Guns Guns Guns

[Rich Parsons]

Deregulation without chaos stems from time, if suddenly America or Canada didn't have speed limits, I bet you collision rates would skyrocket immensely. However After time, people would get some sense in them and drive as fast as they can responsibly this could take quite some time though.

Here is a thought, we drive on two lane roads. What stops people from going over to the other lane and crashing head on?

People recognize the value of staying in theri lane and do so.

On an expressway here in Michigan, I know it is not the Autobahn, but it is called I-696. The actual minimum speed is 45 MPH and the Max is 65 MPH. Yet we all joke that this three and some times four lanes or more travels at 69 MPH in the slow lane and 96 MPH (* about 153 kph *) in the fast lane. Note: that people travel much faster as well and they are also traveling real close to each other. Some would call it bumber to bumper traffic at excessive speeds. Which is pakced a lot tighter than when I as on the Autobahn myself. I noticed that most people there traveled 100 kph to 120 kph even in the no speed limit zones.

So we do not have a law against crossing the center line, we do it because it is the smart thing to do. We have laws for speed and lots of people break them and do not think about it yet in areas where there is no regulation the speeds are slower.

Peace

Just as if we were to remove the drinking limit or move it to near 12 or 13 like it is in some European countries (Denmark doesn't have a limit but they think 13 is when they can be introduced to alcohol). I think we'd have little drunk children everywhere for awhile and then once it's not so Taboo it would stop being an issue (which I'm assuming would take many years of having drunk children unless parents intervene because they disagree with the law).

 

[Cruentus]

The reason I don't get much enjoyment from this thread anymore is because it's now a debate about guns are good or bad and is no longer a learning experience for me. However decided I will try to answer any questions of my current opinion to those who can keep it civil to be fair as it may still be interesting to some.

I am not so sure why this wouldn't be a learning experience if it is a debate. I have learned many things through debate. It just depends on the approach. Many people approach debates where they are only in it to prove that they are right, and nothing more. That is the mistake, because nothing is learned. I approach it as a chance for me to learn a different view point. This allows me to either strengthen my own view, or change my view.

Not many people are open to change, though, when they have their self-worth wrapped up in the outcome of an argument. This is often why Religious debates can turn out so disasterous.

But no one should have their self-worth wrapped up in a "gun" debate. I would think that someone would have deeper problems to deal with if this was the case.

Regardless, it was through debate that I changed my position on Gun regulation. I at one time believed in "reasonable gun regulation" and thought that if there was a way to eliminate them that we should persue that. I am glad to say that because I was open minded, I was able to see the inherent flaws of this position.

[/quote]
As I stated before, Africa and South America are not G8 countries, they are not as secure in their governments and well developed enough to handle such a massive change (for some). Africa is literally in tatters if you ask me, when a huge chunk of people are starving (but not all countries are hurting so bad), as the Bolshevik revolution and many others show, when people are starving their more than willing to take up arms and fight just about anyone.

Which says exactly what I have been saying; gun violence has to do with the social climate (or we could say socioeconomic climate) rather then regulation.

I'm not talking about regulation, if I was to take the stance against firearms, it'd be elimination, NOT regulation. I also believe it is possible, it would not be extremely easy, but it would take sacrifice and patience.

To do it safely, it'd probably require some sort of stepping system, possibly regulation that gets stiffer and stiffer and then eradicates them all together. This makes it a steady slope meaning there is less chance of it all going to hell in a hand basket.

Eventually life would go back to normal (probably quite quickly if it's setup right) and gun violence and crime would go down because of a lack of guns to do said crime. It'd be just like Japan, the UK or Canada which have much lower gun violence even if you take population into account.

And unlike what some forum users tend to believe it wouldn't lead criminals to all grab firearms and take the citizenry hostages as this simply doesn't happen in countries with huge restrictions on firearms. Even if the criminals who had weapons now and refused to turn them in, in a small amount of time they'd become quite rare as many weapons are picked up daily by LE and would be disposed of.

Are there risks? Definitely. Everything worth doing has risks or will cause damage to some extent, this is how we justify war and medical research with the deadliest viruses known to man.

THis is where the belief is inherently flawed. It is flawed because it is rooted in the fantasy of "gun elimination." This is an impossibility. We can't erase the technology for firearms anymore then we can time travel. Yes, it would be cool to time travel back to the 80's too and invest in tech stocks; but none of this is going to happen in reality.

Also, countries like UK and Japan still have gun violence. It is just that violence through other means has taken over to me more prevalent then through firearms (again, survival of the fittest rather then allowing law abiding citizens protect themselves). But the reason that they are "less violent" then we are in the US has nothing to do with gun regulation or availability. Crime as a whole is less in these areas, not just gun crime.

We here in the US have a culture of violence that runs deep in our societal structure, and that is our problem. Gun control would actually only complicate this.

But the with the way it is in these other countries, the law abiding citizens are helpless against a threat to their communities, to their families, or to themselves. And these threats happen all the time in these areas. They now have to live in a culture of fear, denial and/or paranoia because they have been stripped of their rights to defend themselves.

Yet, they still have violence and crime. So I am not sure what the trade off is here, and if any trade off would be worth that fate.

If it's not illogical, but you claim it's untrue? How can this be so? It would need to be illogical and would need some sort of precedence to be not factual and thus would be illogical, no? Not to get picky, but I felt this statement could easily be rewritten as "No, your wrong."

This is an easy one to address. If your premise or data is wrong, you can make a logical conclusion that is wrong. So, if there was a study that was done that shows that Cheerios prevents heart disease, it would be logical for me to assume that if I eat Cheerios, that I reduce my chances of heart disease. If that study was flawed and turned out to be wrong, then my assumption would be wrong, even though it was logical.

So, the problem isn't that you are not being logical. You are correct; if there was a way to eliminate guns completely (or even mostly), then gun violence would disappear. This is logical. Yet, it is wrong because there is no way to "eliminate" guns. Furthermore, it is wrong because you are making the assumptions that less guns in a society means a safer and better society. This is logical, and would be correct if guns were the root of violence. Since they are not, and it is the social climate that determines violence, then gun elimination does nothing to make society safer. It instead backfires, because you now have a "survival of the fittest" environment where the weaker person has no means of defending themselves. This is not a safer or better society by any means. This is a society built in fear, paranoia, denial, and cowardness. So, even though the assumption that gun removal=safer/better is logical, it is incorrect. The opposite is true.

In the Unites States it's an amendment to carry a gun, I don't understand how there could have ever been a restriction on carrying firearms? Or do you mean an "open carry" law? I'm pretty sure that many people carry handguns despite laws if they have them available just as I know a percentage of Canadians carry pocket knives for protections which is against the law here. Just because a law states something it won't happen, thats why guns would need to be eliminated, not giving people an option.

As for Australia, I understand that at first it would be extreme, thats why a step system and there would need to be a period where it'd probably be a little rougher, thats progress. A small amount of discomfort for a period of time would outweigh the safety matters afterwards. Hell I don't even carry cash on me, so mugging me would be futile. I don't see much sense in mugging anymore, I can see B&E, but that can be done with or without a firearm. I think it'd pass but I can understand you'd feel uncomfortable without having a firearm.

Well, you say that regulation isn't the answer, but to get anywhere near your ideal situation (elimination), you would need heavy regulation.

So, this would be implimenting a non-answer (regulation) to try to reach an impossible goal (elimination).

I understand what you mean, we have that her ein Canada, it's illegal for me to even give my wife mace or pepper spray (there is a whole thread saying it's useless anyway but just for example), I feel at times this is unfair. But I could consider having an RPG at my side for safety as well in case some crazy lunitic wants to hit me with his car. It sounds crazy, and it's just as crazy as the firearm thing if you think about it. Where do you draw the line when it comes to self-defense?

See, this is the common illogical assumption that many gun control advocates make.

In what way could carrying a pistol concealed equate to having an RPG in your vehicle?

The idea is that you allow people to carry what would reasonably allow them to defend themselves. The only thing to reasonably and safely equalize a lethal attack is a firearm. RPG's, tanks, missles, or whatever other heavy peice of artillary one would like to mention does nothing to stop an immenent lethal threat. I am not going to stop someone from trying to ram me with a car by getting set up with an RPG and doing away with him. That is, of course, unless we exist in a Chuck Norris movie. Since we don't, and we live in reality, these other items are not in the least bit reasonable.

I think a better weapon to mug people with would be a vial of blood. Personally I find that rather scary, if you didn't know where it came from you may think he has AIDS or some other disease. More scary to me than a knife. I'd also like to see some statistics on that (I'll google them later) as to me, someone just has to pull a trigger to kill me, if they ahvea knfie they have to get close enough to me and somehow jab or slice me with it.

I also think that your conclusion that they'd just stab an old man instead of threatening him with a gun is based soley on opinion as I've seen many cases where they just opened fire then took the money. It's about the person, I don't think either has a disposition to make it more violent or not, in fact I think guns would give criminals more confidence as it's so easy to use in comparison to a knife.

Yes, a gun gives a criminal more confidence. With less confidence, they have to compensate. They will do this through physical acts of violence.

Yes, some people just open fire. But, a much lower percentage of gun crimes involve the attacker firing on the victim compared to bludgen or edged weapon crimes. In blunt or edged weapon crimes, they are actually used much more of the time. Guns are used to posture because the criminal is confident that they will achieve the goal through posturing. This is not the case with other weapons.

So again; not sure how this is a "better" situation for anyone.

I think guns are a short term fix, when eradication of guns is a long term one. When it's so easy to hurt someone, and you can do it from a distance, it removes fear and it removes compassion. If you stab someone have have their blood run all over your hands, you get a more personal experience than if you were to fire a gun at someone running away from you in fear from 30 yards. Especially when video games make killing people with guns so damn fun and addicting.

Once again, eradication of guns is an impossibility rather then a long term fix. And, once again, I am not sure what we would be "fixing," considering that it is violent people, not guns, that are responsible for violent crime.

I'll jump over to this point:

And no, I'm not saying no criminals would carry guns, sure there would be. Just like I'm sure some carry fully automatics now. It's all a matter of escalation and supply and demand. Criminals NEED guns? They'll get them.

Safety of yourself and loved ones is a necessity, but again where do you draw the line. RPG? Hand grenades? Bullet proof vests for everyone? How about armored vehicles?

I have a hard time seeing how an inanimate object in someones possession could cause them to act honourably and feel the need to be responsible. Not all criminals carry firearms illegally, many murders every year are by people who have legal firearms they sued to perform the murders which makes them criminals. The same white supremacists and militia extremists you talked about for instance. The same Iraqis you were referring to who are having issues keeping their weapons in their home.

I am fine with people carrying guns, but I feel it's an all-or-nothing approach. I plan to own a pistol, and a scoped rifle for protection (in severe cases such as looting or revolution) and firing ranges, so I'm not all anti-gun or anything, just debating a point and would favour any REAL ideas to the issue at large. However the governments of today are lacking and leave me with a sour taste in my mouth, so it'd have to be one hell of a plan, that's for sure.

Well, you are saying right here that elimination of guns is an impossibility. Furthermore, you are saying that you don't want to be a victim of violence from people or government, and that you want the means for self-protection. We are also in agreement that guns are not the cause of crimes.

Given this, where does gun regulation/elimination fit in with this perspective? Either you believe and want the freedom to protect yourself, and you want other good citizens to have the same freedoms, or you want guns to be eliminated. Because, in reality, both cannot cohexist.

So, I think that you probably have a lot of thinking to do on this. This is a good thing, though; that is how we grow...

 

[Inferno]

Thus, you have just completely agreed with me, that it is not a firearms issue, but rather a cultural issue. It has nothing to do with the lawful ownership of firearms.

Some G8 countries (such as Japan) don't allow firearms of any kind, are there very rare issues with firearms yes. But very minimal considering the country has a population of 127,463,611. Their culture is very different than America. But what about the UK, they have extremely strict gun laws as well, and they seem to be doing fine, and their culture is more similar to America, especially considering American colonists came from England.

Here's a quote from wikipedia on the subject as well, a debatable reference of course, but for this discussion I think it's sufficient(considering people are saying Harvard is a poor resource):

Between 1995 (calender year) and 2005/06 (April to March financial year), violent crime in England & Wales fell by 43%.[11] In 2005/06 there were 765 homicides, including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings.[12] The population of England and Wales is 53,046,000 (out of the UK total - including Scotland and Northern Ireland of 59,835,000),[13] which translates as 1.4 homicides per 100,000 residents. By comparison, in 2000, police in the United States reported 5.5 murders for every 100,000 of population.[14] In addition, 70% of murders in the United States involve firearms (of which 75% used are illegally obtained) compared to 9.4% in the United Kingdom (77 out of 820 in 2004/05).[15] Both New York City and London have over 7 million residents, with New York reporting 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004 to London's 2.4 per 100,000, also in 2004.[16]

This shows me that less guns, less gun violence, simple. The UK doesn't have an issue with criminals building sten machine guns and running amok either. To me it sounds like fear mongering which is quite normal in American news. Reality isn't that bad, criminals are LAZY that's why most of them mug/steal etc, because they don't want to get a job. I doubt many criminals would take the time to machine a sten gun or any gun for that matter. It'd be easier for them to just strap a homemade bomb to themselves and hold you hostage for money, which is something they can do now, and "should be doing" in countries that aren't as firearm friendly as America.

Incorrect. As Tellner stated correctly, anyone with a rudimentary understanding of how to operate a milling machine can easily manufacture the whole receiver for a STEN submachine gun, or manufacture the frames of a handgun. You don't even need sophisticated tools or good facilities for this, as evidenced by the loads of small arms manufactured by the British population during WWII, after all of their factories had been bombed by the German Luftwaffe.

And anyone can create giant bombs in vans and blow up a building despite it being legal, if someone is adamant enough they will create a homemade gun just as they would a bomb. We can't stop people from making bombs, so should we make them legal too? It would still make it harder/more of a pain to acquire firearms which is the whole point.

Here's a bit of a lesson for you: In the USA, we tried to eliminate the consumption of alcohol back in the 1920's, and all it did was simply drive alcohol manufacturing underground, and produce some very powerful criminals who made their living off such manufacture as well as smuggling. One particular rumrunning criminal family even managed to become a powerful force in the political field that still wields considerable power today (Kennedy).

Anyone who wanted to get a drink illegally could easily do so by going to various speakeasies (unlawful bars). Anyone who wanted to, could set up a still in their back yard, and make their own alcohol. The only guy who couldn't get alcohol was the law abiding individual, who was now unable to get a cheap drink or a nickel beer without breaking the laws.

Making alcohol is quite easy compared to machining a gun, and even so look at the countries that don't allow firearm freedoms such as Canada you don't see everyone making Sten machine guns like you propose? I don't see your relevance in your argument as it simply does not happen and there are many examples. Would some people make guns? sure. Do some people build bombs and kill innocent people, yes. There is no difference, but it's a small percentage that do as opposed to a grand scale. It'd save more lives than it protects. The end justify the means.

Attempting to eliminate lawfully owned firearms will accomplish nothing. All you will do is give the "might makes right" crowd more power, since you've now taken away the equalizer.

I disagree I think if done right it'd deescalate the violence in many countries even if you feel the American people are unable to be civil having doing so. It's worked for other countries, why not yours?

Again, this accomplishes nothing. Look at the failed 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that ignorant politicians foisted onto the American people, which banned various weapons that fired one shot per trigger pull.

It did absolutely nothing to reduce the use of such weapons in crimes (which was pretty much but a fleeting blip on the radar). Instead, all it did was jack up the prices of such weapons.

Thats because it takes quite a bit of time for the weapons to be removed from society, it's not an overnight thing and anyone who thinks it would be needs to think it over more. Japan didn't become gun and sword free overnight, it took a long damn time. So small acts enacted in America that lasted less than two full years, I'm not surprised it failed horribly.

Incorrect. People in a more violent culture will continue to commit acts of crime, just using different methods.

As you have already admitted above, it's not a gun issue. It's a cultural issue, and one that must be addressed in the home by caring parents. Trying to blame an inanimate object for being the source of "evil" is akin to trying to blame the Jack Daniels Distillery for the actions of one US Senator at Chappaquidick.

Exactly, but with less guns, there will be less gun violence. I don't see how this doesn't make sense. If I were to give hids knives, knife accidents and violence would go up. Now, give them AK-47s, gun violence and accidents will shoot up like crazy. Then inact a regulation to remove the guns, it'd take more than a day to make sure your all clear, but gun violence would go down again. Now imagine it's on a full scale of a country over many years.

More guns = more gun violence. I thought it was a simple idea.

And more could simply be manufactured on a whim. Unless you plan to outlaw milling machines and steel ownership by the civilian populace, this would be a waste of time.

Not really, as I said, we don't outlaw bleach, and gunpowder and diesel fuel to prevent bomb making. Like you said, the lawful wouldn't make them. ORGANIZED or EXTREMELY determined criminals will cough up the money for such a machine and possibly make firearms, but again this would become a rare occurrence given time. I somehow doubt it'll be on such a large scale as some of you propose with every street thug building homemade firearms and going on a looting-spree.

Incorrect. Viral research in today's society is not performed on living humans when full strength, living virii are involved. There really is no risk to the human populace.

Would you want to live near a Viral research lab? Viruses do get out once in awhile. Same thing as Nuclear power plants, they have tremendous use but have risks, which spawned the whole NIMBY ideology. Many things have risks, but as I said, the end justifies the means.

Now you're entering the territory of exaggeration. I would challenge you to find a law abiding human being who would carry a rocket propelled grenade launcher in the street for personal defense. First of all, it's impractical, since you would probably be caught in the blast radius. Second, I doubt you have the training and ability to hit a moving vehicle going at the speeds that you are mentioning.

How is this any different than people proposing carrying handguns with them? It's bigger physically, sure. Can it cause more damage? Sure it can. But people who would choose to carry one, would be responsible enough to learn how to use it properly and in situations that need it. If you have a drive-by going on, you could knock the car out. It has uses and is just as logical as a gun wielding individual, but people will draw the line here. So why not draw the line further. We don't have people making homemade RPGs either, despite how useful they could be in gang wars etc.

I don't see how carrying a firearm that could (in the wrong hands) kill many many children, but an RPG who can take out a bunch of thugs in a car is out of the question. I'd like some consistency, why exactly is THIS where you draw the line? Because if we had RPGs, criminals would get ahold of RPGs too?

I do have a question for you: How would you propose someone who lives in the rural areas, where animal attacks are frequent, to defend themselves? Using a bow and arrow against a brown bear is only going to get you killed, after all, and that's one animal that you don't want to close quarters with in a battle.

Well for one, I personally don't feel too bad for people who move to an area and get trampled by nature (such as building a home near a volcano then losing everything). Bear mace apparently works quite well, but not so well on drugged out human beings. Brown and black bears will also apparently run if they hear you coming, so wear a bell on your foot or something. If you choose to live in a rural area or a tornado-ally trailer park, you take risks. So off hand, my proposal for animal defense is: bear mace, avoidance, awareness and a bell to scare them away. And there is also what hikers do when their in the wild, play dead.

Incorrect. You are contradicting youself again. Law-abiding people will continue to obey the laws. Criminals will still refuse to obey the laws.

By the way, you won't have to worry about laser-based small arms. The diodes used to generate such light are incredibly fragile, and unsuitable for use in a firearm.

Currently the diodes may not exist, but many things we have now didn't exist 100 years ago. Give it time, I'm sure it'll come as they say "You can't stop progress.".

Incorrect. Criminals will use whatever weapons are available to them by stealing them or from the black market. They don't really have a say in what they get.

And for your information, many police officers carry fully automatic weapons in the trunks of their cars. Almost all police cars also have at least a 12 gauge shotgun available to them, and the 12 gauge shotgun is the king of small arms-based manstopping power. Trust me.

Criminals will use whatever weapons are easily available to them, in America? Guns are plentiful. Which will lead to guns being in the black market in surplus, and very easily attainable from breaking and entering. Leading to more guns in criminals hands.

Well that may be an American thing, since assault rifles are easily attainable there, cops need to be prepared for the weapons that fall into criminals hands. If they didn't sell/produce and import these guns, less would fall into criminal hands, leading to less risk for your LE. Same deal with shotguns.

 

[Inferno]

Here is a thought, we drive on two lane roads. What stops people from going over to the other lane and crashing head on?

People recognize the value of staying in theri lane and do so.

I agree, but puttign up a concrete divider removes the option to ahrm in such a way, just like gun elimination would. Sure someone who *REALLY* wanted to, could find a way to do it. Just as we have some crazies that go out of their way to harm children despite the schools and parents best efforts to keep children safe.

 

[Inferno]

I am not so sure why this wouldn't be a learning experience if it is a debate. I have learned many things through debate. It just depends on the approach. Many people approach debates where they are only in it to prove that they are right, and nothing more. That is the mistake, because nothing is learned. I approach it as a chance for me to learn a different view point. This allows me to either strengthen my own view, or change my view.

Not many people are open to change, though, when they have their self-worth wrapped up in the outcome of an argument. This is often why Religious debates can turn out so disasterous.

But no one should have their self-worth wrapped up in a "gun" debate. I would think that someone would have deeper problems to deal with if this was the case.

Regardless, it was through debate that I changed my position on Gun regulation. I at one time believed in "reasonable gun regulation" and thought that if there was a way to eliminate them that we should persue that. I am glad to say that because I was open minded, I was able to see the inherent flaws of this position.

This isn't really a learning experience because a debate makes it so I must pick a side, since I can see both sides, it forces me to be the "bad guy" in regards to the general opinion on the forum debating with an individual whose username is named after a type of armed soldier who's opinion is very easy to see.

Unfortunately this is taking up quite a bit of my time trying to respond to all the posts directed my way and to be able to come up with a legible response. My whole point is that less guns would mean less guns in criminals hands. This to me is a good thing.

I'm sorry to all those that I didn't get to reply to. I also feel that this debate is turning into a vicious circle of "your wrong, heres how it would be" ad infinitum. Based on my references of countries that have strict gun laws, they see less violence, but violence in other areas (knives) will rise, but it's still a lot less violence period.

Thank you all for your time and input.

-Inferno

 

[Grenadier]

This shows me that less guns, less gun violence, simple.

Once again, incorrect.

Look at Switzerland. Every able-bodied man must serve in the military, and he is given a fully automatic sturmgewehr. This is a fully automatic weapon that fires rifle cartridges.

After he is finished with his service, he is given the option to keep it, or turn it in. Many of those men keep their weapons, as well as the government issued ammunition, and yet there has only been one incident in recent history where one used his lawfully owned, fully automatic rifle, to commit crimes.

Thus, the assertion that less guns = less crimes can pretty much be dumped into the gutter. It never has, and never will, be a firearms issue, as you already agreed; it's a cultural issue.

The UK doesn't have an issue with criminals building sten machine guns and running amok either.

Once again, look at the points that you already agreed to, and you'll see that it's still a cultural issue.

To me it sounds like fear mongering which is quite normal in American news.

It seems that the only fear mongering here, is from the anti-gun side. For some reason, the anti's seem to believe that inanimate objects are completely responsible for the coherent thoughts of living human beings. The truth is, that they aren't. It's a cultural issue, not a firearms issue.

And anyone can create giant bombs in vans and blow up a building despite it being legal,

??? I doubt that's lawful...

if someone is adamant enough they will create a homemade gun just as they would a bomb. We can't stop people from making bombs, so should we make them legal too? It would still make it harder/more of a pain to acquire firearms which is the whole point.

Anyone is permitted to make explosives with the proper permits, which can be obtained with the proper background checks.

Also, people use bombs all the time. The two murdering nazis at Columbine had a whole bag of pipe bombs, and had even constructed a series of propane cylinder-based bombs with boxes of nails attached to them. I, for one, am grateful that they never had a chance to detonate all of those bombs.

Making alcohol is quite easy compared to machining a gun,

Incorrect. Machining the receiver and frame is something that anyone with a milling machine and the plans can do in a day, or less. The slides can also be made quickly. Manufacturing alcohol takes many days, since you have several steps that need to be performed along the way.

and even so look at the countries that don't allow firearm freedoms such as Canada you don't see everyone making Sten machine guns like you propose? I don't see your relevance in your argument as it simply does not happen and there are many examples.

Again, you need to look at the fact that it's a cultural issue. Trying to claim that no guns in a country that already had a culture that was not a violent one is irrelevant. That county's populace would simply not be the type to commit crimes like that.

If you are so certain about firearms being the cause of evil, then you should answer my question as to why Jamaica, with its extremely high violent crime rates, destroys that theory?

As I have already stated (and you already agreed to), it's a cultural issue.

I disagree I think if done right it'd deescalate the violence in many countries even if you feel the American people are unable to be civil having doing so. It's worked for other countries, why not yours?

It didn't work for Jamaica. If you can convince the Jamaican drug lords to put down their arms, maybe it would work, but I strongly doubt they'll listen. The same goes for almost any criminal.

Thats because it takes quite a bit of time for the weapons to be removed from society, it's not an overnight thing and anyone who thinks it would be needs to think it over more. Japan didn't become gun and sword free overnight, it took a long damn time.

Again, you are looking at a cultural issue, not a firearms one.

So small acts enacted in America that lasted less than two full years, I'm not surprised it failed horribly.

This lasted for a decade, and failed to do any good.

More guns = more gun violence. I thought it was a simple idea.

Once again, I will give you a great example that shows your assertion is incorrect.

Let's look at the 2002 FBI Uniform Crime Report (easily available at fbi.gov if you choose to verify this).

Washington DC has outlawed lawful firearms ownership, yet is only 15 miles away from the city of Alexandria, VA. Alexandria has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the nation.

CityMurder rates: 25 years after DC's banWashington, DC 46.4 per 100,0001Arlington, VA 2.1 per 100,0002 (Arlington is just across the river from D.C.)Total VA metropolitan area 6.1 per 100,0003

1FBI, "Crime in the United States," Uniform Crime Reports (October 28, 2002): 77.
2Id. At 190. According to Arlington County's Department of Planning, Housing and Development, the population in Arlington, Virginia for 2001 was 190,1092.


Once again, this simply proves that the availability of firearms has no effect on the crime rates. Good people will be good people, bad people will be bad people, no matter what arms are availabe. It's that simple.

ORGANIZED or EXTREMELY determined criminals will cough up the money for such a machine and possibly make firearms,

Just look at the price of milling machines. You'll see how "expensive" they can be.

Would you want to live near a Viral research lab? Viruses do get out once in awhile. Same thing as Nuclear power plants, they have tremendous use but have risks, which spawned the whole NIMBY ideology. Many things have risks, but as I said, the end justifies the means.

I do live and work near many labs that use virii and bacteria in their research. In fact, my lab uses them all of the time.

I don't see how carrying a firearm that could (in the wrong hands) kill many many children, but an RPG who can take out a bunch of thugs in a car is out of the question. I'd like some consistency, why exactly is THIS where you draw the line? Because if we had RPGs, criminals would get ahold of RPGs too?

Crimomals who want RPG's and can find uses for them DO get them. Just look at the Somali pirates who try to hijack cruise ships.

Well for one, I personally don't feel too bad for people who move to an area and get trampled by nature (such as building a home near a volcano then losing everything). Bear mace apparently works quite well, but not so well on drugged out human beings. Brown and black bears will also apparently run if they hear you coming, so wear a bell on your foot or something. If you choose to live in a rural area or a tornado-ally trailer park, you take risks. So off hand, my proposal for animal defense is: bear mace, avoidance, awareness and a bell to scare them away. And there is also what hikers do when their in the wild, play dead.

This happens on farmlands, you know... Are you then chastising people who work hard in the agricultural industry for their choice of lifestyles?

Currently the diodes may not exist, but many things we have now didn't exist 100 years ago. Give it time, I'm sure it'll come as they say "You can't stop progress.".

Simply put, lasers are impractical as antipersonnel weapons. You cannot manufacture a diode-based weapon that will take nearly the same level of abuse that a projectile-based weapon. Lasers need focussing devices, and lenses are, and always will be, a limiting factor, since they are fragile, and that the mounting precision must be nearly perfect.

Well that may be an American thing, since assault rifles are easily attainable there,

Only unlawfully owned ones are easily available. To purchase one lawfully, you must have a Class III permit, and must also buy one that was manufactured before the GCA 86 ban.

cops need to be prepared for the weapons that fall into criminals hands. If they didn't sell/produce and import these guns, less would fall into criminal hands, leading to less risk for your LE. Same deal with shotguns.

Incorrect. Criminals would simply find ways of killing LEO's, regardless of weapons availabe.

 

[Cruentus]

Inferno,

You say that you can see both sides, but I think that this is an attempt at diplomacy. You started the thread off talking about how you disagreed with gun carry, and you are ending it with oversimplifications such as "less guns equals less violence" and "if we get rid of guns, then gun crime will go down."

I am not sure how scrupulous you are being in this discussion at this point; it seems more as if you were looking for an outlet to present your views in hopes that more people would agree with them. Since that isn't what is happening, and people are bringing facts to the table that contradict your view, you are bailing at this point. Your choice.

But before you leave the topic, consider this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm

The title is "Gun Crime Soars by 35%." This is an article detailing how gun crime in the UK had soared from over 7,300 to almost 10,000 incidents in 1 year (01-02). This is in that "Utopia" that you and others give as the example of gun "elimination" at work.

Well I am sure it didn't feel like utopia for those almost 10,000 victims of gun crime. Not to mention, I am sure that it doesn't feel like utopia for those larger numbers of people in the UK who are victims of beatings and stabbings either. Many of these victims are innocent victims who could have at least had the option for self-defense against the stronger attacker had they of been able to carry lawfully. But I guess the weaker in these areas get to walk around in fear, paranoia, or denial because they couldn't legally choose a viable self-defense option if they wanted to.

The reason crime is prevelent in the US, or in any nation for that matter, has nothing to do with the availability of guns.

So, I'll take my freedoms of self-defense and be glad that I don't have to live in a state of fear and denial, thank you very much...

 

[tellner]

This isn't really a learning experience because a debate makes it so I must pick a side, since I can see both sides, it forces me to be the "bad guy" in regards to the general opinion on the forum debating with an individual whose username is named after a type of armed soldier who's opinion is very easy to see.

It doesn't force you to be "The Bad Guy". What it does is force you to defend your position against articulate and informed people who generally hold a different position. This is always an educational experience, albeit sometimes unpleasant. It is perfectly acceptable, in fact encouraged, in a discussion like this to say "I see your point. I may have to modify my opinion on this matter. But I don't think you've convinced me on this part."

The other sig I use (not Sig. I carry a Kahr ) is a quote from William Blake: "The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds reptiles of the mind." I've altered my opinion on many things over the years from religion to guns to the designated hitter rule. It isn't a defeat. It's a chance to improve and keep the mind exercised.

The bit about screen names is very, very close to an ad hominem attack. Looking at this thread one notes that a plurality is using variations on his or her own name.

Unfortunately this is taking up quite a bit of my time trying to respond t
o all the posts directed my way and to be able to come up with a legible response. My whole point is that less guns would mean less guns in criminals hands. This to me is a good thing.

The difference is that you are making a bald assertion. Almost all of those taking a different assertion are basing their opinions on more complete facts. "It's true because I think it must be true" is a much weaker position "I believe it is true because of the following pieces of evidence." One really has no cause to complain about that. The best reaction is to come up with better information more rigorously analyzed. This is all old ground in the gun debate.

I'm sorry to all those that I didn't get to reply to. I also feel that this debate is turning into a vicious circle of "your wrong, heres how it would be" ad infinitum. Based on my references of countries that have strict gun laws, they see less violence, but violence in other areas (knives) will rise, but it's still a lot less violence period.

This is probably the least vicious gun debate I've seen online. The facts do not seem to support what you are saying. Taking a hard look at that information is a large part of what caused me to change my mind. The assertion that more draconian gun control laws would cause more crime does not seem to be borne out by the evidence. The restrictions on firearms in the UK have not decreased the use of firearms by criminals. Neither have the ones in Australia. Neither have the ones in various jurisdictions of the United States. The criminals still have guns and always will. The honest people do not.

In fact there is excellent evidence starting with Kleck and on up to Lott that two confounding factors may be at play.

First, there are defensive uses of firearms. Less than one in ten results in the gun being fired. Usually the deterrent effect is enough. Of those, relatively few hit the target. And of those very few are fatal. The ones where no shots are fired tend not to show up in crime reports at all. The ones where shots are fired but nobody is hit or the criminal is not seriously wounded will also be under-reported.

Second, there seems to be a "herd immunity" effect. Correcting for a large number of demographic variables it has been pretty well established that concealed carry laws slightly but measurably decrease the rate of violent crimes. There seems to be a slight increase in nonviolent property crimes as if criminals substitute activities with less perceived risk for ones with greater, but that has not been fully investigated.

At the very least this should indicate that a simple assertion that "Stronger gun laws mean less crime" is not easy to support.

 

[Cruentus]

The other sig I use (not Sig. I carry a Kahr ) is a quote from William Blake: "The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds reptiles of the mind." I've altered my opinion on many things over the years from religion to guns to the designated hitter rule. It isn't a defeat. It's a chance to improve and keep the mind exercised.

I couldn't agree more. Having been on this forum for about 5 years now, I can see where my opinions and attitudes have evolved for the better just by searching up old threads. Sometimes I'll read old stuff and cringe! Yet, I always make it a point to admit fault if I am wrong or mistaken, otherwise I won't grow. It's that simple.

Interestingly, here is a thread from 3 years ago almost to the date; about 25,000 or more rounds ago and prior to my Concealed Carry license. I was never a rabid anti-gun person, but I had bought into a lot of beliefs that were flawed. It took a couple of good debates and some research for me to be able to admit it. And I am glad I did; otherwise I would be a different person today!

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12616&highlight=Gun+Control

 

[Ceicei]

I remember when MartialTalk did not even have an Armory and Self Defense fora, and the few initial gun-related threads were a fairly rough to start... As months and years went by, I watched the evolution of threads and the thoughts/comments of those who contributed. Some stayed and some left, but all have helped prompt me to consider ideas I've never thought.

One thing I can say that was very striking--the people have managed to become more civil along the way and willing to discuss this subject without resorting to flames. They bring up references for everyone to ponder. When the two fora, the Armory and General Self Defense, finally came, we found a home for our discussions.

I've been on different websites that are gun related, and this one, so far, has been able to remain level-headed. Thank you, MartialTalk.

- Ceicei

 

[shesulsa]

I gotta say, it takes level-headed people who are willing to calmly and rationally discuss this kind of thing to build this quality conversation and content that we have in the likes of this thread.

I want to take a moment to thank everyone for refraining from flaming, shouting, insulting and all other unsavory behavior. This is a GOOD THREAD!!

Thanks!!

 

[Inferno]

I'm not ditching this thread, but I started this thread wondering everyones opinions of firearms on a martial arts forum. Since this was not an NRA forum, I thought the gun owners would be in the minority and felt how others see this when it comes to martial arts as I learn them for traditional value not because I fear for my safety or want to be prepared in a self-defense scenario.

When some people started raising questions, I decided to play Devil's Advocate by taking the less popular stance since the pro-gun side seems to overwhelm this board, this I felt would help open the topic for further discussion but it lead to a barrage of questions and deflections to make the thread no longer worth my personal interest as it'd take way too much of my time to answer them (I don't get much time to talk on forums, I have a lot to do, hence why I disappeared for 2+ years after signing up) .

American's tend to have very different views when it comes to many things including firearms, and as Grenadier has stated over and over it's a cultural thing which means Americans need to evolve their society/culture so they can become civilized or at least on the level of many other countries with a lot less crime. And yes I'm aware other third world countries have worse crime I'm sure, no need to drive that home (as I don't think they should be the ones one should compete with).

I'm making no effort to "bail" I just have lost interest in playing Devil's Advocate and have stopped, you are welcome to take my place. I believe arguing on both sides of the fence gives you a better understanding of the topic. Since I have argued the side of pro-gun before, I thought the flip side could be interesting.

This thread has been extremely friendly but since it's me vs everyone else and is getting repetitive, it's not much fun nor informative.

-Inferno

 

[Cris]

American's tend to have very different views when it comes to many things including firearms, and as Grenadier has stated over and over it's a cultural thing which means Americans need to evolve their society/culture so they can become civilized or at least on the level of many other countries with a lot less crime. And yes I'm aware other third world countries have worse crime I'm sure, no need to drive that home (as I don't think they should be the ones one should compete with).
-Inferno

Heh, there's the fuse to a powder keg if I ever saw one. Luckily the people
here seem to be level headed so no flame to light the keg:boing1:

 

[Cruentus]

American's tend to have very different views when it comes to many things including firearms, and as Grenadier has stated over and over it's a cultural thing which means Americans need to evolve their society/culture so they can become civilized or at least on the level of many other countries with a lot less crime.

I can agree with that. We here in the U.S. do have a very violent culture, among other things. Most people that live here don't think of it that way, but this is true based on the data. Unfortunatily, the cure to our problems isn't as simple as controlling firearm ownership or carry; these measures are usually politically driven measures that do nothing to actually solve our problems.

Our problems of violence, I would argue, stem from an erosion of values rooted in economic factors. Where Europe has free health care, no more then 40 hour work weeks usually, and 6 weeks of vacation a year, we have created a climate where 2 parents have to work, and at least one of those parents are working over 40 hours (50, 60, 70 hours). Often, there is no vacation time. People are lucky to get a week off anymore. We have been effectively eroding our middle class, which means that a lot of people are going to get left behind. Kids are raised by TV which chases sensationalism, deteriorating mental aversions towards violence. Violent solutions to problems become the norm more and more, as does the importance of "getting ahead." In the end, we end up with higher crime rates, and probably the most violent culture in the civilized, 1st world.

So, you are right. We have some things to work on. But this means that "gun control" is the least of our concerns. I would rather our politicians work on creating better job and wage opportunities for the middle class then taking away my self-defense rights. Most Americans on all sides of the political spectrum would agree on this.

But I'll tell you what; I'll take the tradeoff. I will take our problems that we in the U.S. have in exchange for the civil liberties that other "safer" places don't have. We may have our problems, but other countries have their own set of problems that I wouldn't want to deal with in exchange for my freedom. Most American's would agree with this one too. Because once you've lived free, it becomes hard to move to a place that isn't.

 

[Inferno]

I can agree with that. We here in the U.S. do have a very violent culture, among other things. Most people that live here don't think of it that way, but this is true based on the data. Unfortunatily, the cure to our problems isn't as simple as controlling firearm ownership or carry; these measures are usually politically driven measures that do nothing to actually solve our problems.

Our problems of violence, I would argue, stem from an erosion of values rooted in economic factors. Where Europe has free health care, no more then 40 hour work weeks usually, and 6 weeks of vacation a year, we have created a climate where 2 parents have to work, and at least one of those parents are working over 40 hours (50, 60, 70 hours). Often, there is no vacation time. People are lucky to get a week off anymore. We have been effectively eroding our middle class, which means that a lot of people are going to get left behind. Kids are raised by TV which chases sensationalism, deteriorating mental aversions towards violence. Violent solutions to problems become the norm more and more, as does the importance of "getting ahead." In the end, we end up with higher crime rates, and probably the most violent culture in the civilized, 1st world.

So, you are right. We have some things to work on. But this means that "gun control" is the least of our concerns. I would rather our politicians work on creating better job and wage opportunities for the middle class then taking away my self-defense rights. Most Americans on all sides of the political spectrum would agree on this.

But I'll tell you what; I'll take the tradeoff. I will take our problems that we in the U.S. have in exchange for the civil liberties that other "safer" places don't have. We may have our problems, but other countries have their own set of problems that I wouldn't want to deal with in exchange for my freedom. Most American's would agree with this one too. Because once you've lived free, it becomes hard to move to a place that isn't.

I agree with you for the most part, there is no real fix that I can see without doing a huge cultural overhaul. I don't understand however how one can say they live in a free country when their government is spying on them (AT&T scandal) and then uses the constitution to shove it down your throats so you can't do anything about it. There are many issues in America that frankly scare me to death. From voting "issues" to congress needing to pass an act to prevent their President and many people in power from being dragged off to stand trial for war crimes.

It's scary, and I'd really like America to get back on their feet, it sue to stand for many great things but I think the American people are slow to act and only a small fraction of the country seem capable of making independent thoughts.

This is a bit off topic though, so I'll stop now. Might be a good topic for a new thread though.

As for a "fuse to a gunpowder keg", it wasn't meant that way, but I can't change the way you choose to interpret written conversation unfortunately. No offense if anyone else took it the wrong way. I'll take it back if it makes you feel better.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I agree, but puttign up a concrete divider removes the option to ahrm in such a way, just like gun elimination would. Sure someone who *REALLY* wanted to, could find a way to do it. Just as we have some crazies that go out of their way to harm children despite the schools and parents best efforts to keep children safe.

Actually your arguement is not for concrete diividers.

Your arguement is for cars to be removed from the road.

The concrete dividers are the safety and or trigger locks or cable locks.

The Driver's Licenese is similiar to the (CPL) Concealed Pistle License.

I have no problems with taking a calss to be certified.

I have no classes with locking a gun in a safe in my house or having some other form of lock on it. (* Assuming it is locked to protect others in the house from accidents. *)

So, I repeat that I believe your arguement is for all vehicles to be removed from the road.

There are people who drive without a license and without insurance or registration. And they cause issues for those who do when they get into accidents.

The same is true for guns, people and I mean lots of people have them, and nothing bad happens. There are those that still have them and cause problems, and most likely they are not registered or licensed.

Of course there are crimes of passion. Yet this is related to Road rage as well. A certain percentage will be there. And if you take away the gun the crime would be committed with a kitchen knife or on the motor cycle or bicycle they were riding, depeneding upon which arguement example one was following.

So while I respect you have an opinion. I have to disagree with it and your currently presented arguement based upon my rebuttle above.

Peace

 

[Rich Parsons]

Uh ... wow ... that's way off-topic. Wanna, maybe, start another thread for that one?

Since I brought this up I will address this once here and look to see if another thread is created.

I know it's a quasi-offshoot, but...
The reason the speed limits came into being had nothing to do with safety, it was due to skyrocketing gas prices and public road upkeep. Originally that is. I'm sure many have used the 'safety' card since then to alter the number up or down in places.

Am I off on that? I do like to have my facts right when possible heh.

I agree and understand this. The Oil Crisis of 1973 caused a lot of people to try to find ways to get more MPG out of a vehicle. When the manuafactures and or independantly tested results came back the answer was 55 MPH. After a few years approximately 1977 time frame the Drive 55 abd bring 'em back alive campaign began, becuase they noticed a decrease in deaths due to auto accidents. With Seat belts and Supplemental Restraint systems, and better designed cars people survive accidnets all the time in newer vehilces that would have caused great or serious injuries or psosible death before.

So I repeat my last post, sorry for doing so, instead of getting rid of the vehicles the industry made them safer, and the governement implemented seat belts and later SRS laws.

Sorry for the side note. Back to the topic of Guns.

 

[Cruentus]

I agree with you for the most part, there is no real fix that I can see without doing a huge cultural overhaul. I don't understand however how one can say they live in a free country when their government is spying on them (AT&T scandal) and then uses the constitution to shove it down your throats so you can't do anything about it. There are many issues in America that frankly scare me to death. From voting "issues" to congress needing to pass an act to prevent their President and many people in power from being dragged off to stand trial for war crimes.

Yes, it is true that our civil liberties and privacy are under attack. We do have this habit of spying on each other, which is a bit freightening.

However, we also have a wonderful system of checks and balances, and constitution that we have put in place that allows us to control and change these measures. There is an "ebb and flow" to these things, but we the citizens of our nation have the power to make these changes. Things may seem particularly ****** now, but that is likely to change in elections to follow.

I can't say the same thing about other, more socialist nations, unfortunatily. There are things that they do well, but one thing that is lacking is the ability to make these changes effeciently, or check and balance these things effectively.

There are many times and situations where governments in more socialist countries have crossed the line and done way worse things then what our current government has been doing in terms of violating privacy and civil liberties. And those citizens have little power to change it. Why don't you take a trip to Germany and tell their police that they don't have probable cause to search your bags, and just see what happens. Or, how about drive through Ontario with a the wrong large breed dog or secured hunting rifle, and watch your belongings get searched and seized while you face inprisonment.

So, once again, we have problems, but I'll take the tradeoff. At least we still have the power to change our problems. Can't say the same for many other places.

It's scary, and I'd really like America to get back on their feet, it sue to stand for many great things but I think the American people are slow to act and only a small fraction of the country seem capable of making independent thoughts.

This is a bit off topic though, so I'll stop now. Might be a good topic for a new thread though.

Well, sonny, let's not be too condencending there. Yes, I in fact do suggest you make that into a seperate thread and see how well that goes over.

I think that to claim that Americans are exceptionally incapable of independent thought is a pretty arrogent statement to make. Sure, we have our "sheep," but I don't think that we are worse then the rest of the civilized world on this. If anything we are a little bit better because we have the freedom to say and do what we want in ways where a lot of the "civilized world" cannot; meaning that at least we aren't cowards unless we use our freedom to choose to be...

 

[Cris]

"As for a "fuse to a gunpowder keg", it wasn't meant that way, but I can't change the way you choose to interpret written conversation unfortunately. No offense if anyone else took it the wrong way. I'll take it back if it makes you feel better."
I was being silly for the most part. I didn't take it the wrong way. However, it does send the message "Americans are a bunch of cavemen" but frankly I don't care one way or the other. I'm not an american. I'm a person who happens to live in the US(I hate labels). So, to not derail this train I shall stop here. Chuga chuga choo choo!

 

[Lisa]

ATTENTION ALL MEMBERS:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful. Please feel free to use the ignore feature to ignore those members whose posts you do not wish to read.

Thank you.

Lisa Deneka
MartialTalk Super Moderator