Guns have only one use?

[goju]

That is the frequent rant by gun controllers. They disparage analogies to gun deaths because "guns have only one purpose", or some similarly misconstrued thinking. So I guess we need to determine what uses we have for guns. Aside from "capping" bad guys, what DO you use your guns for?

[Worst Username Ever]

1. Suicide

Well anyway I would, if it got to that.

[havocmom]

2. Making sure I do not end up at the bottom of the food chain

when out in the wilderness... just in case knowledge and skill do not discourage a bear or lion.

By the way, are cars only used to kill and maim? They sure do that trick well. How come we never hear about outlawing cars?

[library_max]

8. A car isn't a weapon. A gun is.

Honestly, the need to deny reality that keeps surfacing in the RKBA arguments!

[goju]

11. And your point is?

What does it matter whether you call it a gun, tool, antique, investment, or sporting equipment? Isnt the effect the same? Arent you MOST concerned with preventing unnecessary deaths?

If not, what are you concerned with? If so, why arent you concerned other sources of unnecessary deaths?

[library_max]

13. I call it a gun when and if it's a gun.

Calling it something else won't change the fact that it's a gun.

And this "unnecessary deaths" business is just another try at "Hey, look over there!" It doesn't change the issues involving guns one iota.

[goju]

17. Yes

"And this "unnecessary deaths" business is just another try at "Hey, look over there!" It doesn't change the issues involving guns one iota."

I couldnt agree more. Unfortunately, some of your fellow gun controllers cant resist labeling guns the scapegoat.

[havocmom]

20. I am not saying "Hey, look over there."

Just pointing out that the arguement that gun control is about saving lives is full of holes. If preventing early death is the goal, getting rid of cars would be a better goal. The numbers speak for themselves.

If we don't go after the greater cause of death, like cars, then we need a new argument for going after guns. It isn't death and accidents we are trying to stop if we are for cars but against guns. Just trying to figure out what it is we want so badly we are willing to constantly lose elections for.

[iverglas]

29. what I always wonder

... is ...

If preventing early death is the goal, getting rid of cars would be a better goal.

... do you people (the chanters of this mantra) have some proposal to make to reduce injuries and deaths associated with automobile possession/use?

G'head. Make it, eh?

The numbers speak for themselves.

That they do, indeed.

The ratio of injury/death to contact, in the case of cars, is EXTREMELY LOW.

Every time I cross the main street around the corner, I'm in sufficiently close proximity with a couple of dozen cars that they could kill or maim me. Doesn't happen. None of the other pedestrians or drivers within view, or within a hundred miles, gets killed or maimed during that time, either. I drove about 400 kilometres in two days this past weekend (make that 250 miles, if you prefer). I was in sufficiently close proximity to thousands and thousands of cars that they could have killed or maimed me. Didn't happen.

I know of no one who has committed suicide by car. One of my former beaux' adolescent son committed suicide by firearm -- a legally owned hunting weapon.

I know of no one who has committed, or been the victim of, homicide by car. One of my former clients was killed by her sister's estranged husband with a firearm -- an illegally possessed handgun ... which of course started its life in the hands of some "law-abiding gun owner" somewhere.

An apparently deranged person wielding a firearm shot at someone, and took a stranger hostage, in downtown Toronto during this morning's rush hour. Anyone know of somebody who has taken a hostage by means of motor vehicle? Held up a bank by means of motor vehicle? Hand over all your money, or I'll run you over ... if you'll just step outside for a moment ...

Does somebody here really know a whole lot of people who were intentionally killed by themselves or someone else, or who were the victims of some crime committed by someone whose act was facilitated by the threat injury or death, where the person in question was wielding a motor vehicle??

Can somebody explain this "analogy" for me one more time?

[goju]

30. Ok

"do you people (the chanters of this mantra) have some proposal to make to reduce injuries and deaths associated with automobile possession/use?"

Yes, restrict cars that travel over 25 mph. Mandatory airbags. Background checks on all those who wish to buy or register a vehicle. Any nutbag who has a history of mental illness or drug/alcohol convictions will be denied. Sound good to you?

"The ratio of injury/death to contact, in the case of cars, is EXTREMELY LOW."

The ratio of bullets fired to injury/death is also extremely low, probably lower than car contact. What is your point?

"I know of no one who has committed suicide by car. One of my former beaux' adolescent son committed suicide by firearm -- a legally owned hunting weapon."

I do. I knew someone who jumped in front of a car on the freeway. Again, what is your point?

"I know of no one who has committed, or been the victim of, homicide by car. One of my former clients was killed by her sister's estranged husband with a firearm -- an illegally possessed handgun ... which of course started its life in the hands of some "law-abiding gun owner" somewhere."

Oddly enough, there was a story about his not long ago, in Vegas I believe. A woman ran over her cheating husband about 3 or 4 times. Need a link? What is your point?

"Anyone know of somebody who has taken a hostage by means of motor vehicle? Held up a bank by means of motor vehicle? Hand over all your money, or I'll run you over ... if you'll just step outside for a moment ..."

I know of a shitload of cases where a vehicle was used in the commission of those crimes. What is your point?

"Does somebody here really know a whole lot of people who were intentionally killed by themselves or someone else, or who were the victims of some crime committed by someone whose act was facilitated by the threat injury or death, where the person in question was wielding a motor vehicle??"

Does intentionality make the death MORE significant? Are you not concerned with overall numbers of unnecessary and/or criminal deaths? If your focus is on intentions, wouldnt it make more sense to look at the perpetrators, not the tools, since they dont have "intentions"?

"Can somebody explain this "analogy" for me one more time?"

Sure, happy to help. First, you need to come clean for once. Explain what your "concerned" with. Once we have an idea of the problem, we can work toward a solution. A common mistake of gun controllers is not properly identifying the goals they wish to accomplish, not honestly anyway.

[MrBenchley]

31. "A common mistake of gun controllers"

The most common one I see is assuming that the RKBA folk are arguing in good faith, when in fact they are just blowing smoke....

"Yes, restrict cars that travel over 25 mph. Mandatory airbags. Background checks on all those who wish to buy or register a vehicle. Any nutbag who has a history of mental illness or drug/alcohol convictions will be denied. Sound good to you? "
I'm sure you'll be able to show us the posts where you've argued for this before, right?

[MrSandman]

61. Just a couple...

50 mph national speed limit
Ban "Right Turn on Red"

Should save several thousand loves without disrupting the transportation system. Discourage long commutes which add to pollution/fuel expenditure. Win/win.

[library_max]

64. Any facts to back that up? /nt

[MrSandman]

65. Not links...

There was one researcher on C-SPAN who discussed the 160 data points taken for fatal accidents. I will try to find that when I can. I think the Right turn was in the hundreds. The speed limit increase after the 55mph resulted in several thousand addditional fatalities.

on edit: easy to find

Research by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that when speed limits were raised by many states in 1996, travel speeds increased and motor vehicle fatalities went up approximately 15 percent on Interstate highways in those states.

http://www.saferoads.org/issues/fs-speed.htm

[library_max]

70. Thanks for the serious and civil response.

It's becoming a rarity, on this thread and in this forum. I should compliment the exceptions more often.

And I'm not going to quibble about the numbers. Maybe you can find a large fraction of 30,000 deaths per year and maybe not.

But let me ask you this. Suppose you do have a reasonable plan for saving thousands of lives per year by changing the traffic laws. How does that make it unreasonable to try to save more thousands of lives by changing the gun laws? Why must they be mutually exclusive? Why does the one invalidate the other?

[MrSandman]

88. They do not invalidate each other...

However, the motives of those who wish to save lives through gun control are placed into queation by the VPC. Got to their website here and see how many times "ban" is mentioned. Is it any wonder that gunowners mistrust the motives of reasonable gun control advocates.

My traffic law proposal was to present a more acccurate analogy. The difference being that the change in traffic laws has been demonstrated to have an impact on fatalities. Gun control has not had that demonstration in the US.

[library_max]

95. That's because gun control hasn't been given a fair chance in the US.

And I don't see any contradiction between banning guns and saving lives.

[MrSandman]

108. What information has been gathered ...

which identifies what gun controls will help save lives.

Ten years ago, we were told the AWB would do this. Now we are told it doesn't. Both times by VPC.

A load of political capitital was used in that.
We need to mandate uniform and detailed information about individual gun deaths or there is no proof that anything will work.
Less than 40%of the population wants to ban handguns. Let's dispose of losing elections over this.

Or we can continue to propose stricter bans which may or may not work.

[library_max]

114. Congress has forbidden the CDC to research or report information

in favor of gun controls.

Since the AWB, assault weapons have gone from being used in 8.4% of gun crimes to being used in less than two percent of gun crimes.

But the general problem with the kind of "proof" you're asking for is that society is not a black box in which one can perform controlled experiments. No matter what happens, it's always easy for naysayers to invoke some other uncontrolled variable and credit it with any increase or decrease in crime or fatalities.

We do know that the three countries most like us culturally, Canada, Australia, and UK, all have strict gun controls and all have less than one third our murder rate per capita.

[slackmaster]

119. Congress did not stop CDC from collecting raw data about gun violence

Only from pursuing a political agenda.

And CDC's research into firears injuries has certainly not stopped.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

[MrBenchley]

121. "pursuing a political agenda"

That IS rich....

[MrSandman]

126. I'm not asking for experiments...

Simply the use of proper data.

Some states require magazine disconnects and/or loaded chamber indicators in pistols. Is this because it sounds good or the data support that the requirement decreases accident rate? Does it even help?
If nearly every law enforcement agency in the US can record the race of every person stopped, certainly they could record detailed information on gunshot victims.

Since the AWB, assault weapons have gone from being used in 8.4% of gun crimes to being used in less than two percent of gun crimes.


Where does this come from. I thought the VPC assured us that AW's continue to be readily available.
http://www.vpc.org/press/0407USofAW.htm

[slackmaster]

130. VPC and others flip-flop on how they define AWs

If they want to make a point that the AWB is effective at reducing crimes (committed with AWs), it uses the official legal definition i.e. pre-bans which of course are used less often because of scarcity. How many trafic accidents in 1964 involved 1962 Chevrolets? How many in 2004? Certainly the number of crimes committed with real assault weapons (as defined by the law) has dropped steadily. They're in the hands of older, wealthier people than they were when the ban took effect.

If they want to make a case that the AWB is too weak or that they're used disproprotionately in the shooting of police, they use an arbitary definition that includes both post-bans and weapons that lack any AW characteristics other than being semiautomatic.

So either the ban reduced the number of AWs in circulation and therefore should be renewed and expanded, or it didn't accomplish what its authors intended (make all the scary-looking guns go away) and therefore should be renewed and expanded. What they never bother to do is make any attempt to show that the AW ban had any effect at all on OVERALL crime, because they simply can't find data.

When pressed to explain their failure to care and feed for their precious ban they break out the Conspiracy theories about how all the NRA stooges in Congress (which was controlled by Democrats for about half of the time the ban has been in effect) suppressed the information necessary to make their case.

It's getting really old and I'll be very glad when this silly ban expires in a couple of weeks.

:dunce:

[MrBenchley]

131. Not flip-flopping! Next, ask where they were at Xmas in 1969.

Really, is there any right wing rubbish too silly for the RKBA crowd here?

[MrSandman]

139. So I've noticed...n/t

[MrSandman]

91. Couldn't find links for the traffic light...

but the guy had researched the issue fairly well and was advocating the gathering of more data about firearms deaths to help identify policies that would help instead of intuiting measures.

[library_max]

38. Your argument is ridiculous.

Nobody is going to ban cars. People need cars. People don't need guns.

Also, cars are already extensively regulated. To make any practical use of a car (as opposed to parking it in your back yard and leaving it there), you must register it and you must obtain an operator's license. Not so with guns.

Heart attacks cause more deaths than cars. So by your "logic" we should look into outlawing hearts? I repeat, this "greater cause of death" argument is disingenuous, diversionary, and nonsensical.

[MrBenchley]

39. Aw, Max, you're a spoilsport

Any minute now one of these trigger happy folks was going to drag out my favorite bit of preposterous distraction, the "You don't need to register a car that drives only on private property" chestnut.

I always love to envision our industrious clot of "pro-gun democrats" tooling around their suburban lawns (and no where else) in their SUVs..."Beep Beep! Watch out for the Garden Gnome!"

[Vladimir]

90. ROTFLMAO!!! n/t

[FatSlob]

94. People need guns too.

I know that I need them.

[library_max]

96. It Is So Because I Say So.

Typical.

FatSlob, this whole thread is about the usefulness of guns. And yet I don't see your response to the original post anywhere.

[MrBenchley]

98. Without guns, what would some people lie about?

[FatSlob]

99. I say I need them...

Who are you to disagree? It is because of my own reasons which I choose not to discuss at this moment. Got a problem with that? Go whine somewhere else.

[MrBenchley]

101. Says it all, doesn't it?

In a thread where one of our trigger happy chums invited the other RKBAers to tell all the "other uses" for guns....one of our primo pro-gunners angrily announces his reasons are secret, and that the thread amounts to "whining"....

Well, some of the posts definitely have a whiny sound, don't they?

[library_max]

103. God said it. I believe it. That settles it.

Yes, we are familiar with that formulation.

[goju]

104. Replace God with the VPC

and we all are waaaay to familiar with that "formulation".

[MrBenchley]

106. Gee, the VPC backs up what it says

unlike the RKBA crowd...but then who doesn't know that cause is rotten from stem to stern?

[library_max]

115. Except that nobody on our side is saying

That's my opinion - deal with it.

Everybody on our side is bringing in facts to back up their opinions.

[goju]

138. What opinions?

Specifically, what opinion have I not supported?

The memo you got from the VPC can hardly be considered "facts". The distortions, half truths, and mindless fear mongering the VPC puts out is transparent to anyone who bothers to look into it.

Edit, forgot the link:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/roofcont.htm

[library_max]

143. Well, goju,

I was talking to and about FatSlob, not you. But since you insist on making this about you, no, I can't remember any time you have supported an opinion with fact. But then, you rarely post opinions. Your usual stock-in-trade has been ridicule and abuse, as for example this post I'm replying to and post #47. And of course nobody expects ridicule and abuse to be supported with facts.

BTW, I have never seen the document you linked before, and only gave it a cursory glance just now. What about it?

[goju]

149. Hows that?

Show me what "ridicule and abuse" you encountered in those posts? You stated that "Everybody on our side is bringing in facts to back up their opinions" but as we can see from your post, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=81719&mesg_id=83061&page=
you havent provided ANY facts to back up your claims. Just more opinions.

The document speaks for itself. The title alone should be sufficient.

[library_max]

150. What claims did I make?

I was only refuting the rather ridiculous claims in the post to which I was replying, and pointing out the utter lack of facts to support them.

[goju]

151. This one

"It is vastly easier to make drugs from scratch or smuggle large dollar amounts of drugs than guns."

And Im still waiting for you to post your "facts" to back it up, as I did.

[library_max]

153. Okay, let's see.

The value of cocaine, for example, varies widely with the purity. Here's an article that estimates the street value at $2,700 per ounce.

http://alpenhornnews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=255

And powder cocaine is a malleable substance, easily fit into a variety of spaces, and frequently swallowed in plastic bags or balloons by "mules."

A 9mm handgun, for example, weighs about 25 ounces and sells for $300 to $500. Here's a source for that.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_2000_Annual/ai_61620981/pg_3

Do the math. At $500, a 25-ounce gun is worth $20 per non-malleable ounce. Cocaine is worth more than 100 times as much. So which can be smuggled more profitably? Or do I have to find a site that defines "logic"?

And here's a site that explains about drugs being made in garbage cans.

http://www.rnceus.com/meth/methcompare.html

Do I need to find you a site explaining that marijuana grows in the ground or under gro-lights in basements? Or a site explaining that guns don't?

[goju]

157. Well where is this "adult" talk you chastized me for?

Tisk tisk....

First, a few points on your calculations. I applaud your efforts to equate all guns used in crime with a 9mm pistol as it is most likely representative of what you have seen in the movies. Nevertheless, your ounce to dollar rate might not be as black and white as you suggest. Demand, for example, might play a role in the economics and the trafficking itself. Size, weight, volume are probably factors in shipping items but, does that stop them?

No, you dont have to provide any of that information you so respectfully offered. Im well aware of how drugs get into the country and am fairly familiar with pricing. The glaring question is, how much drugs are smuggled into the country via swallowed balloons? Or do you honestly believe that any significant amount of drugs in this country arrive here in someones stomach? Im quite sure they have other means to get drugs here, dont they?

Oh yes, we forgot about NAFTA and how it has opened a whole in our borders for just such a thing! Imagine some 4+ million container trucks crossing just the Mexican border every year... do you think they might have some drugs in them? Or do you still honestly believe that all this crack cocaine comes from someone growing coca in their basement. I still havent figured out how its "vastly easier to make drugs from scratch" but Im working on it.

As easy as it is to grow pot in anyones basement or closet, we sure seem to import alot from both Mexico and Canada. Why, if its so easy to grow? And pot is, as you have reminded me, much less valuable than coke. So tell me, what is the motivation behind such smuggling operations? Why not just smuggle coke? Or heroin? Im quite sure that heroin is more valuable than coke, per ounce. What would motivate someone to smuggle something of a lesser value, like pot? Could guns also be smuggled, in a similar fashion, for similar reasons? How is it vastly easier to fill a truck with coke, or pot, than with guns? And where do all those counterfeit clothes and watches come from by the way? "Vastly easier" in terms of making drugs is absurd. You show me where people are growing poppy in their back yard in any quantity, and manufacturing it into heroin, and I will concede. "Vastly easier" in terms of smuggling is probably dictated more by market demand than your misguided assertions. I doubt all those counterfeit clothes are fetching anywhere near the price that coke or guns would yet they still seem to make it here.

But tell me again, why would prohibition of one thing work when other attempts at prohibition have failed miserably time and time again? And tell me why you are concerned over deaths from guns but not deaths from cars?

[library_max]

159. Certainly not in that post.

You make a lot of assertions, but you don't back any of them up. Do you have any data about the number or value of guns smuggled into this country annually, from Mexico or anywhere else? Mexico, by the way, has strict gun control laws. I live on the border and have heard lots of stories about what happens to Americans who try to take guns into Mexico.

Do you have any figures on how much marijuana is imported from Canada and Mexico vs. how much is home-grown?

I gave you examples of homemade drugs which were not opium-based, so I assume you're being deliberately dense on that point. And all your other questions I have already answered, and backed up the assertions with facts and links. Where are yours?

[FeebMaster]

163. Speaking of data

I'm still waiting for some numbers on the millions of pounds of marijuana being smuggled into the US in people's stomachs. That was a few weeks ago, you've surely found something by now.

[goju]

165. Well then

I guess Im just dense. Thank you for being "adult" in your discourse.

"Do you have any data about the number or value of guns smuggled into this country annually, from Mexico or anywhere else? Mexico, by the way, has strict gun control laws. I live on the border and have heard lots of stories about what happens to Americans who try to take guns into Mexico."

Well I think you missed the point again. Had you followed along a little more closely, you might have realized that I had made the connection of prohibition, crime, and drug imports. NOT that guns are smuggled as drugs currently are. After all, prohibition and trafficking of illegal substances is the topic, isnt it? Guns are still legal, for now. You asserted that its "vastly easier" to smuggle drugs and pointed out how "ridiculous" my analogy was. I think I pointed out, despite the lack of "links", that the smuggling of guns could occur just as easily as drugs. Or do I have to find a site that defines "logic"? How bout this one...
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1999/jf99/jf99williams.html

"Do you have any figures on how much marijuana is imported from Canada and Mexico vs. how much is home-grown?"

Sure, only 1/6 of our pot is homegrown. The rest is smuggled.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/govpubs/amhab/amhabc3a.htm

"I gave you examples of homemade drugs which were not opium-based, so I assume you're being deliberately dense on that point. And all your other questions I have already answered, and backed up the assertions with facts and links. Where are yours?"

Right there in front of you

[library_max]

167. Took you long enough.

Okay, you have an article that says that one-sixth of the marijuana consumed in the US is produced domestically. It doesn't say where those figures come from, and it's dated 1986, but what the hell. And you have another article which describes trafficking in illegal arms, especially to and from nations in the former Soviet Union. It also mentions the US as a major supplier of illegal arms to Mexico, since what is legal here is illegal there.

But I will concede that you've supported the possibility that there will be significant smuggling of illegal arms in the event of strict gun controls. Still, the price will obviously go 'way up (just like the profit margin on illegal drugs) and the supply will be much reduced. Right now, it is ridiculously easy and cheap to buy guns and ammunition in many parts of this country. And, since there are no border checkpoints between states and municipalities, anything that can be obtained anywhere in the country can be easily relocated everywhere in the country.

There are still two essential differences between the War on Drugs and gun controls. First, drugs are addictive, while guns are not. This means that users will resort to desperate measures to get drugs, but not necessarily to get guns. Second, drugs harm nobody except the person who takes them, whereas guns are highly dangerous to people other than the purchaser (though often including the purchaser's immediate family and friends).

[goju]

171. Not quite

"Second, drugs harm nobody except the person who takes them, whereas guns are highly dangerous to people other than the purchaser (though often including the purchaser's immediate family and friends)."

That is the crux of my whole argument. Why is it all these kids are getting shot? Because they have guns, or because they have a stake in the drug trade and the motivation to protect it? Or because they are trying to commit another crime, rape, robbery etc? Guns are dangerous to others, but why?

Deal with the underlying cause of gun deaths, not the tool. That will not only reduce homicides but will probably significantly reduce other crimes as well.

[library_max]

173. How are people supposed to shoot each other without guns?

Let's consider the choices our respective posts have laid out.

1) Legalize all drugs, abolish crime, eradicate hate, eliminate greed, and make all humankind love one another, or

2) Get rid of the guns.

Reasonably, which do you think has the better chance?

[goju]

175. Good point

It highlights why some of our otherwise well meaning legislators are continuing their war on gun ownership. First and foremost, its not politically expedient right now to propose legalizing drugs. Aside from a select few, politicians wont touch legalization. Its political suicide. I dont know about your other issues, "abolish crime, eradicate hate, eliminate greed, and make all humankind love one another".. I never heard those suggestions.

It might be more politically feasible to get rid of guns, but that doesnt mean its effective or it would get to the root of the problem. Prohibit ALL guns and, as we have agreed, there would be a brand new market in gun smuggling INTO the country. Not to mention, those "killers" would still be roaming the streets and still motivated to protect their drug trade or their turf, etc. They might need to pay more for their guns but I dont think money is necessarily an obstacle.

If we are talking about what is politically "reasonable", clearly the war on gun ownership takes the prize. But, if war talking about actually reducing gun crime, we will have to face the underlying causes at some point, politically "reasonable" or not.

[library_max]

176. Canada and Australia have 1/3 our murder rate, England 1/4.

Presumably, they have the same risk of gun smuggling that we would have if we adopted their gun control laws. Their cultures are similar to ours. They are urban, post-industrial nations. I would cheerfully settle for cutting our murder rate by two-thirds.

[goju]

177. We have come full circle

Try finding any information on street gangs in those countries. Very very little "concern" about street gangs, even from their law enforcement agencies. And all those countries had lower murder rates even before they enacted their strict gun control measures. And they have nowhere near the density of urbanization we have. I dont think you can call their cultures "similar" in terms of aspects relevant to crime.

Its interesting to note where MOST gun homicides occur here in the US. Something like 50% occur in the largest drug trade/trafficking cities, LA, NY, Chicago, DC etc. Those cities, which have the largest drug trade and the strictest gun laws, still have the more gun homicides per capita than anywhere else. And MOST of the gun homicides are drug related.

So, what conclusions can we draw from each comparison?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/city.htm

[library_max]

180. Local gun control laws don't work.

That's because there are no border checkpoints between states or municipalities. It's easy to buy a lot of legal guns in Virginia, for example, and carry them in your trunk to DC where they're illegal. Gun controls must be national to be effective.

The UK had strict gun control laws in 1920. Are you seriously suggesting that the difference between 1920 and modern times is negligible? Canada and Australia too have had laws stricter than ours for quite a long time. Gun laws evolve. There's no neat cutoff point for any of those countries, no specific point in time when their gun controls suddenly became stricter than ours.

As for them not being like us, would you care to name three countries in the world which are more like the US than those three?

[goju]

182. No, they are

I think they are most similar in many factors, but no comparison can be made as it pertains to crime. I doubt any of those countries have anywhere near the street gangs, drug trade, or urbanization that the US has. Hard to find facts on street gangs in those countries (why?) and ALL have much more progressive drug laws than the US.

"That's because there are no border checkpoints between states or municipalities. It's easy to buy a lot of legal guns in Virginia, for example, and carry them in your trunk to DC where they're illegal. Gun controls must be national to be effective."

That may be true but, it still doesnt explain WHY those cities (NY, DC, LA, Chicago, and others) have higher rates of gun crime and gun deaths. Why, of all the cities in the US, are the ones with the largest drug trade and highest rate of gang membership responsible for more than 50% of all gun homicides? Clearly gun laws havent stopped the murders, what would?

"The UK had strict gun control laws in 1920. Are you seriously suggesting that the difference between 1920 and modern times is negligible? Canada and Australia too have had laws stricter than ours for quite a long time. Gun laws evolve. There's no neat cutoff point for any of those countries, no specific point in time when their gun controls suddenly became stricter than ours."

Sure there is. The Firearms Act of 1997 in the UK is a great cutoff point. Far fewer murders than the US before it was implemented, and about the same rate per capita afterwards (slight decreases on both sides of the pond). The only difference is, other types of crime are on the rise since its inception. Same holds true with Australia and Canada.

[library_max]

183. Regarding urbanization,

The urban population in Great Britain is 89%, in Australia 85%, and Canada and the U.S. are tied at 77%. Here's the link for that:

http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/infopays/rank/popvil2.html

What would stop (or greatly slow down) the murders in MYC, LA, etc. is effective national gun control laws. The effect wouldn't be immediate of course, with some 190 million guns out there, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

What was the Firearms Control Act of 1997 and what did it change? Britain has a long history of strict gun controls.

[anonymous44]

184. lol

Who are you to say what someone needs or doesn't need. Who is to say that you need a car? You don't need a car. You can use a bike to get to work. Hell, you don't need a bike, you can walk to work. Also, do you really need 3 square meals a day? I am sure that you can live on 2. You don't need a TV. You don't need a flatbed. You don't need 100 forks and spoons. You can use 2 or 3 maybe. You don't need to listen to radio. etc. etc. etc.

[21stcentprogressive]

42. A car is too a weapon, if used as one...

same as a knife, a baseball bat, a rope, or a gun. These are all inanimate objects, that are incapable of harming anyone unless someone intends to use them for this specific purpose.

Honestly, the need to deny reality that keeps surfacing in the anti-RKBA arguments!

[library_max]

43. But none of those things (except the gun) is designed to be a weapon.

All the denial of reality remains on your side.

[21stcentprogressive]

46. WRONG

The definition of weapon is "something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy" http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

The key word here is USED, there is no mention of DESIGN.

The gun is designed to fire a projectile, and there are many people who never will use their guns against anything but paper or steel targets. Again, it is the intent of the user that makes something a weapon.

All the denial of reality remains on your side.

[library_max]

55. What kind of nonsense is that?

Anything - anything whatsoever, with no exceptions - could, if used in a certain way, be a weapon. But they're not designed to be weapons. Their reason for existing is not to be used as a weapon.

A car is designed for transportation. Very, very rarely is a car used deliberately to kill, certainly much less often than 10,000 times per year. A baseball bat is designed to be used in the game of baseball. A kitchen knife is designed to cut comestibles in a kitchen. A gun is designed to kill people or animals.

Read a history of automobiles. Then read a history of guns. You'll see the difference.

Yes, some people collect guns, and some use them to put holes in paper targets. That doesn't change the basic designed purpose of guns in general. People collect cars, too, and there is such a thing as auto racing. But would you seriously suggest that the automobile generally was invented or developed or manufactured for the purposes of collecting and racing?

This "I am rubber, you are glue" shit isn't working. Cars are for transportation, guns are for killing. That's the fact. That's reality.

[21stcentprogressive]

66. That's hilarious! (nt)

nt (none needed!)

[Trajan]

3. DU - GUN AFICIANDO CONTINGIENT ! ....

FRONT ! ....

[Warpy]

4. Why all the gunloon posts all of a sudden?

Which right wing talking head is calling Kerry a gun grabber?

[MrBenchley]

6. We get nothing else but this right wing crap down here....

Our trigger-happy loonies here want to pretend the election hinges on the moderate voter a-feared that John Kerry is going to break down his door and take away his precious penis, er gun....

[Endangered Specie]

24. Ha! lol.

Like I say, if there is a Democratic Wing then there is a Republican Wing of the Democratic party.

[MrBenchley]

5. Right wing loonies use them to mask

what they're really all about...though not very successfully.

"Guns entered national politics in the 1970s. What is called the gun rights movement sprang into motion against a waning civil rights movement and a growing push for women's rights. One organizer of gun rights from the early '70s put it bluntly when I interviewed him. Conservatives were taking a beating. Something was needed to "reverse the flow in the pipes" of the civil rights movement. The social movements based on the rights of women and minorities had bolstered the Democratic Party. Conservatives who had fought against the gains of civil rights and the Equal Rights Amendment needed to counter. Enter the gun.
And when the gun spoke, it championed the cause of conservative and libertarian America. A proxy politics, the gun rights movement is a potent reaction to the social and political agendas of what is perceived as "liberal America." It takes aim at a range of social solutions for crime, international conflict and personal security. In America, the gun has become a litmus test for political beliefs.
The beginnings of this movement were quiet. In the early '70s, the Young Americans for Freedom, a conservative political organization, started the Student's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. From it sprang the Second Amendment Foundation and then Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. In those groups a righteous cause and a political vision was born. Guns began their career as key props in a changing political theater.
Within two years, the Gun Owners of America organization appeared with its leadership roots in the John Birch Society. Thirty years later, the group remains true to its mission, a watchdog group making sure the gun rights movement stays on course, fulfilling its reactionary conservative mandate. "

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/176458_focus06.html

"At a news conference, the Republican U.S. Senate nominee targeted Obama's vote in the Illinois Senate against legislation that have would allowed gun owners to claim self defense in court when arrested on illegal possession charges.
Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs retorted that the Democratic Senate candidate had a record of voting for gun safety while recognizing the legitimate needs of sportsmen.
"If Mr. Keyes is concerned about public safety, I would suggest he abandon his long-standing opposition to the federal ban on military-style assault weapons," Gibbs said in an e-mail issued by the Obama campaign office.
Keyes opposes the assault weapons ban, which expires next month; Obama supports the ban."

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/24keyes.html

"For 35 years, ever since the Democratic Party got its liberal reputation from the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War, Democratic candidates for statewide office in Arkansas have needed to establish their culturally conservative bona fides by killing something, or at least taking serious aim at it."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=78262&mesg_id=78262

[slackmaster]

7. Investment and amusement

Occasionally self-defense.

[library_max]

9. Couldn't you find another hobby? /nt

[slackmaster]

10. I have many other hobbies

All legal, and none that cause any harm to anyone else.

I collect firearms and other weapons because I like them, and because I know how to ascertain their value.

I collect coins for the same reasons.

[library_max]

14. Nobody's ever going to use any of your coins to kill somebody.

You can't say the same about your firearms and other weapons with the same certainty, even if you take every reasonable precaution (and I believe that you do).

[slackmaster]

16. Children choke to death on coins

And one or more of my firearms might be used for a GOOD purpose some time in the unforeseeable future. The same could be said of any object any of us possesses. We can only be accountable for things over which we have control. Obsessing over that which we cannot control is not healthy.

[library_max]

40. That's a ridiculous analogy.

Could we please try to pretend that reality matters in this discussion?

Are your collected coins loose, or properly mounted? I can't see how anyone could choke on a properly mounted coin. And there are millions of coins in circulation whether you collect them or not. The fact that some people collect coins is not put forward as a serious reason for keeping coins in circulation. But you seem to be saying that gun collecting is a good reason for continued civilian access to guns.

Also, there are a hell of a lot more deaths per year from guns than from kids choking on coins. And the overwhelming majority of those deaths involved the shooter deliberately trying to kill somebody, not some kind of household accident.

We control cars. We can and should control guns.

[slackmaster]

51. You got one thing right, and I'll try another analogy

But you seem to be saying that gun collecting is a good reason for continued civilian access to guns.

Absolutely right. It's one of many reasonable justifications for owning a gun IMO.

Also, there are a hell of a lot more deaths per year from guns than from kids choking on coins. And the overwhelming majority of those deaths involved the shooter deliberately trying to kill somebody, not some kind of household accident.

Not this gem of misinformation again, please library_max. I'm sure you've seen many times the statistics that show that most (about 54% IIRC) firearm-related deaths in the USA are suicides. Hundreds of children suffocate each year on one thing or another. But I'll agree the analogy is a lame one, so here's another one that will no doubt get someone's dander up (and that's something I have no control over, so I'm not going to worry about it):

Someone getting shot with a gun almost always requires either a willful act or negligence. If I should be concerned with what a crime or act of negligence someone else might perform with one of my weapons after the weapon is no longer under my control, should I not do the same for a used motor vehicle like the used pickup truck I sold earlier this year?

Someone getting injured or killed by a car also almost always involves a willful criminal act or negligence. Traffic accidents that involve neither alcohol nor aggressive driving are very rare.

The man I sold my truck to seemed to be sane and sober at the time of the transaction, and I certainly would not have sold it to someone who appeared to be intoxicated no matter how much money he offered. But I have no control over his actions since he drove away. He might have gone straight to a bar, gotten hammered, and plowed into a shool bus. Or he might sell the truck to a third person who would do the same. Either way, I have no control over and am therefore not responsible for future misdeeds by other people.

A logical extension of your assertion here (that my guns might some day be used for bad deeds) would be the only proper course of action for me would be to destroy them all. Likewise I should have pushed my old truck over a cliff to make sure nobody ever drives it irresponsibly. I got $300 for the truck, and I intend to sell my firearms for a substantial profit some day if I ever need the money. I assure you that just as I would not sell a car to an obvious drunk I would not sell a gun to anyone who I knew to be a criminal.

[library_max]

60. Gee, could you spin a little harder?

Hundreds of children choke on "one thing or another." So perhaps we should look into illegalizing "things"?

The sophistry about the truck won't wash. There are 10,000 deliberate gun murders every year. That's not "aggression" or "negligence," that's "murder." How many deliberate murders are there per year with vehicles? More than a hundred? I'd want to see some evidence of that.

Compared with the number of vehicle miles traveled per year in this country, the number of vehicular fatalities is quite low. In other words, the usefulness of vehicles far outweighs the harm they do. The same cannot be said for guns.

Collecting makes guns useful in the same way that pet rocks were useful - people liked owning them. Now I suppose you're going to tell me that a child could choke on a pet rock, too.

[slackmaster]

72. I knew someone would cough up a hairball on that one

There are 10,000 deliberate gun murders every year. That's not "aggression" or "negligence," that's "murder." How many deliberate murders are there per year with vehicles?

What difference does that make? Both murders and deaths from vehicle collisions are caused by willful criminal acts, e.g. drunk driving or speeding. Whether intentional or not the result is the same - People, many of whom are innocent, dead; and an inanimate object being MISused.

...the usefulness of vehicles far outweighs the harm they do....

That is debatable. Consider all of the environmental damage caused by the manufacturing and use of motor vehicles and the effects of our economic dependency on fossil fuels. Think of all the people killed in ALL of the wars fought essentially over access to oil in the Middle East.

Collecting makes guns useful in the same way that pet rocks were useful - people liked owning them.

That's a good enough reason for me.

Now I suppose you're going to tell me that a child could choke on a pet rock, too.

It's possible that it has happened. Maybe we SHOULD ban everything and get past this absurd debate.

[library_max]

73. It's only an absurd debate on your side, slack.

Transporation is a necessity in the modern world. Gun collecting is not. And are you seriously trying to get me to believe that there's no difference between an accident and a murder?

[slackmaster]

74. You're trying to create a nexus where none exists

My gun collection and gun collecting in general has nothing to do with murders. If I and all other gun collectors dumped our collections into the ocean it wouldn't affect the murder rate one bit.

And are you seriously trying to get me to believe that there's no difference between an accident and a murder?

Note that I have been careful to avoid the term "accident" when referring to motor vehicle collisions, because most of them are the result of criminal acts rather than events or circumstances out of anyone's control. The only difference between a murder and a death resulting from drunk driving is the state of mind of the person who does the killing. Drunk drivers and reckless drivers who kill people are often charged with manslaughter.

[library_max]

77. Gun collecting and murder.

Here's just the first story I found:

"Noel and Joyce Farion from Edmonton, Alberta were unable to attend, but sent the following statement: "You cannot say you speak for victims and oppose gun control. Our son Scott was 17 years old when he was shot in the back of the head in Edmonton, Alberta by two young offenders. The gun they used had been stolen from a gun collector. We know all to well that virtually every illegal gun begins as a legal gun and that controls on legal gun owners are critical. We have travelled across the country time and time again to tell the politicians to stop playing politics with gun control and get on with implementing the law.""

And here's the link: http://www.iansa.org/regions/namerica/victims_defend_gun_control.htm

I still can't believe you're still trying to equate car crashes with murder. No matter how thin you slice that, it'll still be baloney.

[goju]

79. How many cars are stolen each year?

Your point was?

[library_max]

80. How many cars are used in murders?

Your point was?

People steal guns with the express purpose of using those guns to kill people. People who steal cars do so to drive them or sell them. Apples and office buildings - there's no connection.

[goju]

84. People steal guns to kill people?

[library_max]

87. Fish breathe water?

[MrBenchley]

93. For that matter...

When was the last time you heard of a thug who went into a store and said "Open the register, I've got a Chevrolet and I'll use it if I have to."?

[slackmaster]

"...get on with implementing the law"???

I thought Canada already required licenses and registration of all guns, which is the whole point the article seems to be pushing. No matter how much gun control your country has there will always be someone to say it isn't enough.

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/historical/firearms/firearms_control.asp

Here is some information for Canadian gun collectors - http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/owners_users/fact_sheets/collectors.asp

The gun collector was a victim too. Nobody can say that murder would not have happened had the "young offenders" been unable to obtain a firearm.

[library_max]

83. Thank you for supporting my point about the gradual evolution of gun laws.

"Nobody can say that murder would not have happened had the "young offenders" been unable to obtain a firearm"?

Sure they can. I'll say it myself. That murder would not have happened had the young offenders been unable to obtain a firearm. Why else were they bothering to steal a gun? Supposing they had a desire to kill the victim prior to obtaining the gun, why didn't they act on it until they got the gun? And if they didn't have a desire to kill the victim prior to obtaining the gun, then what changed other than the possession of the gun to create that desire? And again, why steal it if they had no intended use for it?

[MrBenchley]

76. Actually, "I'm only a collector" is a frequent dodge

used by people who get nabbed in this or that egregious piece of disgrace...

Remember the fuckwit who sold that guy who shot himself and his grandson the gun did so "out of his personal collection" because he wanted to "avoid the paperwork."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/186326_monroe14.html

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[library_max]

15. A phobia is an irrational fear.

Desiring to reduce the number of gun deaths is not irrational. If it were, the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association would both be crazy, because they're both anti-gun.

[goju]

19. We agree again

"Desiring to reduce the number of gun deaths is not irrational. If it were, the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association would both be crazy, because they're both anti-gun."

"And this "unnecessary deaths" business is just another try at "Hey, look over there!" It doesn't change the issues involving guns one iota."


Again, I couldnt agree more.

[library_max]

41. But you could possibly explain what the hell you're talking about. /nt

[goju]

45. Its really quite obvious

You found the "unnecessary deaths" rhetoric distracting, I happen agree. But your gun control colleagues do not agree, so I had to address the matter. In fact, I think they would agree it is central to their arguments behind disarming the citizens.

[library_max]

63. Okay, let's try to straighten out this pretzel.

The single best reason to control guns is the number of deaths they cause every year. However, it does not follow that anything that causes deaths should likewise be controlled. Heart attacks, for example, cause the most deaths of all, and nobody in his right mind would recommend legislation to ban or restrict hearts.

It's a question of harm vs. utility. There is very little utility in guns, as I think this thread is really starting to demonstrate.

[goju]

67. Here we go

"It's a question of harm vs. utility. There is very little utility in guns, as I think this thread is really starting to demonstrate."

You see very little "utility" in guns, all you see is harm. I think we are onto something here. Im guessing you dont spend alot of time at the range? In my house, range time is the next best thing to softball on saturday mornings.

"The single best reason to control guns is the number of deaths they cause every year. However, it does not follow that anything that causes deaths should likewise be controlled."

Why not? If the "best" reason to control guns is the number of (unnecessary) deaths, why not apply that logic to other sources of unnecessary deaths? Is one type of death more tragic than another?

"Heart attacks, for example, cause the most deaths of all, and nobody in his right mind would recommend legislation to ban or restrict hearts."

No, I guess they wouldnt. But we are seeing more lawsuits aimed at fast food restaurants, arent we? Whats next do you suppose?

[library_max]

69. So shooting guns at the range is your idea of "utility"?

Whiling away the hours plinking at paper targets. Utility. Yessir, right up there with transportation and food as one of the necessities of modern life. Not.

[goju]

75. Yes I do

And I dont think I ever equated my family outings with the "necessities of modern life" but, I guess Id be hard pressed to argue otherwise.

I cant blame you if you choose to spend your life devoid of any activities that involve other people, competition, or getting out of the house. But dont think for a second that MANY of us dont regard such things as necessary. Utility? Well, I guess if you regard family time as irrelevant than you are probably right.

[library_max]

78. Wow.

So if it weren't for your guns, you wouldn't be able to spend time with your family. That's your argument. How utterly preposterous.

Although I am single, I get out of the house and enjoy many social activities. But if one of those activities was involved with the murder of over 10,000 people per year, I would not squeak about my "rights" as a hobbyist.

[goju]

81. LOL, boy you controllers never cease to amaze me

As I pointed out, shooting is but one of our family activities. But I guess that escaped you eh?

"But if one of those activities was involved with the murder of over 10,000 people per year, I would not squeak about my "rights" as a hobbyist."

Me too! What activity are you referring to? I dont think you are referring to shooting/hunting.... that would be absurd. Is softball responsible for THAT many murders each year????

[library_max]

82. So guns aren't necessary to your family outings.

They aren't necessary for anything. Like I said.

But you want to block gun controls so that you can merrily plink at targets, not caring that lack of same controls produces thousands of murders per year.

By the way, LOL is the universal sign for "I don't really have a rebuttal."

[LibraLabSoldier]

85. Here is your rebuttal.

The only way to prevent all criminal activity is to treat everyone like a criminal. So, keep blaming gun owners for all gun crime. And eventually, if you take away all legal guns, and the shootings dont stop, who are you gonna blame then?

[library_max]

86. That's not actually a rebuttal.

You didn't refute a single point I made. You just made points of your own. Now this is a rebuttal:

Not allowing private citizens without demonstrable occupational need to own firearms is not "treating them like criminals." Once again, you can't own uranium, dioxin, or crack, and in no case is that because the government thinks you are a criminal. It is because society doesn't want that stuff around, period.

Nobody's blaming gun owners for all gun crime. For one thing, there are several gun owners who frequent this forum who are in favor of gun control. It's the people who insist on blocking gun control who are partially and indirectly responsible for gun crime.

Regarding taking away all legal guns, Rome wasn't built in a day. The three developed nations that are the most like the U.S. (Canada, Australia, and Great Britain) all have strict gun controls and all have a murder rate which is less than a third of ours per capita. "All" the shootings haven't stopped in any of those countries, but I would say that they got good value out of their gun control laws.

[LibraLabSoldier]

92. I am not against all gun control

Registration, background checks, and waiting periods are fine. But anymore gun bans are not.

[goju]

89. No

Guns arent "necessary" to my family outings any more than a vehicle is. I guess we could walk to the park. But guns are necessary to shooting/hunting. And shooting is fun! And driving beats the hell out of walking! Care to move on?

"But you want to block gun controls so that you can merrily plink at targets, not caring that lack of same controls produces thousands of murders per year."

Well, now we have it friends. He is claiming that "lack of same (gun) controls produces thousands of murders per year"

Never thought I would see such a slip. Ok then, now tell me how a lack of controls will "produce" thousands of murders per year. I guess what you are saying is that if someone steals or borrows a gun, the criminal will not committ a crime because of ... closing the gunshow loophole or background checks or.... huh? How will gun "controls" stop criminals from committing crime?

"By the way, LOL is the universal sign for "I don't really have a rebuttal.""

LOL, you think so?

[library_max]

97. I've answered all of this before, many times.

In modern society, motor transportation is a necessity. Most people would be unable to walk to their jobs or to other necessary functions (grocery shopping and jury duty, for example). You're only making your argument look ridiculous by saying that guns are as necessary as motor vehicles.

I can easily support the contention that lack of gun controls produces more murders in this country. The three nations most similar to ours in culture are Canada, Australia, and the UK. All three have strict gun control laws, and all three have a third of our murder rate per capita (or less).

If law-abiding citizens didn't have guns, from whom would the criminals steal or borrow them? Criminals aren't magicians - they can't make guns appear from thin air.

And yes, LOL is a dead giveaway that the poster has run out of arguments.

[goju]

137. Necessary huh?

"In modern society, motor transportation is a necessity. Most people would be unable to walk to their jobs or to other necessary functions (grocery shopping and jury duty, for example)."

Really now? Have you abandonded completely the idea of mass transit? Surely you recognize that 3 or 4 times as many people die because of a car than die because of a gun in this country. And yet we have an effective and easily implementable solution at our disposal to this problem. Since cars are already registered, we know who owns them. Just run around and confiscate everyone's vehicle for the greater public safety.

If anyone absolutely "needs" a car, I say we follow Canada's model. They can have one, but only if the constitutional control committee says so, and only if they keep it locked up at a designated "dangerous vehicle" repository. After all, in modern society you dont "need" to drive to work. We have plenty of busses and trains, cabs if they are "absolutely" necessary. (Those would be restricted to 25mph of course)

"I can easily support the contention that lack of gun controls produces more murders in this country. The three nations most similar to ours in culture are Canada, Australia, and the UK. All three have strict gun control laws, and all three have a third of our murder rate per capita (or less)."

They also have fewer gang members, per capita. Correlation does not necessarily infer causation. But look closer to home for your answer. The cities right here in the US with the strictest gun control laws also have the highest murder rates. Your comparison supports nothing.

"If law-abiding citizens didn't have guns, from whom would the criminals steal or borrow them? Criminals aren't magicians - they can't make guns appear from thin air."

Hmm, tough one. Maybe the same place they get drugs? Nah, criminals arent that resourceful, right? This prohibitionist thinking is what took drugs into our suburban areas. Just close your eyes, make a new law, and pretend you are solving the problem. :eyes:

"And yes, LOL is a dead giveaway that the poster has run out of arguments."

LOL, you keep telling yourself that and I will continue smacking down this gun grabby, brainwashed propaganda, ok? LOL

[library_max]

140. Mass transit in what? Hot air balloons? Or motor vehicles?

If you want to abolish motor vehicles, that would include those used in public transit, right? If not, I suppose you have figures on hand to demonstrate whether mass transit vehicles were involved in more or fewer traffic fatalities per person/mile than private cars.

Have any facts, any at all, to support your assertion that Canada, Australia, and the UK have fewer gang members than the US? Remember, the facts would have to be gathered under uniform definitions of what constitutes a "gang."

The drug argument is full of holes. It is vastly easier to make drugs from scratch or smuggle large dollar amounts of drugs than guns. Also, no one is addicted to guns.

And BTW, spewing sarcasm and knee-jerk opinions with no facts or logic to back any of it up is hardly "smacking down" anything.

[goju]

145. LOL

"If you want to abolish motor vehicles, that would include those used in public transit, right? If not, I suppose you have figures on hand to demonstrate whether mass transit vehicles were involved in more or fewer traffic fatalities per person/mile than private cars."

Well I said cars, didnt I? Not all motor vehicles, right? Mass transit includes motor vehicles, right? I even mentioned cabs, right? You want figures, you want figures... You cant handle the figures! ;)
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_00015.htm

"Have any facts, any at all, to support your assertion that Canada, Australia, and the UK have fewer gang members than the US? Remember, the facts would have to be gathered under uniform definitions of what constitutes a "gang."

Actually no. And the fact that there is very litte info on gangs in those countries, aside from biker gangs in Canada, might lead us to some conclusions. I'd look into it more but I have neither the time nor the inclination. Nevertheless, my argument doesnt rely on the gang analogy. We can easily subsitute cowboys and your correlation still doent have any more relevance.

"The drug argument is full of holes. It is vastly easier to make drugs from scratch or smuggle large dollar amounts of drugs than guns. Also, no one is addicted to guns."

Make drugs from scratch? Have any facts or figures on that? Never heard of anyone "making" heroin or cocaine but I will wait for your "facts" before passing judgement on that assertion. Oh yeah, you might include some data on the ease with which drugs are smuggled versus guns, since you purport to know these things. You are right about addiction though. More people die from drug/alcohol related problems than guns. Wonder why our "concerned" anti rights zealots are pimping that little cause?

"And BTW, spewing sarcasm and knee-jerk opinions with no facts or logic to back any of it up is hardly "smacking down" anything."

Hey, I was gonna say that....

[library_max]

152. When you've got something to say, saying it like an adult helps.

Rather than quoting movies, calling names, talking about "smackdowns," LOL, etc.

Good table on public transportation, anyway. So, what are your plans to have private motor vehicles restricted or abolished (public transit doesn't go everywhere, you know) and save all those lives? Of course that issue has nothing to do with gun controls. Eliminating private vehicles won't save gunshot victims any more than gun controls will prevent car crashes. Suppose you work on the vehicles and I'll work on the guns, eh? Think of all the lives we can save if we work together!

As for gangs, you've got nothing. Change it to cowboys and you've still got nothing. What was your point again? It wasn't my correlation, it was yours. Unless you mean the comparison with Canada, Australia, and UK. If you think there are other countries that are more like ours, please name them.

It may interest you to know that there are more narcotic drugs than heroin and cocaine. Marijuana can be grown almost anywhere, and PCP can be made from common pharmaceuticals in a garbage can. As for smuggling drugs, a few ounces of cocaine (if it is pure enough) can be worth tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. You can't say the same about guns. Nobody ever smuggled a gun into this or any country by swallowing it in a balloon or plastic bag.

But again, if you're so concerned about the toll of alcohol and drugs on society, go to it! There's nothing about gun control that prevents you from trying to eliminate drug and alcohol problems.

[goju]

155. Dont accuse people...

of doing something they have not done.

"So, what are your plans to have private motor vehicles restricted or abolished (public transit doesn't go everywhere, you know) and save all those lives?"

Ive mentioned it before. Abolish all private ownership of cars, restrict public access vehicles to 25mph, etc. Sound good?

"What was your point again? It wasn't my correlation, it was yours. Unless you mean the comparison with Canada, Australia, and UK."

My point was, YOU made the correlation between gun ownership and deaths, not me. If that correlation also entailed causation, we should see reduced deaths in NYC, LA, Chicago, DC since they equally restrictive gun laws, shouldnt we?

"It may interest you to know that there are more narcotic drugs than heroin and cocaine. Marijuana can be grown almost anywhere, and PCP can be made from common pharmaceuticals in a garbage can. As for smuggling drugs, a few ounces of cocaine (if it is pure enough) can be worth tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. You can't say the same about guns. Nobody ever smuggled a gun into this or any country by swallowing it in a balloon or plastic bag."

And it may interest you to know that kids arent shooting each other BECAUSE of guns. Drugs fuel the gang wars, guns armor the gangs, people get killed. Why go after the tools rather than the root cause?

Cocaine isnt actualy a narcotic, dont let the VPC gungrabbers drug war propaganda fool you (hmm, analogy anyone?). And I havent heard of anyone growing coca in their basement, nor poppy. If you want to pretend that the gang/drug killings are about PCP or pot, you go right ahead.

"But again, if you're so concerned about the toll of alcohol and drugs on society, go to it! There's nothing about gun control that prevents you from trying to eliminate drug and alcohol problems. "

No see, it was an analogy meant to point out how absurd prohibition of guns is. Since it hasnt worked with alcohol, drugs, pornography, religion, or just about anything else... why would it work for guns?

As someone once said (?)...however beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

[library_max]

156. Didn't actually make any accusation, but don't let that stop you.

Abolish all private ownership of cars, restrict public access vehicles to 25mph, etc. Sound good?

If you think so, go for it. No skin off my nose.

My point was, YOU made the correlation between gun ownership and deaths, not me.

About 30,000 Americans die of gunshot wounds every year. That's not a "correlation," that's a fact. Are you going to try to pretend that there's no relationship between guns and gunshot wounds?

And it may interest you to know that kids arent shooting each other BECAUSE of guns.

Maybe not, but they'd have a hell of a time shooting each other (and a lot of innocent bystanders, by the way) if they didn't have guns.

No see, it was an analogy meant to point out how absurd prohibition of guns is. Since it hasnt worked with alcohol, drugs, pornography, religion, or just about anything else... why would it work for guns?

I've already demonstrated, with links and everything, how drugs can be smuggled or produced illegally with far greater success and profit than guns. Do I need to do the same for alcohol? Have you never heard of hard cider or bathtub gin? And it's unconstitutional for anyone to ban pornography or religion, therefore nobody has actually tried. And those are certainly things that anyone can make on his or her own, unlike for example a gun.

[goju]

158. I guess this wasnt an accusation then....

"When you've got something to say, saying it like an adult helps.
Rather than quoting movies, calling names, talking about "smackdowns," LOL, etc."

Ok, if that wasnt an accusation then Ill be damned.

"About 30,000 Americans die of gunshot wounds every year. That's not a "correlation," that's a fact. Are you going to try to pretend that there's no relationship between guns and gunshot wounds?"

Are you trying to pretend that of that 30k, the 20,000 or so suicides per year wouldnt occur were it not for a gun? Or are you pretending that criminals cant find other means of killing other than guns? Perhaps you are pretending that gangs, drugs, alcohol, poverty, and urbanization have nothing to do with the 10,000 homicides per year?

"Maybe not, but they'd have a hell of a time shooting each other (and a lot of innocent bystanders, by the way) if they didn't have guns."

Correct. And they wouldnt have much reason to kill each other if they didnt have something to fight over.

"I've already demonstrated, with links and everything, how drugs can be smuggled or produced illegally with far greater success and profit than guns. Do I need to do the same for alcohol? Have you never heard of hard cider or bathtub gin? And it's unconstitutional for anyone to ban pornography or religion, therefore nobody has actually tried. And those are certainly things that anyone can make on his or her own, unlike for example a gun. "

No, you didnt demonstrate that. You provided dollar figures on the price per ounce of drugs vs guns. You then went on to assume that no one would take an interest in trafficking guns because coke is more profitable. I think the counterfeit clothing industry debunked that one.

It wasnt always illegal to ban porn or religion, constitution be damned. That is kind of the point. It didnt work then, it wont work now. Catholics werent exactly popular at this country's founding and afterwards, they still survive. The Mormons were run out of Illinois and Missouri just a hundred or so years ago, they still survive.

Ive heard of bathtub gin of course. Ive also heard of Al Capone too. Ever wonder where he made all his money, or why all those gang land murders happend? Hint, this is a drug analogy. Hint, this might have something to do with how drugs and gangs are responsible for a large part of the homicide rates you mentioned.

[library_max]

160. I give facts and you give verbiage.

Oh well. None so blind as they that will not see.

[goju]

166. Anyone can throw out meaningless links

but that doesnt make your case, it just wastes time.

[library_max]

168. All links are meaningless unless and until you read them. /nt

[goju]

172. And even then they can still be irrelevant n/t

[library_max]

174. Good point - you also have to think about them. /nt

[goju]

178. Yes, thats when their irrelevance becomes indisputably obvious. n/t

[library_max]

181. Well, I suppose band concerts are irrelevant to the deaf. /nt

[RoeBear]

18. Assuming the inference is that they are designed to kill...

..they are certainly doing a lousy job of it.

Billions of bullets are sold and used each year but it appears that not many of those bullets are hitting their intended targets.

That or guns do have other purposes.

[MrBenchley]

21. It's a poor workman who blames his tools, roe....

"it appears that not many of those bullets are hitting their intended targets."
And the words "innocent bystander" immediately spring to mind....

[RoeBear]

48. Well if guns have only one purpose...

...and that's to kill people, why aren't the millions of guns and billions of bullets killing more people.

Or is it possible that guns DO have other purposes?

[LibraLabSoldier]

49. No.

And all gun owners are secretly waiting to kill their entire families, raid the gated communities, and steal soccermoms SUVs./Sarcasm off/


The way I see it, gun ownership is like abortion. If you are against them, dont have one. But dont try to stop other people from doing what they feel is right in their own lives.

Funny, you gun grabbers seem to have that in common with the wingnuts.....deprive the rights of anyone you dont agree with, on any context you can come up with.

I recieved my first gun when I was six. I began my gun safety instruction at about age three. Same as my kids.

[MrBenchley]

58. That's really funny.....

"The way I see it, gun ownership is like abortion"
So few people actually confuse a popgun with their sex life.

"Funny, you gun grabbers seem to have that in common with the wingnuts.."
By the way, wonder how the Second Amendment Caucus stands on reproductive choice? Oh yeah, they're all bitterly opposed. Meanwhile, pretty much everybody in favor of gun control is in favor of reproductive choice, and a host of other liberal causes. But don't let any FACTS get in your way...especially if you're going to babble about imaginary rights contained in right wing loony propaganda.

[LibraLabSoldier]

68. This will be Deleted.

Do me a favor. Stop assuming that you have me all figured out by what i post on one subject. You want the right to pick and choose who gets what rights. You accuse me of being a toe the line right winger the same way the right wingers accuse everyone who disagrees with them as being a liberal commie. You can kiss my ass. People like you disgust me. What gives you the right to claim superiority to me...


Tell you what. When you do get in the position to decide who gets what rights by your little list of naughty and nice, dont be surprised if people suddenly start hating you as adamantly as they hate Bush.

[MrBenchley]

71. Too too funny...

"You want the right to pick and choose who gets what rights. "
Not me, chief. I'm happy to go with actual rights. I just don't see any reason to pretend that the NRA's lies aboiut imaginary rights are true.

"People like you disgust me."
Yeah? Ask me sometime what I think of people who post right wing horseshit and paranoid rubbish, then brag that they leave loaded guns where little kids can get them.

[MrBenchley]

56. And if horseshit was hershey bars

what a hell of an Xmas the NRA could have....

[skippythwndrdog]

128. Mine have several prposes

They help me to put meat on my table. I hunt.

They provide both relaxation and competition through casual and competitive shooting (we have two traps and several rifle and pistol target areas on our farm).

They have investment value. (Who else bought a Ruger Mk I for the msrp of $49.95 besides me? I just saw two in the Fine Gun Room at Bass Pro Shops in Springfield, MO listed at about $500.00 each.) There's just one example. My grandpa's old Fox double barrel is worth about $35,000.00. I don't know what he paid for it, but I can guarantee it was less than 10% of that.

They're wonderful tools for teaching control and responsibility to kids. The catch is simple. The teacher has to be committed to those values. I did and I am.

[TX-RAT]

52. Come on Roe

(Billions of bullets are sold and used each year but it appears that not many of those bullets are hitting their intended targets.)
How many were aimed at people?

[RoeBear]

102. Thanks for making my point...

...for me. You often hear people say "Guns only have one purpose and that's to kill people" but the fact that the millions of guns in circulation and the billions of bullets sold each year tell another story about the uses and purposes of guns.


And a tiny little nit to pick: could you do me a little favor and use quote marks instead of parentheses when you are quoting people?

for example: "TX-Rat is a great guy" not (Tx-Rat is a great guy)

[library_max]

105. That's great, Roe.

But shooting up paper targets and tin cans and such, while that probably accounts for most of the bullets, is hardly significant, socially or any other way. It isn't useful. It doesn't matter. Society wouldn't be any the less if paper targets and tin cans did not get shot up.

[RoeBear]

109. So let's get rid of the things ...

...you consider useless. What's next on your list?

[MrBenchley]

110. How about half-assed sarcasm?

No, some folks would have to be mute if they couldn't be snide...

[library_max]

116. Oh don't tempt me.

But seriously, that's not the point. About 30,000 Americans die each year from gunshot wounds. If you can find anything else that is useless and racks up a body count like that, go right ahead and push to get rid of it.

[turnkey]

22. Competition! n/t

[MrBenchley]

23. Who's crazier? Alan Keyes or Ted Nugent?

[Endangered Specie]

25. Whats important is they arent on OUR side.

[MrBenchley]

26. Yeah, but it would be a great competition!

Hope they fight it out with firearms...

[Endangered Specie]

34. hehehe, a little evolution at workwouldnt you say?

;)

[MrBenchley]

37. LOL!

[LibraLabSoldier]

50. The Nuge would win.

Hands down.

[MrBenchley]

59. Don't bet on it....

Keyes is small, shifty, and crazy as a shithouse rat. Besides, last time Nugent had a chance to shoot at something that could shoot back, he shit his pants in fear.

"He claims that  30 days before his draft board physical, he stopped all forms of personal hygiene.  The last 10 days, he ingested nothing but Vienna sausages and Pepsi; and a week before his physical, he stopped using bathrooms altogether, virtually living inside pants caked with his own excrement, stained by his urine.  That spectacle won Nugent a deferment, he says."

http://www.nocompromise.org/news/000731c.html

Like so many tough-talking blowhards, he's really a gutless weenie.

[CarinKaryn]

27. They are frequently used to end discussions and disagreements.

[MrBenchley]

28. They settle domestic disputes permanently

often for both parties....

"At least 662 Americans died in murder-suicides during the first half of 2001, and almost all (94.5 percent) were killed with firearms, according to American Roulette: The Untold Story of Murder-Suicide in the United States, a recent study by the Violence Policy Center (VPC).
Josh Sugarmann, VPC executive director, states, "Guns are the catalytic component in murder-suicide. Just as important, it must be understood that the emotional factors that drive suicide can be all too easily turned outward on friends, family, co-workers, and complete strangers because of the unmatched lethality of firearms. Every major murder-suicide study ever conducted has shown that a firearm—with its unmatched combination of lethality and availability—is the weapon most often used to murder the victims, with the offenders then turning the gun on themselves." "

http://www.vpc.org/press/0208nc.htm

[goju]

32. Really

And how "frequently" is that? Ive been in lots of discussions and disagreements, never "ended" one with a gun. Im probably not alone. So, since you made the asserion, perhaps you can offer some statistics on the ratio of arguments resolved with a gun, and without.

Waiting <NOT> :eyes:

[MrBenchley]

33. Too frequently....

"Ive been in lots of discussions and disagreements, never "ended" one with a gun."
Well, thank Koresh for small favors....

Who was the gun loony we used to have on here who used to claim to have daily shootouts with the cops, the klan, and the like?

[library_max]

44. Does the ratio really matter that much?

Is some 1,200 deaths of healthy, active people per year not enough for you? Arguments should never end in the death of one or both parties. And again, remember that over 94% of these deaths were by gun.

[goju]

47. Well see, there ya go

I was pointing out the absurdity of "They are frequently used to end discussions and disagreements" rant and you throw more vitriol at it.

The language you gun controllers use is unreal. How can you look at a statement like: "They are frequently used to end discussions and disagreements" and not see the absurdity? I just dont get it, I really dont. Could you all POSSIBLY exaggerate your rhetoric any more than you already do? I didnt think so until:
"Is some 1,200 deaths of healthy, active people per year not enough for you?"

WTF is that? "disingenuous, diversionary, and nonsensical" indeed!!!!

[iverglas]

53. what exactly are you not getting?

"<Firearms> are frequently used to end discussions and disagreements" really just does not mean "all discussions and disagreements are ended by means of firearms".

So why on earth would you think that your saying
"Ive been in lots of discussions and disagreements, never 'ended' one with a gun."
amounted to making some kind of point?

Apples are frequently used to make pie.
I've eaten lots of apples and never made a pie!

So ... are apples not frequently used to make pies??

"So, since you made the asserion, perhaps you can offer some statistics on the ratio of arguments resolved with a gun, and without."

Why? Are you really saying that apples are not frequently used to make pies -- even though probably only a small fraction of all the apples sold are used for that purpose, and there are probably millions of people who have bought apples, but never made pie?

And no, this is not an "apples and oranges" argument. Just apples here.

[goju]

57. Youre right, it aint apples, its semantics

and its becoming old. It was fun for a while but I got tired of diagraming sentences when I was 12.

"Frequently" was in question, in case you "really" didnt understand.

[slackmaster]

35. Maybe so, depending on what you mean by "frequently"

I've never used one for that purpose, unless you count the time I went to my gun safe to get a rifle in order to prove to someone that French military weapons of the 1940s and 50s didn't have safeties.

[LibraLabSoldier]

36. Abuse and dissent.

Is all the name calling necessary? I use my guns for hunting, target practice, and collecting. I have only once ever used a firearm in self defense, and I didnt even have to fire it. How does that make me a right wing gun loon?

[iverglas]

54. the real question is

I use my guns for hunting, target practice, and collecting. I have only once ever used a firearm in self defense, and I didnt even have to fire it. How does that make me a right wing gun loon?

Why do you suggest that anyone thinks/says that this does make you a right wing gun loon?

Could you try quoting someone to that effect?

Or heck, you could just keep on with the crap.

[MrBenchley]

62. Nobody here but us chickens....

You have to wonder about someone who keeps crying out "Who, me?" when he hears the phrase "right wing gun loon" used somewhere...

[FatSlob]

100. My uses.

1. Skeet
2. Trap
3. Sporting Clays
4. Action Shooting
5. Plinking
6. Informal competition
7. Formal competition
8. Varmint control
9. Collecting
10. Blasting
11. Self Defense
12. Home Defense
13. Family Defense
14. National Defense (behind every blade of grass)
15. All lawful purposes

[UpsideDownFlag]

107. jesus tapdancing christ.

guns are designed to send a speeding bullet into an object, with the end result being that it dies.

if you're not shooting at something you want to die, then you're practicing on a target for later. seriously- ask anyone who conceal carries a glock how many purposes they have for it.

yes, guns have one purpose- the destruction of life.

[FatSlob]

111. ROTFLMAO!

That was hilarious. I didn't know you were a comedian. Good work, you gave me my chuckle for the day. Keep up the good work, I love your over-the-top, exaggerated mockeries and imitations of the gun ban crowd. Keep it up!:bounce: :toast: :thumbsup: :loveya: :pals: :yourock: :headbang:

[library_max]

117. There another one. ROTFLMAO.

Another universal signal meaning, "Rebuttal? I got nothin'."

[MrBenchley]

118. ROTFLMAO and LOL

When you're right, you're right, max....

[FatSlob]

134. No, it meant that our friend does great comedy.

Obvious comedy. The guy has a knack for it.

[slackmaster]

112. Pieces of paper don't die

At least not unless you burn them.

Skeets, on the other hand...

[MrBenchley]

113. Neither does RKBA dishonesty....

From the claims being made this is obviously all our "enthusiasts" really need....

[Fescue4u]

120. Guns save lives.

Don't believe me? Ask a cop. Thats why they carry them.

[MrBenchley]

122. Nobody's ever said cops shouldn't have guns, fescue....

What we want to know is what a run of the mill humhole needs with them...and so far we ain't heard a need that couldn't be fulfilled with a paper punch.

[FeebMaster]

123. I have. (nt)

[MrBenchley]

124. I rest my case.

[FeebMaster]

125. What case? (nt)

[Fescue4u]

127. nice contradiction

"and so far we ain't heard a need that couldn't be fulfilled with a paper punch."

Im quite sure that cops would object to fullfiling their guns needs with paper punches.

And so would I and about 80 million guns owners for that matter.

[MrBenchley]

129. No contradiction at all, fescue

I said quite clearly cops ought to have guns...and that people who are dishonest ought not to.

But then without dishonesty, distortion, and denial there would BE no RKBA cause..

[Fescue4u]

132. sure

How ironic, you of all people on this board, giving a lecture on honesty.

[MrBenchley]

133. I'm not the one who had to distort what was said to make a point

But I sure don't expect anything approaching honesty from an RKBAer....the cause is rotten from stem to stern....

[Fescue4u]

135. I distorted nothing

You made a statement.
Then contradicted it.
Then lied about contradicting it.
Then gave a lecture about honesty.

About par for the course for the gun grabbing freedom haters.


Now its time for you to alert about it, to get the evidence deleted.

[MrBenchley]

136. Surrrrre...

And Wayne LaPierre is queen of the May....

And you stil haven't told us why some dimwitted and dishonest civilian should have a gun in his hot little hand just because cops do.

[library_max]

141. Okay, let's get this straight.

Post #120 You said that guns save lives when cops use them.

Post #122 MrB said that he's okay with cops having guns.

Post #127 Then you accused him of contradicting his own statement.

:wtf:

The "paper punch" comments in 113 and 122 very explicitly referred to "our 'enthusiasts'" and "a run of the mill humhole." Neither statement was intended to include cops and the statement in 122 explicilty excluded cops. And in 127 and 137 you continued to call him a liar about it.

So as for the "evidence," it's all there, and it's all against you.

[Fescue4u]

142. Suuree.

Nice try. Thanks for playing.

BZZZTTT

[library_max]

144. If you think that's an answer, you're tragically mistaken. /nt

[Fescue4u]

146. Go peddle it elsewhere.

[library_max]

154. Also not an answer. nt

[Fescue4u]

161. Im not required to answer your questions

Nor give up my guns.

Im an America.

[library_max]

162. I didn't actually ask you a question.

It's just that when somebody goes to all the trouble of hitting "Reply," I generally expect them to have an actual reply. Even if ther an America.

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wonk]

147. Television remote control, can opener...

Cletus: Are you some kind of moron?
Homer: Yeah, but...

I felt an incredible surge of power, like God must feel when he's holding a gun.


Moe: And that's how, with a few minor adjustments, you can turn a regular gun into five guns.

---

Oh, wait, the question was what do I use guns for? Last time I used one was to hunt deer, almost a decade ago.

[MrBenchley]

148. Gun nuts can stick 'em down the front of their cute little underoos

[Name removed]

179. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

185. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kenny the Croat]

186. Here's another one for ya!

This is the only thing I use my .22 long rifle for. Target Shooting! I compete in tournaments sponsored by then NRA (Heh, actually, I have yet to find a good sized competition sponsored by anyone else so..). It's actually a really cool sport. There's quite a bit of skill involved (even though we only shoot from 50 feet away at a black zone the size of a half dollar.). Things like breathing discipline and not "pulling" the trigger. There's alot of young kids in the group. Some are just amazing. Now I hope none of you get the wrong idea about younger kids with guns, because SAFETY is our BIGGEST priority. It's for the most part firearms handleing discipline (the 4 safety rules: #1: Treat every firearm as if it were loaded. #2: Never Point your Firearm at anything you do not intend to shoot. #3: Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you're ready to fire. #4: Keep the weapon on safe until you intend to fire.). There has never been a single problem with any of them. Actually, one kid we who used to be in the program went to the olympics for target shooting.

A gun by itself is not a problem, it's when the wrong people get their hands on them is when it becomes a problem. Take a decent kid from a decent family, teach him how to shoot responsibly and for fun, there really wont be any problems. Out of everyone we've ever had come through the course, there's never been a single problem with any of them!

Heh, for the record, my target rifle looks more like some alumnium robocop part than it does a rifle. Cost me an arm and a leg, but it's way cool.

I'm not an avid fan of hunting, or using firearms like that, but I see no problem in shooting at paper for fun and competition.