have had a variety of experiences. These shape who we are and how we think.
DrowseDesigns had a situation in which his family was threatened and he discovered himself woefully incapable of protecting that which was most precious to him. As a husband and a new father-to-be, I can relate to that fear with a rational understanding but not having experienced it I am unable to emphasize to the depth of understanding. (I'd imagine that I would have repeated dreams stemming from the situation.) I have also found the police non-responsive to my needs during a few potential emergency situations. Having 6 unresponded to 9-1-1 calls is a disturbing thing to carry in one's conscience. I literally had a 9-1-1 operator respond "It's xxxx city, what do you want us to do about it!" (and that was not delivered in a questioning responsive tone but a rude condenscending insultive tone - not very comforting.)
Others who have not experienced such are not as likely to feel the emotions or concern. Someone who has had an emergency and the police responded in a timely fashion is going to feel safer and more comfortable.
It's hard to emphasize with those who have different experiences. One who has never suffered racism may not quite understand how threatening it feels. Have you ever been forced to not sit in a particular section of a city bus because of your skin color? I have...it's discomforting.
But we need to try to understand where we are coming from and why. Right now, the problem IMHO lies more in a society which has lost it's concepts of civic duty and personal responsibility. We sue because we used a snow blower on our roof and fell. We don't accept responsibility as a society. Our social core has rotted. We don't have community. Honestly, how many here know all the neighbors on their block? How many even have a neighbor? How many could leave their kids with the neighborhood in an emergency.
We DON'T KNOW EACH OTHER ANYMORE...
Who knew this guy anymore? No one to notice when the pressures of world become to great for a man's soul. No one to notice that the soul is slipping and losing it's grip on this world. No one...so they go unnoticed until they slip off the deep end. And only then if they pull the whole slide down with them.
How do we fix that aspect of society - I sadly don't know. If we could, so many of our problems and not just this one would be addressed.
"Love your neighbor" and hate won't be there to cause you to kill. When we don't even know our neighbors...it is very hard to love them - is it not? |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:09:39 AM · #130 |
Everyone always goes to the gun control issue but rarely does anyone look at the mental heatlth aspect. He had a teacher that reported his strange writings and all that came of it was we can't do a thing because he has not broken a law. In almost everyone of these shooting someone has noticed very aggressive behavior but no one can take action with out hurting someones feelings or comprimising their rights. I do not have any answers but we need to listen for the cries for help and find ways to react before the shooting starts.
As for any kind of gun control it is a pipe dream that can not ever be accomplished effectively.
edit Spellin...
Message edited by author 2007-04-18 10:12:11. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:19:28 AM · #131 |
"Just look at the statistics of countries where guns are harder to obtain/illegal and see whether shootings of innocents by criminals actually goes up."
From what I've read, the shooting of innoncents by criminals often does go up. Especially in rural areas where criminals know police cannot reach in time.
And although in places like Britain they may have less violent crime. I recently read an article about increasing use of knives and bladed weapons. So they're now having to ban those.
-Citizens killed as victims of a concommitant crime [Far too many...sadly.]
-People killed by a family member/close friend/acquaintance [In truth, most of the time I read about these situations there always seems to be some kookiness. The person was unstable. The person was already on anti-psychotic drugs. The individual had a habit of drinking and a case history with law enforcement.]
-Criminals killed by other criminals or police [Is this a bad thing?]
-Teenager suicides by guns [Not sure I accept the validity, as such would have simply used other means.]
-accidental shootings in the household [Truly sad, and often because people don't take precautions. I one reason is that sometimes parents who were raised with guns and never touched the unlocked guns without permission assume their children to be of the same temperment and decide they don't need locks and safes. I think this is a mistake.]
-Criminals killed by citizen self defense action [Considering how few citizens are actually armed in public. A substantial number really. Often it's touted how few occasions this occurs. But in reality if you look at it per number of armed citizens it's fairly high.]
Here are just a few examples of the latter cases:
//www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcInfoBase.asp?CatID=43
***
Some interesting quotes regarding the killer today:
- Ex-roommates say killer had stalked women
- Teacher, concerned at Cho Seung-Hui's writings, took him out of class
- Teacher went to police, university for help but without clear threat, nothing was done
"Though Giovanni, another professor, Cho's former roommates and a classmate all recall Cho behaving in a disturbing manner -- and authorities confirm he was investigated after being accused of stalking a woman -- there was nothing criminal about his demeanor."
"Cho's poetry was so intimidating -- and his behavior so menacing -- that Giovanni had him removed from her class in the fall of 2005, she said. Giovanni said the final straw came when two of her students quit attending her poetry sessions because of Cho."
Cho's roommates, who asked to be identified only as Andy and John, had similar accounts. Andy recalled police coming to the dormitory to investigate Cho's involvement with a female students and when Andy told police that Cho had spoken of suicide, "they took him away to the counseling center for a night or two."
//www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/vtech.shooting/index.html
In my opinion, if you are getting in trouble for stalking and being interred in the hospital for suicidal thoughts. It might be prudent to avoid selling you a gun. But this information is kept priveledged and not relinquished. And there you have it. The constant struggle that is freedom vs safety. They are like oil and water. They don't mix. But they are often good together when in the proper balance.
And why is it always the quiet ones, eh? Maybe us talkative boistrous people just aren't the killing spree types. I don't know.
But most of what this article says is that this guy was alone. 'Neighborless'. Outside of the community. Which all goes back to my above comments on society. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:22:13 AM · #132 |
I not sure if (and I sincerely doubt) the US media is reporting on the rest of the worlds reaction to this tragedy. But here are a couple of quotes for you:
"It would be vain to hope that even so destructive a crime as this will cool the American ardour for guns" Britain's Independent newspaper
Italy's Il Manifesto newspaper said the shooting was "as American as apple pie"
Australia banned almost all types of semi-automatic weapons after a mass shooting in Tasmania in 1996. John Howard, Prime Minister Of Australia said: "We showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country"
I'll leave it at that. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:25:02 AM · #133 |
[quote=theSaj] "Just look at the statistics of countries where guns are harder to obtain/illegal and see whether shootings of innocents by criminals actually goes up."
The horse is already out! In this country there is already way to many guns out to truly be effective! Everyone always talks about new gun sales what about all the guns that are out that can not be traced? Its a real problem and to change it infringes on the constitution. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:30:04 AM · #134 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
I not sure if (and I sincerely doubt) the US media is reporting on the rest of the worlds reaction to this tragedy. But here are a couple of quotes for you:
"It would be vain to hope that even so destructive a crime as this will cool the American ardour for guns" Britain's Independent newspaper
Italy's Il Manifesto newspaper said the shooting was "as American as apple pie"
Australia banned almost all types of semi-automatic weapons after a mass shooting in Tasmania in 1996. John Howard, Prime Minister Of Australia said: "We showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country"
I'll leave it at that. |
Funny Virginia Tech was quoted doing much the same just last year. A gun free campus and even forbid their teachers from being armed.
****
What was found in the individual's residence:
Tools, documents, computer hardware, computer software, weapons, ammunition, explosives, materials used in the manufacturing of improvised/commercial explosive devices, instructional manuals for criminal acts of mass destructions acts of terror, including books and tapes (audio and video), writing utensils and/or paper similar to that which were used to communicate threats to Virginia Tech Campus in recent past.
//i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/04/17/warrant.pdf
PLEASE NOTE THAT EVEN IF THE GUNS WERE NOT INVOLVED THIS EVENT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. THIS INDIVIDUAL WAS DETERMINED
Message edited by author 2007-04-18 10:31:02. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:33:38 AM · #135 |
| Yesterday, approximately 299,999,922 people were NOT murdered in the US. Sounds like a pretty safe place to me!!! :) |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:45:04 AM · #136 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
[...]
I'd love someone to compare the number of:
-Citizens killed as victims of a concommitant crime
-People killed by a family member/close friend/acquaintance
-Criminals killed by other criminals or police
-Teenager suicides by guns/accidental shootings in the household
-Criminals killed by citizen self defense action
|
>50% of gun deaths in the united states are suicides
approximately 5% of gun deaths are either accidental or "undetermined"
reference (it is a 9 year old analysis, but trends are likely simlilar)
i'm still looking for good numbers on the other questions, because i am very curious. however, i'm only trusting official numbers (this article uses official governmental tracking data, and was peer reviewed for acceptance in an epidemiology journal). any number from a newspaper article, wikipedia, pro-gun site, anti-gun site, or anywhere else is something i consider suspect.
one big problem is that the US non-gun homicide rate is higher than the total homicide rate in most other countries. that means that, even without any guns in the united states, we still have the highest murder rate. that's sad :-( |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:53:11 AM · #137 |
David McDowall, criminologist at the University at Albany did a survey between 1987 and 1990. During this time period there were 46,319 gun homicides, and the National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that there were 2,628,532 nonfatal crimes involving guns.
Safe? Really? |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:58:52 AM · #138 |
just as a side note - my man was a cop in south africa for 12 years. he lived daily with extreme violence, and saw what guns do to people. while he never knowingly killed anyone, he was in a war zone (KZN) for most of his service, and was in many fire fights. we have no guns in the house, and he does not even like handling them now. he's a crack shot.
guns are for killing. handguns are for killing people.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2007 11:05:34 AM · #139 |
CNN article
The striking difference between those that would restrict and those who would freely permit is thier view on society as a whole. Those who want restrictions on firearms believe that society as a whole is unstable and not trustworthy - thus remove weapons. Those who want a more permissive approach to firearms, believe that society as a whole are trustworthy and responsible - thus encourage firearm ownership.
The opposite of the rhetoric. Pro Gunners actually believe that only the handfull of lunatics need controlling, while the anti-gunners believe that everyone is suspect.
Quite a remarkable difference.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2007 11:08:11 AM · #140 |
From the FBI Stas for 2005.
# An estimated 1,390,695 violent crimes occurred nationwide in 2005.
# During 2005, there were an estimated 469.2 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants.
The county I live in had 109 violent crime incidents in a population of 280,440; a much lower rate of incidence. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 11:12:04 AM · #141 |
Originally posted by xianart:
just as a side note - my man was a cop in south africa for 12 years. he lived daily with extreme violence, and saw what guns do to people. while he never knowingly killed anyone, he was in a war zone (KZN) for most of his service, and was in many fire fights. we have no guns in the house, and he does not even like handling them now. he's a crack shot.
guns are for killing. handguns are for killing people. |
If handguns are for killing people then what are the rest for? Big game hunters tend to carry a handgun and not for people. Just a true story and its 1 out of 65 billion but a man was hunting white tail deer. Got his kill and was field dressing it. Well apparently he was in something home because a bear attacked. He carried a 2 shot derringer, apparently made the right hits because those two shots svaed his life.
Outside of that
When i took Kempo Karate i had to hold an unloaded 1911 to my instructor and i actually started shaking.
I have handled SKS's AR-15's and M4's, 3 very deadly (the sks being very unaccurate) assault rifles, a combination of handguns, shotguns rifles and muzzlelodaers.
I actually had an issue holding an uloaded gun to someone lol. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 11:12:13 AM · #142 |
Originally posted by xianart:
handguns are for killing people. |
This has to be one of the most ignorant things I've ever read. I have two handguns and have never killed anybody with either one. People kill people. A gun is just one way to get the job done. If guns are made unavailable, they will find alternate means. People have been killing people long before guns were ever around. Don't blame it on handguns or any gun for that matter.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2007 12:01:43 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The opposite of the rhetoric. Pro Gunners actually believe that only the handfull of lunatics need controlling, while the anti-gunners believe that everyone is suspect.
Quite a remarkable difference. |
... And this gem is supported by a myriad of empirical studies I bet.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 12:10:25 PM · #144 |
| Mexico has strict gun laws and shares a border with the US. Let's compare Mexico's crime rate with the US. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 12:14:58 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
Originally posted by xianart:
handguns are for killing people. |
This has to be one of the most ignorant things I've ever read. |
Other than for target practice, the use of handguns would be ???
Ray |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 12:15:33 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Mexico has strict gun laws and shares a border with the US. Let's compare Mexico's crime rate with the US. |
heheheheheh
|
|
|
|
04/18/2007 12:16:21 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
Originally posted by xianart:
handguns are for killing people. |
This has to be one of the most ignorant things I've ever read. |
Other than for target practice, the use of handguns would be ???
Ray |
Hunters using them for protection against wildlife (as stated earlier).
|
|
|
|
04/18/2007 12:16:47 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by Flash:
CNN article
The striking difference between those that would restrict and those who would freely permit is thier view on society as a whole. Those who want restrictions on firearms believe that society as a whole is unstable and not trustworthy - thus remove weapons. Those who want a more permissive approach to firearms, believe that society as a whole are trustworthy and responsible - thus encourage firearm ownership.
The opposite of the rhetoric. Pro Gunners actually believe that only the handfull of lunatics need controlling, while the anti-gunners believe that everyone is suspect.
Quite a remarkable difference. |
I think this is quite interesting and I fit the mold. I believe we are all capable of such ghastly things as murder or genocide if we had the proper pressure applied to us. In religious/moral terms man is inherently evil and not inherently good.
It does give a good insight into the other side. It makes very little sense to hand guns out to everybody if everybody is bad (or at least capable of being bad), but if only a few people are bad then it does make sense.
Message edited by author 2007-04-18 12:17:27.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2007 12:21:26 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by DowseDesigns:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
Originally posted by xianart:
handguns are for killing people. |
This has to be one of the most ignorant things I've ever read. |
Other than for target practice, the use of handguns would be ???
Ray |
Hunters using them for protection against wildlife (as stated earlier). |
You are pulling my leg right. Don't know about you my friend, but I have done a lot of hunting and not once did I carry a hangun for that... no sir. To be honest with you... if you took the time to ask most police officers, they would quickly inform you that they normally use a shotgun to deal with vicious dogs because handguns are almost useless.
Word of caution... don't bring a handgun with you in the woods to fend off grizzlies... you probably wouldn't like the results.
Ray
Message edited by author 2007-04-18 12:21:52. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 12:23:00 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by "xianart":
"Guns are for killing. handguns are for killing people." |
While they do have other uses from sport to hunting. Yes, that is one of the potential functions of most handguns.
However, I do not see this as a negative. I want the means of being able to kill a man who is intent on harming my family.
Why? Because I have no means to ensure that such an individual won't make an attempt at harming my family.
Originally posted by "rob_banks":
# An estimated 1,390,695 violent crimes occurred nationwide in 2005.
# During 2005, there were an estimated 469.2 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants. |
Of interest. Most criminals are repeat offenders. Those 469.2 violent crimes per 100,000 do not necessarily mean there were 469 violent individuals. In fact, it is quite possible that there were only 50 violent individuals doing 10 violent crimes each.
Remember, while you go to your day job every day. A violent criminal needs to perpetuate a violent crime periodically in order to ensure their livelihood. |
|
