I thought we'd take this discussion off the pic thread and give it it's own area. I'll start with the quote from Junkie:



I have no bias towards one side or the other and find this an interesting topic. I know many people feel strongly one way or the other. I'm not one of those people.
Having said that, I would like to point out that "Crazy people" don't kill people. The majority of murders are between people who know each other. Guns make murder much easier to accomplish. So, gun owners are often the most successful murderers. This, of course, does not make all gun owners bad people. Anyone can lose their cool and when combined with alcohol can act out in violent ways. This is why it is illegal to carry guns into bars. If some drunk guys get into a fist fight nobody is likely to get killed. If somebody pulls a knife, things are going to get worse. I had two waiters who worked together get into a fight and one hit the other in the face with a pint glass. The glass just missed his carotid artery and his eye. What do you think would have happened if that guy had a gun? The guy who only has a scar on his face would have no face. The buddy of the guy that got hit in the face was close to breaking the attackers neck until I stepped in. What do you think would have happed to that guy after his friends head got blown off. Hell, in his drunken panic he could have shot at me just for being there. These two waiters drank together regularly. They got into a fight over who won the most pool games in the bar they were in before they came to mine. They were betting a nickel a game!!!

I won't say all gun owners are potential murderers, but you are less likely to kill somebody in a murderous rage if you don't have a gun. This is one of the reasons I don't want to have a gun in my house. I like to drink and sometimes I get very pissed off at people.

Guns do protect homeowners. Last year a little old lady living in public housing down the street from me shot and killed an intruder in her home. He was unarmed, but she didn't know that, and he wouldn't have needed a weapon to do bodily harm to her anyway. She's an example of the positive side of gun ownership.

I also don't buy into the "more guns means safer citizens" arguement. Australia has very strict gun control and it's murder rate has gone down. The reason? There are fewer murders involving guns. This means that what could have been a murder is more likely now just an assault.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2004/06/08/1127171.htm

I personally think Michael Moore is a self agrandizing ego maniac, but he made some decent points in Bowling for Columbine.
It is very unlikely that incident would have been possible if it weren't for the weapons they used. Even if they were limited to revolvers and single shot hunting rifles it would have been a different result.

I don't claim to have any answers, but I'd like to hear other oppinions on this.

i dont drink and i dont do drugs but i can still be overcome by anger but i would like to think that i would never go on a rage trip and start shootn people left and right but you never know i might you might anyone might. is it bad that i allready have a gun to use if such happens i guess in a way it does but i belive that if people wanna hurt other people there gona do it no matter if they have a gun or not when i got my 1# gun what was on my mind was that it was a real russian sks and not some cheap china or yugo modle. i never got any of them thinkn i was gona use them to kill or hurt anyone i guess my point would be that if we didint have guns people are still gona kill each other thell just find some other way to do it and i for one would rather be shot then stabd to death by a butter knife.



all my guns are lockd in a safe and i norm dont have ammo for them the only time i have ammo is when i go out to the range.



i love guns always have and always will and i hope im always able to keep my right to bear arms but even if such a law is passed ima keep them anyways.

You want Gun Control?? BAN ALL GUNS

I love my shotty.

I don't keep it loaded, but I have a box of shells next to my computer. I figure I can get 2 or 3 in before an intruder gets through the front door.

I'm afraid if I keep it loaded, Carol will be dusting someday and accidently take me out.

Unfortunately if suddenly every firearm on this planet were to
disappear, man would invent something else to take its place.
Of course, man has already invented a weapon so deadly that
it can kill & maim many people in one showing but he disregards
its potential ability every time he uses it. The Motor Vehicle !!

JIM

And just how do intend to get the bad guys to turn in thier guns? Answer: you can't and they won't. Since only the good guys would turn in thier guns, you are left with an bunch of victims with no way to protect themselves from the bad guys. Most people, by a HUGE margin are not criminals, probably something like +99%. Now wouldn't the odds be much more tilted in favor of the good guys if EVERYONE had guns? If I'm at the mall with a crowd of 1000 people and one nut pulls a gun and starts shooting, the odds that he can take out 20 or 30 of us go WAY down if a few are armed and can stop him.

Here in the U.S. our Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. This is for three primary reasons. Hunting, defense (self and country) and most importantly, so we can rise up and overthrow an oppressive government. Be careful before you give some bureaucrat that much power over your life.

Read "More Guns, Less Crime". The stats you always hear about this includes gang members who knew the other gang member they murdered (for example). Same with the stats about "children" being killed by guns.

You are more likely to be the VICTIM.

Then perhaps you shouldn't have a gun. Don't try to make that choice for me.
Without her gun SHE could have been the dead one, not to mention the perps subsequent victims. I love it when a story ends well.


Read the book. It's a thorough analysis of crime statistics in the US ofver a multi-year period. It also touches on other countries as well. While there may be exceptions, the evidence is overwhelming that when you increase the accessibility to guns for law-abiding citizens, crime goes down. For example, up until the 1970's it was very common in Isreal for terrorists to take a machine guns into malls, schools and Synagogues and open fire. That doesn't happen anymore because the Israelis realized that armed citizens could stop the attacker before they did much damage. That's with only about 15% of Israelis licensed to carry.



Sorry about the large size of the picture above. How do you insert thumbnails?

you cant reson with the left wingers



when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns

Police and army won't?

Here is an article by John Lott from yesterday's Washington Times:



Article published Sep 7, 2007
D.C.'s flawed reasoning



September 7, 2007


By John R. Lott Jr. - In asking the Supreme Court to let the District of Columbia ban handguns, the city has a simple argument: Whatever one thinks of the Second Amendment, banning handguns is a "reasonable regulation" to protect public safety. The problem for the city is that anyone who can look up the crime numbers will see that D.C.'s violent crime rate went up, not down, after the ban.

D.C. notes that criminals like to use handguns to commit crimes. We all want to disarm criminals, but, as long as one recognizes the possibility of self defense, at best the city's claim can only be part of the story. As with all gun-control laws, the question is ultimately whether it is the law-abiding citizens or criminals who are most likely to obey the law. If law-abiding citizens are the ones who turn in their guns and not the criminals, crime rates can go up, not down.

The city's brief focuses only on murder rates in discussing crime in D.C. Yet, in the five years before Washington's ban in 1976, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 per 100,000. In the five years after it went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. But there is one fact that seems particularly hard to ignore. D.C.'s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but has only once fallen below what it was in 1976 (that happened years later, in 1985). Does D.C. really want to argue that the gun ban reduced the murder rate?

Similarly for violent crime, from 1977 to 2003, there were only two years when D.C.'s violent crime rate fell below the rate in 1976. These drops and subsequent increases were much larger than any changes in neighboring Maryland and Virginia. For example, D.C.'s murder rate fell 3.5 to 3 times more than in the neighboring states during the five years before the ban and rose back 3.8 times more in the five years after it. D.C.'s murder rate also rose relative to that in other similarly sized cities.

Surely D.C. has had many problems that contribute to crime, but even cities with far better police departments have seen crime soar in the wake of handgun bans. Chicago has banned all handguns since 1982. Indeed, D.C. points to Chicago's ban to support its own ban. But the gun ban didn't work at all when it came to reducing violence. Chicago's murder rate fell from 27 to 22 per 100,000 in the five years before the law and then rose slightly to 23. The change is even more dramatic when compared to five neighboring Illinois counties: Chicago's murder rate fell from being 8.1 times greater than its neighbors in 1977 to 5.5 times in 1982, and then went way up to 12 times greater in 1987.

Taking a page from recent Supreme Court cases, D.C. points to gun bans in other countries as evidence that others think that gun bans are desirable. But the experience in other countries, even island nations that have gone so far as banning guns and where borders are easy to monitor, should give D.C. and its supporters some pause. Not only didn't violent crime and homicide decline as promised, but they actually increased.

D.C.'s brief specifically points to Great Britain's handgun ban in January 1997. But the number of deaths and injuries from gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years from 1998 to 2005. The rates of serious violent crime, armed robberies, rapes and homicide have also soared.

The Republic of Ireland banned and confiscated all handguns and all center fire rifles in 1972, but murder rates rose fivefold by 1974 and in the 20 years after the ban has averaged 114 percent higher than the pre-ban rate (never falling below at least 31 percent higher).

Jamaica banned all guns in 1974, but murder rates almost doubled from 11.5 per 100,000 in 1973 to 19.5 in 1977, and soared further to 41.7 in 1980.

Evidence is also available for other countries. For example, it is hard to think of a much more draconian police state than the former Soviet Union. Yet despite a ban on guns that dated back to the Communist revolution, its murder rates were high. During the entire decade from 1976 to 1985 the Soviet Union's homicide rate was between 21 and 41 percent higher than that of the United States. By 1989, two years before the collapse of the Soviet Union, it had risen to 48 percent above the U.S. rate.

Even if D.C.'s politicians want to keep arguing for a ban based on public safety, hard facts must eventually matter. If they can't see that gun-control laws have failed to deliver as promised, may be the Supreme Court can point it out for them.

John R. Lott Jr., author of "More Guns, Less Crime" and "Freedomnomics," is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.

If only the police had the ability to be in attendance at every crime...

Just pointing out the clever play on words isn't really correct.

Anyhoo, a quick check on google I was able to find out how Lott's article cherry-picks stats on that Washington thingy. He picks very specific years to argue to make his numbers work. Scroll to the bottom of this blog page (see below) to see ALL the stats and see how Lott cheery picks the numbers. For example, you don't hear from Lott that the average homocide rate for the whole 4 years prior to the gun ban appears to be significantely higher than the averge for the next 10 years after the ban. You don't hear that he picked the year 5 years before the ban specifically because the murder rate had a big dip that year, but immediately bounced back to a much higher number the next year (still 4 years before the ban)!

In fact, I added the numbers on the graph an the results are this...

In the 9 years prior to the ban the murder rate was about 32 per 100,000
In the 10 years after it was 29.5 per 100,000. So it actually dropped, even though it is clear in the 9 years prior the graph was tracking upwards, and after the ban it mostly tracked downwards (though with a lot of fluctuations per year for both).

Read it yourself. Scroll to near the bottom.

http://timlambert.org/category/guns/washington/

Lies, damn lies, and statistics they say. If you simply read Lott's article without investigating anything, you think the Washington experience was a slam dunk case against gun control. Look at ALL the stats and realized he twisted them beautifully to support his argument.

Anyway, I don't feel passionately about this issue, but just playing a little devil's advocate here. I would theorize that Lott's entire article is an exercise of cherry picking specific statistics and dates from places where he can make the numbers work. Unfortunately, it is hard to find an article that seems to be written by a non-right wing or left wing source. It would be interesting to see a combo of all the numbers from every place that had a change in hand guns laws, see the graphs on homicides and major crime over this period (not a cheery picked number), and compare those to similar places at the same time period that maintained the status quo. That would be a good study, but good luck trying to find it.

I guess some you cowboys never would dare to live in Europe. We don't have a "constitutional right" to own guns. Still we have (at least in Norway) a society that is less violent than U.S. My allegation is that "oppurtunity makes thief". Meaning that if guns are quite available it easier to use them (for good or bad). It's like alcohol policy. There's more consume of alcohol when the availability in easy. That's a fact. So in comparison - Easy supply for guns means more killings by guns. Simple as that.

when guns are gone next theyll wanna ban knifes sticks stones and everything else that can hurt a man what you need to ban is human nuture and good luck with that. all you can try to do is make it harder for people to get there hands on them but even that seems far off



i hate that peoples familys friends kids are killed by firearms but its not there fault its the persons if there band then we just want have any deaths by firearms anymore thell be by other means.

Capt. That propaganda picture with that lady and her gun is hilarious.



I can see the next frame. The intruder takes the gun from her and then he has it. I don't advocate banning guns, hey I like to go shooting sometimes myself, but I also don't think people need to walking around packing heat, at least not in the US.



We definitely have an issue with it here but banning them would never work so we need a more reasonable solution.

Watch the Video of the week.

http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/public/903.cfm

While this is true, the majority are still considered "domestic disputes".


This is why I don't trust the writings of anyone who is "FOR" or "AGAINST" gun control. They have an agenda so their "statistics" are biased.


The Republic of Ireland has always had one of the smallest murder rates in the world, as well as some of the strictest, if not THE strictest gun control laws. The laws started in the 1920's to remove the weapons from the war that divided the country into the Rep. of Ireland and Northern Ireland. In the 1970's it was made stricter to prevent the flow of weapons to terrorists in N. Ireland. In 1971 there were only 10 murders in the entire country. In 1974 the murder rate increased to 51. Was this because of the gun control laws? No. It was because of the terrorist Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF - protestant para military group, one of the terrorist opposition groups to the Provisional IRA) blew up car bombs in Dublin and Monaghan killing 33 and wounding 300. Gun control laws had nothing to do with that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_and_Monaghan_Bombings
Today Ireland still has some of the lowest murder rates in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...y_homicide_rate


This is taken from The Correctional Service of Canada.

Reducing guns doesn't just leave guns in the hands of criminals. Criminals use guns bought on the black market and ditched after crimes. If you reduce the flow of weapons, you reduce the number of guns sold on the black market.

Taken from here.

Personally, from looking at the little non-biased info I can find on the net, the problem doesn't seem to be making stricter gun laws, but enforcing the laws already existing. It's too easy for "Bad Guys" to get guns.

I know lets round up all the bad guys and have a good old shoot out at high noon

Lott has the stats from 1973 (I think) through 2003. Same results. Bark up another tree.

Bark up another tree? LOL! Well, there goes the "rational" part of the discussion. Instead, just ignore completely that we can demonstate that Lott was manipulating the numbers with much of what he said, and tell people to get lost.

Lot has the stats from 1970 something through 2003 when his book came out. YOU are cherry picking, not Lott. In EVERY example he gave he used the 5 years prior and the 5 years post. There has only been one serious attempt to discredit Lotts work and that attempt was smacked down severely as a hack job. Do some research. Lot gives dozens and dozens of examples and you bring up one, but since you found it on Google it must be correct. Try again.

Why don't you try re-reading it and looking at the graph. After what he wrote, you'd think that homicide rate was dropping before the law came in, and immediately jumped right afterwards (which is what he wants the reader to think). In fact, in the 5 years prior it was, on average, much higher than it was the 5 years after the new law. BUT Lott cleverly writes it in such a way that it you don't read carefullly, you get exactly the OPPOSITE impression. The point is the graph was jumping up and down a lot, but Lott would cherry pick a number when the number was down, and use it. For you to say I'm cherry picking when I calculated a FULL decade average BEFORE and AFTER the gun law came into effect is absolutely ludicrious! I'm using 10 years before and after the law came into effect to try and gauge it's effect. He grabs a number form this year and one from that year, writes it up in a way to suggest a TREND that DID NOT EXIST! After 10 years, I would think it would be hard to make comparisons anymore, since there could be a multitude of other factors in play, especially since this was merely a handgun bun. What would happen if you stopped the sale of most semi-auto rifles and submachine guns to all but registered collectors?

Anyway, sorry if I don't try and peruse the Internet to try and debunk all his theories. I figure once you can seriously debunk the opening paragraph people generally would know that from that point on, you take what he says with a few grains of salt.

Now, if you want to debunk the debunker, go right ahead. Find where the 20 year graph shown in my link it completely made up and false, and you win. But if the graph is true and accurate, any objective reading of it clearly shows Lott's statements were tailor designed to be misleading. I mean, when the average homicide rate actually drops buy 3-4 people over a 10 year average after the new law comes in, how can anyone suggest that Lott would use THAT example of why gun laws don't work, unless he was putting the numbers through a meat grinder to make them unrecognizable.

Boy this post is steaming..

The Capt. and MOD should meet at high noon.

Choose your weapons boys..Spitballs are your weapons.

The first one to get it between the EYE's ...looses..lol..



Here's an example for you.

I'n New York state you must have a pistol license.And thier not easy to get.. It could take as long as a year with background checks,and they dig deep.If you so much as farted up wind you could be denied.

I dont know about upstsate,but downstate in New York city and Long Island if you are caught with a hand gun unregistered and unlicence you will do a year in jail.



My neighbour owns a club in China town.And he had a registered pistol licence to carry because he deals with receipts etc.He had been having lots of problems with gang activity and other bad asses crashing his club.

One night about three years ago 3 punks showed up at the club and pulled guns demanding his receipts.

Well they messed with the wrong person. "Steve" shot two of them dead on the spot and the other ran off.

The NYPD did an investigation and it was considered a justifyable shooting.no charges filed.

I asked him how he felt about it and he said"everything happen so fast"they were going to shoot me..it was either me or them..!! He says he felt really bad about killing these young people but he really had no other option.

After this happened a few months later he decided to make his club a private club.

Here's the worst part the NYPD took his gun and then told him he can no longer posses a fire arm.And revoked his license in definately in the state of New York.

He still carries heat to this day regardless and said "I'm going home to my family tonight".

He has had no holdups to date.I guess the word got out on the street,and changing the club to a membership club helps as well.



"T.M."

[quote name='THE Mechanic' date='09/10/07 12:23am' post='160203']
Here's the worst part the NYPD took his gun and then told him he can no longer posses a fire arm.And revoked his license in definately in the state of New York.

He still carries heat to this day regardless and said "I'm going home to my family tonight".

He has had no holdups to date.I guess the word got out on the street,and changing the club to a membership club helps as well.
"T.M."



[quote]





BS all i can say is BS yea where was you guys when it all went down but thats just it.FACT no ones ever around when you need them but your prosecuted for taking matters into your own hands. im tired of debating

and thinking about it you just fall deeper into the web if im ever held up by crooks ill just let them kill me so every thing will be ok no one gets upset and no laws are broken thats seems right dont it?




blaaaa

My second cousin, Harold Bringman, ran a club in NYC as well. Not sure if he had a license for his gun or not, but most likely won't get another license any time in the future...

Yes, I'm taking my own thread off topic...

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nys/pressrelease...roconvicted.pdf

Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

Well, it sure must be terrible living in a country where apparently none of you feel safe unless your packing heat.

I live in a place where I don't lock my door, day or night, nor do I own a gun. Amazingly, I don't constantly fear for my life either.

I live in Chicago. I do not constantly live in Fear. I do however lock my doors. Even if I lived in the area with the smallest crime rate in the world, I would still lock my doors. I dont wany anyone in my house unless I open the door and let them in. It in no way means I live in fear.

If I remember right, Coke, Pot, Meth, Heroin and many other kinds of drugs are banned/against the law in both USA and Canada. With all of these being banned/against the law, how easy are they obtained in both Canada and USA? I would dare to say pretty simple. But for some of the upstanding people that dont offiliate with criminals, its not so easy for them. By banning guns, it will only make it impossible for the upstanding people in the country to get guns, but there will still be ample on the streets. Its a fact. People smuggle things into the country all the time. I see it first hand with my business. Only few are caught. Go to a flea market and tell me how many merchants are selling fake brand named items. Where are they coming from?? I can tell you that 99% of these are not made in the USA, and its Illegal to import them, so where and how are they coming from?? Guns would come in these same exact way. They would actually sell for higher prices and these criminals would love a ban because they would make more $$ than they already are.

A ban is against my constitutional right, and would be the worst thing we could do if you asked me. Many will argue it to be different, and I can say to them, I dont care what you think, its my right.

And it is so true, people kill people, not guns. If someone wanted to kill another person, there is many things they could use, if guns were banned, they would be using something else. If you want me to make a list of things they could use, I would. But dont want to inspire some young nuts that may be viewing this, lol.

Australia has shown that making guns more difficult to obtain lowers the murder rate. The murder rate was lowered because the number of murders caused by guns was lowered. These people did not find a different weapon to murder somebody with.
Most murderers do not plot and scheme and find a way to kill somebody. Most murders are in the heat of the moment. Guns are a very good way to kill people and readily available.
So, making guns more difficult to get = fewer murders.
Guns > other weapons for killing people.

Also, Ireland has basically banned most guns and their murder rate shows it. There was not an influx of black market weapons into the country.

Having said that, I'm not for banning guns. How would you get rid of the 200 million guns in this country?

I suspected you were from another country, which one?



I wouldn't say that no one can feel safe unless they are packing heat in the U.S.. I do own guns, don't carry (illegal in my state) and don't fear for my life. My country has a constitution that guarantees my rights to own a gun if I so choose. It sure must be terrible living in a country where apparently none of it's citizens can be trusted.

Hey Bar,

First of all, Australia is not the USA. Completely different. Can not compare apples to oranges. On that note, I would still agree that with a ban on guns, it would lead to less murders with guns. But at what cost? Me having the right not not have a gun to protect my property and family? Sorry, not my plan.

Second, if we banned guns, then I would not have the protection that MAY be needed down the road. You may have an increase in home invasions or burglaries. So steal from Peter to pay Paul. Less murders, but more people being robbed. I dont want to lose my rights because of some idiots that cant control themselves.

I never said there should be a ban on guns. My only oppinion so far is that there should be national regulation and it should be strictly followed. Australia didn't ban guns, it just made them more difficult to get.
And I don't understand why you consider using other nations for examples "apples to oranges". If one country makes it harder to get guns, and their murder rate goes down, then it is fair to assume the same would happen in our country.
I just don't buy into the "more guns = safer society". If it were true their would be no crime in Texas. The vast majority of people I know own guns here, even ones that I thought wouldn't. But, of course, there is crime in Texas. Dallas and Houston have some of the worst crime in the nation.

Here are some interesting stats from Centers for Disease Control and Department of Justice.

According to the CDC the second leading cause of death in 2003 for the ages 15-34 was accidental homicide with a firearm with 7,950 people killed.

ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/ncipc/10LC-2003/PDF...intentional.pdf

Stats for 2001 (most recent I could find):
Causes of Homicide:
Firearm - 39,951
Cut/Pierce - 6,955
Suffocation - 2,147
Other - 10,036
Total - 59,089

67.6% of murders were commited with a firearm.

I read on a PRO gun site that only 2% if accidental gun deaths are from being mistaken for an intruder. So, by those numbers, 159 people between the ages of 15 and 34 may have been killed (in 2001) because they were mistaken for intruders. That seems like an awful lot of people. It can't be right. It seems like we'd hear about it more if it were. I googled mistaken identity intruder and came up with a bunch of results, but most of the results were about to instances.

On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of
the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent
crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor
vehicle theft.
*this includes police officers

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

For 1987-92 victims reported an annual average of about 341,000
incidents of firearm theft. Because the NCVS asks for types but
not a count of items stolen, the annual total of firearms stolen
probably exceeded the number of incidents.

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/homicide/relationship.htm
Lot's of useful info.
15% of murder victems are spouse or family.
1/3 of victems know their assailant.
14% do not know their assailant.
Homicides committed by friends/acquaintances and strangers are more likely to involve guns than those committed by initmates or family members

Some pretty interesting #'s. Some of the graphs they show are very interesting as well. It's clear that you have to look at a bigger picture to see trends in crime. Rates are the lowest they've been since the 50's and 60's, but before that were as high as they were in the '90's but were at todays rates in the early 1900's, which is to say there are definate trends shown and I don't think that you can attribute any of them to more Americans keeping guns in the home.

Comparing different countries is like comparing apples to oranges. For example, if you were to track how many people in Australia die from a heart attack each year vs USA, Im sure the USA has a much higher rate. Each country lives their lives completely differently than another. When you say Australia made it harder to get, what exactly did they do that made it harder?

Just because a change that another country made helped them out, doesnt necessarily mean it will have the same effect here is what Im getting at. Look at how FOOTBALL is here in the USA. Look at how it is around the rest of the world. Its a huge difference. Look at Soccer around the world, look at it in the USA. Completely different views from different societies.

Making guns more difficult to own directly resulted in fewer murders, thus lowering crime. There were no increases in poisonings, stabbing people to death, lynchings or any other way that "if somebody wants to kill somebody they will find a way". Most murders are done in the heat of the moment, and if you don't have a gun you are less likely to murder somebody.

*sorry for not notating where I got my Australia info.
http://www.aic.gov.au/
It's somewhere in there. It's difficult to find accurate info from anywhere but pure stats sites. Both sides cherry pick numbers to make their arguements. You have to find all the numbers to make sense of anything.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2004/06/08/1127171.htm
Above is an ABC news article I posted the first time I brought up Australia.

Look, it was you who posted an image of a woman either cringing in fear or pointing a gun at a person. You don't live it fear? Well, certainly that ad was selling fear, or in its place, the thrill of being able to shove a gun in the face of those that scare you.

Anyway, my country is Canada. We do have guns. My neighbor has many guns. And he uses the same rational to "defend his family' stuff, which I just laught at because there hasn't been a home invasion where I live by strangers...well, as far as I can remeber. Might as well put up nets to defend against killer flying squirrels! So, either the "safety" argument has to be either an excuse, or you live in some sort of fear that you can't protect yourself from serious dangers you perceive around you.

Anyway, again, my neighbor with the guns, he's a gun collector. OK, I can accept that. Get permits, be totally criminal free, etc. If you really want to collect guns, jump through a couple hoops. After all, "dynamite doesn't kill people, people kill people", but hey, pretty sure you still need to jump though a couple hoops before you can buy a crate of dynamite! Anyway, making it tougher to get guns allows you limit the amount of guns floating around. Houses do get broken into here, as anywhere. But at least most theives, who ALMOST ALWAYS invade when a house is empty, rarely gets to cart away a handful of weapons because the fact is not that many people have them, especially not easy-to-conceal weapons like submachine guns and handguns. I mean, come on. You say only the criminal will have guns....guess where the criminal get most of their guns. By stealing them from ordinary people!

Anyway, here's a couple most common myths that just do not stand up to any scutiny IMO.

1. "Guns don't kill people." A gun is a weapon. Its purpose and design is to kill. Cars aren't designed to kill, but guns are, and for little other purpose. Stop pretending guns and the murder rate have nothing in common.

2. "You can't compare to other countries, they are different." Countries that never had guns and have very different cultures, like Japan, I could accept as not being that relevant. But places like Australia and Ireland where guns were common and the culture was not terrible different...of course you can make comparisons! To dismiss this is to try and dismiss any evidence that you find contridictory.

3. "Only the criminal will have guns". All I know is the US has far a far higher percentage of people using guns to kill other people than a country to it's north that has a very similar culture, but not a "gun" culture. So how can that be, given far fewer law abiding citizens here (Canada) have guns? According to the "gun lobby" theory, our country should be overrun with criminal because they have all the guns, and we don't. In reality, it's the opposite. Less guns overall means less guns in circulation and less gun crimes, period.

I could go on, but I'm getting a little bored! Anyway, let people not get the impression I don't think guns are pretty cool. But if we took gun lobby arguments to their extreme and let everyone walk around with a gun, it'd be the wild west. Maybe you wouldn't get a massacre every 10 years where one or two guys get 20-30 people before being stopped, bu instead you'd have daily shoot-outs and literally 100's of more people blown away daily. Frankly, there's a lot of stupid, short tempered, emotional people out there, and I'd rather they didn't have the ability to buy a few guns on a whim.

Anyway, as for my comment about "living in a country with fear" I'll add that wasn't meant as an insult to America. More as a provacative statment to call people out on the argument that it is all about "protection", because I think the protection issue is mostly bull. A lot of people just like the power a gun offers in their hands, and the right to own guns has become a quasi-religious dogma in some peoples minds. Me, I might own a gun someday, but I'll uses it for either hunting/sporting, or target practice, and I won't complain like bloddy hell that it isn't a .45 calibre handgun that can blow a guys head off because I need it to prevent the King of England from marching in!

I just started reading John Lott's propaganda, and I have to say that his numbers don't match the numbers listed by the government agencies of the countries he says gun control isn't working in. According to the official government records for crime in Canada, UK and Australia, crime has continued to drop since gun control laws were put in place, not sky rocket as he reports.
In the UK violent crime is down 41% from it's highest rate in 1995. It put gun control laws in place in 1997 pretty much outlawing all guns and making you register air-rifles (much like Ireland).
Official UK crime report
John Lott's page
I already listed the one for Australia.

Still, I think it would be impossible to ban all the guns in this country. There are just too many out there.

Yes, that is the darn problem. I started out as playing a "Devil's advocate" but I got a little wrapped up in the argument since I see a lot of playing around with numbers and outright rejection of basic facts. But I too had problem finding some objective analysis out there. IT is too bad the "truth" doesn't have a special interest group. However, clearly the gun lobby has a lot more money to pour into they side. When I tried to look up the Lott article, there first 3 pages of Google hits were almost exclusively various pro-gun websites.

Ok, in my own personal situation I have a BOTTOM LINE !!
Statistics, Analysis, Facts play no part here......
"I would rather have a weapon & not need it than to not have it
and need it" Very Simple Common Sense Principle !!

JIM

What if you didn't have it AND didn't need it?
If you can't have that, wouldn't you rather have it and not need it, and to ensure you don't need it stricter nation wide laws were put in place to help prevent people who shouldn't have them from getting them?

This is frustrating, because I don't believe in a gun ban, but I'm starting to see that stricter regulation wouldn't probably wouldn't help either since there is an average of 341,000 instances of gun theft each year (just instances, not # of guns, that would be more). So, if somebody breaks into your home and you aren't there (which is when they tend to break in) and they steal your gun, it will likely be sold and used in a crime.
Also, this wouldn't stop many of the murders of spouse or family as the person who never thought they would use the gun against a family member goes nuts and shoots his wife.

But it still seems like only good, honest people should be able to buy guns legally.

"IF" if we could define that word, we would all be better off....

JIM

uhhh, to tired t oread of all this but yeah... im all for guns, and i think gun control can suck and die

GUN BAN=BETTER PICKING FOR THE CRIMINAL PERIOD! Trust me i been on both side of the fence.


Short but TRUE story

Guy wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of his car alarm going off.

A. Guy run out in his boxer with a baseball bat.
B. Guy Walk out off his house with a 45.
C. Guy stay indoor and call police.

All three of these have had Happen to me in my younger bad day. Here what happen.

Guy A came out running with a bat while i was stealing his car and He ran into my lookout with a 9mm, He's Slowly wake back inside.

Guy B Walk out with the 45. and my look out yell out Gun and we Jetted!!

Guy C Had full coverage on his car!!


Ban on Gun is a NONO!!

P I'm 500 feet from this. Unfortunately, that's how Dallas is. Nice neighborhood stacked on public housing. So, when my neighbors alarm goes off, I call 911, the cops come an hour later... not becuase they didn't respond, but becuase they went to where the suspects go, around th corner a ways... They don't come to the scene of the crime first, becuase they know that the perps are already back in their pub housing. So they head their first to see whats up.
Then they come back to the nice neighborhood to see what the people living there saw.

I'd love tro own a classic Colt '11 .45. When my father in law died I was offered one. I freaked out and said no. I regret that. I could have that classic fire arm and not have a bullet in the house and I'd have my bit of history that I consider that gun to be. I'd also love to have an M1. I want to take it to a range and fire it. And I want to store it at my house.
So I don't want to ban guns, but it has been made CLEAR to me that it is safer to not be around guns. There is just no way around it. I'm not saying F*^k our right to bear arms or anything else. I'm saying from my reading on this, and what my dad told me about guns, I'd rather not have guns around to deal with the problems (still not saying ban guns).
My dad didn't like guns because he grew up an orphan in Hell's Kitchen (true story) and lived on the streets (his mother died when he was 12) until he GADUATED FROM BROOKLYN TECH and joined the Air Force. He told me while growing up that he hated guns for many reasons. First, all his buddy's from the neighborhood that took up guns either became a cop, or went to jail for shooting at a cop. My dad didn't do that. He has many scars from his fist fights, but that's the point of his stories. He fought fist fights. He didn't go to jail. He didn't get killed. He survived to join the Air Force...
Where he was sent to outside San Antonio. He HATED Texas. It took me many years to get the truth, but he HATED Texas because every friggan Red Neck Texan in the bars around his base had guns in thier cars. This is not good for a Brawler from Manhatten. This is very BAD for a brawler from Manhatten. Anyway, my father has hated this stae ever since. He considers Texans to be the biggest Pussies in the world, because they won't put up their fists, they run for their guns.
Yes my dad is a bad ass, yes, Texans don't bother with fist fights. They will just shoot your stupid ass.

I'm not sure if this is true but I heard a story years ago about a Congresional medal of Honer recipient.Who years after the 2nd world war was in a bar, he was down on his luck and became a drunk and he got into an fight with someone in a bar and was stabbed in the neck and died.To live through the horrors of war and then die like that man what a way to go..If it is true just goes to show you it dose'nt have to be a gun.



I have a few friends who are NYPD and they have told me .They would much rather be COPS than Fireman because perps although have an option to shoot or not to shoot or run,the perp my have a conscience but fire,fire has none and consumes all.I know off topic but rings true.



"T.M."

If you don't have it and find out you need it, it's too late.



Gun laws can't accomplish that.



Too bad the wife didn't have a gun to kill the bastard before he shot her.


On this we agree.



As far as your father goes, what you're basically saying is that the stonger, bigger people should be able to do as they damn well please and he hated Texas because the gun culture evened it out. Nice.



If I can show some restraint, this is probably my last post on this subject because I just don't have the time. It is nice to know, that by MOD's standards, I am apparently a scientist. (I'm referring to the blogger he used as his "expert" to refute the statistical analysis of Professor Lott. Tim Lambert is a computer consultant who (apparently) has a LOT of time to spew propaganda against John Lott, and the use of DDT. Lambert and I share a similar profession, but mine keeps me WAY busier than his).



In the end we can agree to disagree.



One final note. The biggest, and perhaps most important difference in our views is I think that I (and other law-abiding citizens) should be allowed to keep and bear arms. I don't think anyone should be required to if they don't want to. I am all for letting you decide whether or not you have a gun, why don't you want to let me make MY choice? The 2nd ammendment isn't only for protection. Our founding fathers has a great deal of mistrust in government in general. They wanted the citizens to be armed so they could overthrow an opressive government should it become necessary, much like they themselves did with England.

MOD, I find you to be really funny sometimes. You just like to be an ass. You admit it by saying you were trying to play devil's advocate.

Would you have a fire detector in your home? The chance of a fire is very little in where you would need it, but most still have one for that "Just in Case". Do you put your seatbelt on when driving, or a helmet on when riding a motorcycle? All done for the "Just in Case" times. Same thing with a gun. I dont want to have to use it, but I will be very happy I had one if a "Just in Case" happened to me. And God forbid if some of these "Just in Case" situations happened to you, you can sit there and hate yourself for not having one that could have possibly saved a loved one of yours or prevented a possible rape that could have occured. There are many crazies out there and they are not all contained to the US.

Lets not change what we are saying here. Im not saying its bad for a more strict policy on making it harder to obtain a gun, im against a BAN on guns. Which are you for? These are two entirely different circumstances.

I didn't say anything I didn't believe, I'm just not entirely "passionate" about it since I live in a country where I think the laws are better balanced and I'm OK with them, so I'm not in fear of losing my "constitutional right" to have a gun so I can stop the King of England from raping my wife!

Anyway, I made it pretty clear where I stood. Jump through a few hoops, pay some extra licencing fees, that sort of thing. A criminal record, forget it. And yeah, perhaps ban the obvious killing machine guns if they aren't already. Maybe make it you have to be collecting guns for years before you can purchase high calibre handguns or whatever. I mean, does anyone really need hand-held, full automatic weapons?

Anyway, judging by the gun advocate's here, everyone of them I assume is a perfect crack shot and will kill any perpatrator that enters their home, while "wimps" like me will cower while my wife is raped. Or at least, that's the theory, as Nothing suggests. Wonder if any of you even considered that if you start a shootout in your house to stop a guy from taking your TV, the bad guy might blow YOUR head off, then go around and blow your wife and kids heads off to eliminate the witnesses? You all seem to think guns solve the problem. Perhaps discression sometimes would have been the better part of valor. Maybe keeping your family safe is letting the thief get away with your TV or car. Sometimes the two choices aren't just brandish a gun and save the day, versus standing by while people are raped and murdered. Maybe it's even possible to be a hero without a gun. And maybe the theif wouldn't even have a gun if there weren't so bloddy many of them around!

All that, and we haven't even started to talk about accidents. You know, shooting your hunting buddies in the face. Or, how about kids and guns...

http://www.kidsandguns.org/study/fact_file.asp

Don't trust that? Well, here is my OWN research (in 5 minutes) from two OBJECTIVE sources, because they aren't actually comparing gun crime and accidental deaths.

The first source points out that in 2001 there were 222 "justifiable homicides", by private citizens, but only 183 with guns. This source, btw, is from the FBI website!

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/exp...hrtable_14.html


Next, we have a table of accidental deaths from 1996 (fairly close year). This is a table compiled from stats by the U.S. Census Bureau! You will notice on the right that the "firearms" accidental deaths is 1,134!!!

http://www.anesi.com/accdeath.htm

So a gun is more than 6 time more likely to be used to kill someone accidentally, than it is to be used to kill a bad guy. One would suspect the amount of injuries, including serious injuries, would be much the same.

I will close by making this camparison between two very similar countries, Canada and the US, both with similar heritage, language, background culture, proximity, etc.

Canada's murder rate per 100,000 is 1.9. (http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm)
United States murder rate per 100,000 is 5.6. ( http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm )Almost exactly 3 times the Canadian murder rate.

(Again, objective sources, not sources trying to make a "point")

Is the prevalence of guns in the US solely responsible? No. But 3 times the murder rate is a LOT! Lots of guns in a society do not make people safer. And even responsible gun owners would have to do far better than the average gun owner in the US to be more likely to shoot a bad guy on purpose than to have his gun be used in an accidental shooting.

Nevertheless, since there are so many guns there already, since there's already a billion floating around, yes, the US is in a tough spot for getting a handle on the situation. If I was to give advice to gun owners it would be simply this. Keep your guns locked, and don't shoot in the dark. If you have a family, consider letting the theif have the TV and just make sure your family members are safe and secure. And BTW, a theif is most likely going to break into you home when you're away. The "bump in the night" is most likely your son sneaking in late, or the dog!

OK, then while were at it, why not put a ban on all the physical sports that can cause major bodily harm and even death. And while where there, why not put a stop to all sword swallowers. And since were there, why not put a stop to all Racecar drivers because of the risk of death. And while were there, why not put a ban on smoking because it causes death to those that smoke and those around it as well. And while were there, lets put a ban on Alchohol because I can guarantee you that Alchohol causes more deaths today than Handguns do. This list can go on and on. The bottom line is that its my right to bear arms. I dont care if you like it or not. Put any restrictions on receiving them you want. Lord knows I dont want criminals having these guns. But the problem is, where is the line drawn? A complete ban on guns is what is wrong to me. A tougher system on those applying for handguns, sure, go right ahead. Try to take my gun from me, you better bring a lunch. My guns are secured and there will be no mistakes in my household. How many times has someone slipped in the shower and cracked their head and died. Shit happens, every day people die from the damnest of things. All your doing is falling into the hands of those that want a complete ban on handguns.

I found this to be a very interesting read. I think that there are many people that think if there is a ban on Handguns, that criminals will not get them. They are mistaken.



First, according to statistics provided by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, there is an interesting correlation between accidental deaths caused by guns and by doctors.

Doctors: (A) There are 700,000 physicians in the U.S. ( Accidental deaths caused by physicians total 120,000 per year. © Accidental death percentage per physician is 0.171.

Guns: (A) There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. ( There are 1,500 accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups. © The percentage of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000188.

Statistically, then, doctors are 9,000 times more dangerous to the public health than gun owners. Fact: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR. Following the logic of liberals, we should all be warned: "Guns don't kill people. Doctors do."

More seriously, Dr. Glen Otero of the Claremont Institute has published an enlightening article entitled "Ten Myths About Gun Control." (This entire article can be found at the website of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws http://www.dsgl.org.) Here are just a few of his well-documented findings.


Approximately 80 percent of all adult American citizens own firearms, and a gun can be found in nearly half of American households.


Between 1974 and 1995, the total number of privately owned firearms in America increased by 75 percent, to 236 million. During the same period, national homicide and robbery rates did NOT significantly increase.


Less than 1 percent of all guns are involved in any type of crime, which means that 99 percent of all guns are NOT used to commit any crime.


In 1987, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimated that about 83 percent of Americans would become the victims of violent crime during the course of their lifetime.


The National Self-Defense Survey found that between 1988 and 1993, American civilians used firearms in self-defense almost 2.5 million times per year, saving up to 400,000 lives per year in the process.


Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens deter crime. Where U.S. counties have enacted concealed-carry laws, murder rates fell by 8 percent, rape by 5 percent, and aggravated assault by 7 percent. Urban counties recorded the largest decreases demographically.


You get the picture: Guns don't kill people. People kill people. But sometimes law-abiding citizens with guns can save the lives of other innocent people.

It's time to restore some common sense to the hysterical debate over gun control. When Cain killed Abel with a rock, God didn't ban all rocks. He dealt with Cain personally. We need to enforce our criminal laws against murder, robbery, and assault.

I will cite the testimony of just one more expert witness. No, it's not another politician or media pundit. Here's what former Mafia underboss, self-confessed hit man, and government informant Sammy "The Bull" Gravano had to say:

"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins."

It's time for Liberals to go out and buy a gun. And maybe get a life or at least protect one.