|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/25/2003 10:22:23 PM · #26 |
I will go ahead and respond to your self-defense statistic by citing that website again, to say that for every case in which an individual used a firearm kept in the home in a self-defense homicide, there were 1.3 unintentional deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms. But I don't think any black and white statistic is going to convince you.
I would be interested to see where you'd gotten your statistics on swimming pools. I would also l;ike to see your statistics on concealed weapons decreasing the crime rate, as I read here that "in the first six months of 1997 the weapon-related arrest rate among concealed handgun license holders was more than twice as high as that of the general population of Texas aged 21 years and older."
But really, I'm through. You're not going to be convinced. And you're right, too, that we live in a culture of fear, and it's that which really makes guns so much more dangerous. But people are more dangerous with them, and these statistics (that somehow we're both leaning on) irrefutably prove that. It is our incredibly unregulated and unwatched system of practically passing out guns to unstable people which gives all those criminals their guns, and if we did something about that, if diehard gun owners would stop sitting on top of any possible regulation, then we might just gradually be able to do something about it.
But, as is reflected here and in so many other places, that doesn't appear to be a step we're going to take.
Regards,
Martin |
|
|
|
02/25/2003 11:17:11 PM · #27 |
well I for one would rather take my chance against an intruder if I was armed rather than unarmed... your chances are better... for those that had accidents, once again I stress safety and training... if your going to carry, you need to practice and train... for that, join your local IDPA club. It's better training than most police officers get... the next best thing to having military training... that wy, when you need to defend yourself, you will have something to help you out... most of those hurt probably did not practice or have safety training... and I believe that is the individuals responcibility.. not the governments... here's one study showing that for children under 5, 800 died of drowning where 50 died of gunshots... study
and there are many others... I have heard and read this fact many times over the last few years and it has yet to be disputed...
as for conceal carry reducing crime, just check the states in each state... the facts are right there for all to see...
here's a good example of what happens when you take guns away:
In 1996, in an emotionally-driven reaction to a particularly horrible gun crime by an obvious madman, Australia's government confiscated over 640,000 lawfully owned firearms from private citizens, claiming the measure would "lead to a safer community."
However, From 1996 to 1997, Australian Bureau of Statistics data show that, in fact, armed robbery increased 44 per cent; homicide increased 3.2 percent; assaults increased 8.6 percent; and unarmed assaults increased 21 percent. Home invasions also increased.
easy to believe since no one had guns to defend themselves with... then there's the ultimate example... adolph hitler.. he registered and then collected all the guns... soon after, he marched 6 million people into an oven... sure we might have countries today that are not controlled by a tyrant, and they have an unarmed populous... but what happenes if a madman does get control? maybe they run over you in the street with a tank like in china... or many other of todays dictatorships... like I said to begin with, absolute power corrupts absolutely... our founding fathers knew it, and history knows it... freedom has a price... I would rather take a chance with an armed populous than have a government with nothing to fear... sooner or later they will take advantage... like the old saying says, politicians love unarmed peasants... and damn, I am through too.. I didn't want to break open this discussion hear anyway... just can't understand why people think the world is so peachy that we don't need a way to defend freedom if it is ever needed... didn't you guys study history? sheesh! if we had turned in all of our guns as the british wanted, we would never have won our independence... it is always better to have them and not need them, then to need them and not have them... maybe we do have problems and deaths, but not because of guns... but because of people and social problems.. america has always been armed... we didnt have these probelms 50 years ago... we need real solutions, real answers to our social problems... not emotional decisions to ban a simple tool that alone can do no wrong...
and your right, you won't change my mind, and I doubt I will change yours.. we will have to agree to disagree... now lets go take some pictures!
|
|
|
|
02/26/2003 12:02:51 AM · #28 |
Guns don't kill people, people kill people...but they do it more easily, callously, and frequently when there's a gun handy.
I don't mind your having a gun. But I think that I (and the government) have a right to know which guns you have, so that you can be held accountable if someone's killed with it.
Gun owners are fond of pointing out automobile deaths. But, they seem to have no objection to mandatory registration, licensing, and insurance for drivers. I don't understand the objection to holding owners of something expressly DESIGNED FOR KILLING to at least the same requirements. |
|
|
|
02/26/2003 12:12:37 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
... maybe we do have problems and deaths, but not because of guns... but because of people and social problems.. america has always been armed... we didnt have these probelms 50 years ago... we need real solutions, real answers to our social problems... not emotional decisions to ban a simple tool that alone can do no wrong...
and your right, you won't change my mind, and I doubt I will change yours.. we will have to agree to disagree... now lets go take some pictures! |
I can agree with this part, although as I remember (from watching The Untouchables on TV) something about prohibiting free trade in desired substances leads to a lot of shooting in the streets and elsewhere...
BTW--I did my best to give your photo a fair vote based on its quality and challenge-appropriateness...hmmm...I just checked and I gave you a 6, so maybe the content did have some influence; could easily have given it a 7 or maybe even 8. I was also voting in a hurry though... |
|
|
|
02/26/2003 12:36:38 AM · #30 |
well, well, a lively discussion. I'll voice my quick 2 cents. I think it's ridiculous to take away an individual's right to own a weapon. It is up to that individual what they do with it. That is why we have gun control laws. It is also, of course, ridiculous to believe that any sort of control over the sale of unliscenced firearms is possible, unless we're going to fix other deeper problems of individual and societal development as well. The arguement will get us nowhere. Don't get a gun unless you are willing to take responsibility for your actions with it. Unfortunately, not all people have the same ideas of what is responsible. And yes, your photo most likely got marked down due to the subject. If I had been able to vote I would have given it a 6.
click click. shoot! |
|
|
|
02/26/2003 12:48:19 AM · #31 |
"That is why we have gun control laws."
Barely.
You're right about the social problems, at any rate. Seen "Bowling for Columbine"? More than worth a viewing, no matter what stance you have on the issues presented. |
|
|
|
02/26/2003 12:51:53 AM · #32 |
you know, when thinking about this discussion one thing impresses me.. everyone, on either side of the issue, managed to stay polite and fairly friendly... no mud slinging, no name calling, no trash talking.. too many times discussions like this go south in a hurry...
That my DPC friends, is pretty darned cool...
|
|
|
|
02/26/2003 01:18:27 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
you know, when thinking about this discussion one thing impresses me.. everyone, on either side of the issue, managed to stay polite and fairly friendly... no mud slinging, no name calling, no trash talking.. too many times discussions like this go south in a hurry...
That my DPC friends, is pretty darned cool... |
It sure is...thanks for noticing and for doing your part too! |
|
|
|
02/26/2003 03:39:05 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by edhendricks:
"This paper examines the similarities and differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous homicides in Australia during an 11-year period. The findings suggest that the "typical" Indigenous homicide in Australia differed from other homicides in important ways.
[SNIP] |
I don't think you understand what "indigenous" means. Australia's indigenous people are generally referred to overseas as Aborigines (although less and less so here). They call themselves Kooris and Murris (depending on whether they are mainland or Islander people). They make up between 1-2% of our population. This study is meaningless when applied to any wider issue to do with firearms.
Originally posted by Anachronite:
In 1996, in an emotionally-driven reaction to a particularly horrible gun crime by an obvious madman, Australia's government confiscated over 640,000 lawfully owned firearms from private citizens, claiming the measure would "lead to a safer community."
However, From 1996 to 1997, Australian Bureau of Statistics data show that, in fact, armed robbery increased 44 per cent; homicide increased 3.2 percent; assaults increased 8.6 percent; and unarmed assaults increased 21 percent. Home invasions also increased.
|
American gun rights campaigners have a lot to answer for in misconstruing our democratically supported decision to ban semi-automatic weapons.
a) They weren't confiscated, they were bought back. The government raised our medicare levy for a once off scheme to pay owners of semi-automatic weapons for their guns.
b) They were ONLY semi-automatic rifles, not handguns, and any claim you can make that this led to a lack of self-defense is ridiculous. Those weapons aren't used for self-defense.
c) Statistics on armed robbery, homicide, etc. have almost no relation to the amount of these types of weapons in the community. Studies specifically related to these arms showed that their use in armed robbery and other gun crimes dropped significantly after they were bought back, because there were fewer of these types of guns in the community to be stolen. However, they were only ever used in a tiny percentage of crimes anyway.
The crime that led to the banning of these weapons was a mass murder in Port Arthur, in Tasmania, by a man called Martin Bryant. With a bag full of semi-automatic rifles, he mowed down over 30 people in one afternoon. The whole country stopped that day. A crime on that magnitude is unheard of in this country. We have the right to respond to it in whatever manner we see fit, being a democracy. The government's response is still, to this day, extremely popular. |
|
|
|
02/26/2003 09:01:30 AM · #35 |
actually lisae, a friend of mine used an SKS semi-auto rifle to repel a robber that was trying to break into his house... however, I never meant to imply that those guns were specificaly for self defense... usually for home defense a shotgun or handgun will do... assault weapons and or semi-auto rifles are needed because they are the only weapons that give civilians a chance to repel military or government forces, which happens to be why we were given the right to bear arms in the first place...
as for your other points on this issue and australia, well as I said we are not going to change either others minds, you have your beliefs and stats, and I have mine.. and that's ok.. we can agree to disagree..
in the mean time, I am sending you some websites with interesting info on the subject...
that way we can get back to taking pictures here.. fair enough? |
|
|
|
02/26/2003 09:24:25 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
assault weapons and or semi-auto rifles are needed because they are the only weapons that give civilians a chance to repel military or government forces, which happens to be why we were given the right to bear arms in the first place... |
Yeah, you guys have that "right"... too bad you only shoot each other. We've never had that in our constitution or out of it. Nor have we ever been invaded by tyrants (other than the British in the first place, but then, I wouldn't be here otherwise).
Originally posted by Anachronite:
as for your other points on this issue and australia, well as I said we are not going to change either others minds, you have your beliefs and stats, and I have mine.. and that's ok.. we can agree to disagree..
in the mean time, I am sending you some websites with interesting info on the subject...
that way we can get back to taking pictures here.. fair enough? |
Do you really think people can't discuss politics and take photos simultaneously?
You can save your websites, I've heard it all before from a variety of sources. |
|
|
|
02/26/2003 09:28:57 AM · #37 |
and that's my point exactly.. discussing it is fine, but once we realize that both of us have heard it all before, it becomes tiresome for both sides... we are not going to change each others minds :o)
Message edited by author 2003-02-26 09:39:30.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 07:09:51 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 07:09:51 PM EDT.
|
