~happiness is a warm gun~AKA~gun control~ [Archive]

lady cop

12-31-2004, 03:15 AM

Zoot

12-31-2004, 03:34 AM

Well, I seldom give the matter any thought, because very few people have guns in my country. You can get hunting licences for shotguns and rifles and suchlike. Police generally don't carry firearms. Wikipedia has this:

New Zealand Police officers do not normally bear firearms while on patrol, but routinely carry Offender Control (Pepper) Spray and batons. Many police patrol cars do now carry a firearm in a secure container. A separate division, the Armed Offenders Squad, deals with incidents involving firearms or explosives. The presence of armed police at an incident is considered a newsworthy event by the media.

There are some illegal firearms in the country, be they unlicensed shotguns or smuggled automatic weapons or whatever. They're not really a concern to me, due primarily to how few there are. The last incident involving an automatic weapon that I recall was a drive-by gang shooting by some Asian gang or other, a few years ago - a very rare event here. There was a fellow who went on a crystal-meth-fuelled armed robbery/murder spree a few years ago, and he was using an unlicensed shotgun, I think.

If I lived in the States, which I wouldn't, I'm not sure what my stance on gun control would be. If I lived alone, I would likely not own a gun. If I had a family and there was a possibility of dealing with an armed intruder in my house, my attitude might be different.

But then, like I said, I wouldn't live in the States.

wade-w

12-31-2004, 04:31 AM

well i was thinking , what else could inspire a monster thread like "death penalty"? ....with lots of lively and intelligent debate? across states, across countries. this could be fascinating, i am really interested in reading your opinions on guns. :twoguns: how they impact your life (or not) , are you a hunter? do you carry concealed? do you carry in the open as some states allow? WHAT do you carry? do you despise and/or fear guns? do you know how to use one? should parents who leave loaded weapons around for their kids to find be prosecuted when mayhem results from their negligence? is the US the wild west and why do miami drug dealers have AK-47's in their underwear :assault: , forcing cops to carry bazookas and machine guns? :guns:

A lot of questions there, lady cop! Lets see, I'm not sure if guns have much of an impact on my life per se. I'm not a hunter. But that's mostly for safety reasons than anything else. There are too many yahoos in the woods who do not follow basic gun safety rules for my tastes. If I had an opportunity to go on private land, I'd definitely consider it.

I don't currently own any guns so I don't carry, concealed or otherwise. Even when I have owned guns, I never carried unless you count transporting the weapons to and from the range. Yes, I know how to use one, and I'm a fairly good shot. At one time or another, I have fired everything from a .22 pistol to an anti-ship cruise missile (well, I didn't actually press the button, but I did provide the targeting solution for the cruise missile). For pistols, I prefer a .45, preferably a Colt 1911 or some variant thereof. I don't know why, but I am more accurate with a .45 than I am with smaller caliber pistols.

Yes, parents who leave a loaded weapon where a child can find it should be prosecuted, and the penalties should be severe.The other side of that coin is that if a family is going to keep guns in the household, the kids should be taught gun safety as soon as they are old enough. How old is "old enough" I'm not sure, but 8-10 is probably about right. In fact, I would not object to a law requiring all gun owners to demonstrate that they understand basic gun safety and operation.

wildernesse

12-31-2004, 04:55 AM

I grew up with guns--rifles, shotguns, handguns. My dad went hunting and I went with him when I was little (once--cause can you imagine taking a 3 year old monkey in the woods to sit quietly? heehee). My dad began coaching the 4-H trap/skeet shooting club when my brother was in high school--he still does that.

My younger brother got his first BB gun when he was 10, and other guns for Christmas as he got older. He hunts. One of the first things he did when he turned 21 was buy a handgun--all of his friends have one, I think. He takes it with him a lot of places, and has talked about getting a concealed carry permit.

Growing up in the country, guns were just part of life. When I was little, the guns were kept in the closet--unlocked and unloaded. We were not even allowed to open that closet, much less touch what was inside--and we knew our parents were serious when they said we'd be spanked and good if we did. The pistol was always loaded, but that was in the top of another closet and we didn't know about that anyway. Guns were not for play, and we were taught how to be safe around guns (Do Not Touch for the most part when we were young). As my brother got older, there were usually a couple of rifles or shotguns propped in corners around the house were he put them when he came in from hunting/shooting. Unloaded, but we always treated them as if they were loaded.

Even so, I'm not crazy about having guns around. RA has one in a closet somewhere here, taken apart. I don't mind the guns, it's just that I don't always trust the people who are messing around with them. Most people don't know or care how much they don't know about things, including the safest way to handle a gun. My dad talked about getting me a handgun when I was living by myself in Atlanta, but I wasn't wild about the idea and after talking it over he decided against it. I think it's for the best. I've spent a couple of afternoons having fun shooting cans and bottles with a 22, but that's about it. My dad teases me about learning to shoot clays--I think I'd like it.

I do think that parents should be held responsible if they have guns easily available to their very young children and those children are harmed or harm others with those weapons. As for teens, I am less sure--because my brother and probably half the teenage boys (and a good number of girls) I grew up with had guns of their own for hunting and sports. It's not negligent for parents to allow teens to have access to guns, IMO. I guess it's the same as cars for teenagers--and you hear a lot more about teens in Georgia (Atlanta especially) smashing themselves up and killing themselves and a couple of their friends than you do of Georgia teens shooting themselves and a couple of their friends. Of course, that's what my understanding is.

Brimshack

12-31-2004, 11:21 AM

I can't remember when I didn't know how to shoot a gin. I had one in my room by the time I was 8, but I don't remember how much before that I got it. When I was young we used to shoot constantly. We lived on a farm until I was 8, and we could shoot in the back yard. When we moved to the city I was heartbroken to realize I couldn't do that anymore. But we would go to the dump once a week, and dad would let me drive and we would shoot for an hour or so. I hunted for a coupe years when I was old enough, and for a brief period I was a real right wing gun nut. My first car even had the infamous bumper sticker, "If guns are..." Whatever. I still have a few guns, but I haven't fired one in over a decade, and close to another one before that. The last time I held a gun I was genuinely uncomfortable with it, all the more so because I remember a time when holding one would have been quite natural. I used to love the damn things.

On gun control, I am moderate. So long as the 2nd Amendment is there, I think it has to mean something. I don't believe it means I have a right to a fricking machine gun, nor do I believe it means I have a right to unregulated gun ownership. There are legitimate questions about the effectiveness of gun control, but I don't trust any of the answers I hear, and I don't have the time to invest in sorting out the shit from the legitimate research. The one thing I am sure of is that I dispise the scorched earth tactics of the NRA. The fact that they would present gun ownership as the teeth in our Bill of Rights drives me nuts. It shows a complete lack of understanding regarding the other rights and how they are supposed to work, and it amounts to a threat too the rest of us. It's as if the gun lobby has declared that if they don't get their way they will tear the country down around our ears. And somehow that's supposed to be an assertion of their rights. They are doing little other than threatening the country with domestic terrorism, and little else. Ultimately the guns I have are little otherv than mementos of an old hobby. I like them, but I'm not prepared to go to war over them. If I ever have to give them up, then so be it.

Farren

12-31-2004, 01:04 PM

I hunted for a coupe years...

Scary. :D

Guns are a big problem in South Africa and I'm not keen on them. I've seen a lot of message board debates among Americans about it and the logic of the "right to bear firearms" seems just wacky to me. If the intent is to prevent govt. tyranny I'm curious as to how hunting rifles can stop a couple of tanks. The correlation is not causation stuff and statistical nitpicking also doesn't impress. The same people who support will argue for the right to bear firearms want child-proof medicine bottles. Its kind of schizoid. Some dangerous things should be limited or prohibited but the most dangerous stuff should be widespread and unrestricted. Huh?

We recently had a front page story in the Sunday paper about a guy that shot his daughter dead late at night in the front yard of their home because he thought she was an intruder. As much as I am sympathetic to his loss, when I read shit like that it makes me angry. He didn't make any effort to identify the "intruder" or even fire a warning shot. If he'd asked her to identify herself, attempted to wrestle her to the ground or even knife her, he would have realised his error in time.

The ease with which someone can kill another human with a gun bothers me. Children have unintentionally killed people with guns. How often you read about a children accidentally knifing people to death, compared to accidentally shooting people dead?

The implicit threat of guns where worn publically (since they serve no other purpose than death in a non-sports environment) also bothers me. Who wants to argue with someone openly sporting a firearm? The unconcealed carrying of firearms is an affront to civilised society as far as I'm concerned.

Dingfod

12-31-2004, 01:11 PM

I think we should ban kitchen knifes and razor blades. Damn they're dangerous. Oh, and sharpened sticks too.

Farren

12-31-2004, 01:23 PM

Warren I assume you're part of the pro-gun lobby. I edited my post above to address that issue. If kitchen knives were as dangerous as guns, they would arm cops with them. Its a silly line of reasoning.

1. Kitchen knives aren't balanced so they aren't ranged weapons

2. There are a whole lot of parts of the human anatomy that are difficult to stick a knife through but easy to get even a small calibre bullet through. Try sticking someone in the side of the head sometime.

3. Far more physical force must be applied to kill someone with a knife, which is why less children accidentally stab people to death than accidentally shoot people dead, or even worse, themseves. When did you last hear about a child accidentally stabbing themselves dead?

4. Kitchen knives have immense utility in areas other than target-shooting and killing.

Not even close.

[edit]

Why is it, d'ya think, that criminals generally steal your gun but not your cutlery (unless its silverware) when they rob your house? Could it be that they know its far easier to hold up a bank or a convenience store with a deadly ranged weapon? Hm? Car hijackings are all the rage among criminals in South Africa. I'll give up my car to a guy waving a pistol or AK-47 at me through a window but not a knife. With the smash-proof coating that's available here I can drive away before he even manages to properly break the window.

Speaking of which, my dad had a pistol at one point. Kept it locked in a safe at all times. Except, unfortunately, when his van was stolen, at which time by unfortunate oversight it was in his van.

I know about 5 people who've had the same experience. If my own immediate circle of acquaintances is a sample of a broader pattern, law-abiding citizens must be the primary source of firearms in criminal hands, which makes the "if criminals are armed we have to be armed to protect ourselves" argument an exercise in reductio ad absurdum.

A study was recently done in London, where the number of crimes involving firearms is still tiny every year (around 3% if I remember correctly), by the metro police. The study examined sources of criminal guns among other things, with eye-opening results. Most guns used by criminals primarily came from Jamaica, the US, South Africa and Switzerland (often touted as a society where guns are widespread and unrestricted without too much violent crime).

The implication, of course, is that the widespread availability of guns in certain societies makes gun-free societies less gun-free.

Dingfod

12-31-2004, 01:47 PM

Of course I was using hyperbole. However, my kitchen knives are far more likely to hurt someone, particularly me, than my guns are. I've been stuck with sharp sticks many more times than I've been shot. I've stuck people accidently with sharp sticks many more times than I've shot someone.

Pro-gun lobby? I am not a member of the NRA, if that's what you mean. I mean no one is lobbying for me in Washington.

Pro-gun? Well, yeah. Where I live police response is measured in half hours, not minutes. I keep a loaded rifle just inside my closet door. If I had small children at home, it probably would be on a rack above the door. My own children never ever bothered my guns, they knew better. There are enough home-invasion robberies in Tulsa that it is of concern to me. However, because most rural people have guns, home invasion robbers are less likely to invade somewhere that they think there might be guns for the same reason that burglars would rather burgle a house where nobody is at home, fear of getting shot.

I've hunted in the past, but fell out of love with it as a sport because of all the unsportsmanlike hunters, people that cannot follow rules, people that are in it just to kill. Besides, once the animal is shot and down, the fun is all over and the work begins. It's all work after that, well, except for the eating part.

In my reckless youth, I shot coyotes, prairie dogs, squirrels, rabbits, quail, pheasant, deer, and pronghorn antelope... oh, yeah, and rattlesnakes. I've also killed two dogs in my life. One was obviously rabid, the other one was a general nuisance to the entire area, a chicken killer and a garbage can dumper. I feel not one bit of remorse for any of the above killings, not one bit.

To me a gun is just a tool. There are lots of tools that if used improperly can maim or kill. True, the gun's purpose is to maim or kill, but if I need to stop someone intending to harm me or my family I need the tool that can do the job. I wouldn't try to hammer a nail in the wall with a sponge.

Farren

12-31-2004, 01:53 PM

Warren I'm all for nuanced laws. If someone is simply off the radar as far as law enforcement is concerned, in a rural area where they hunt of necessity or must guard against dangerous predators then yeah, maybe there's a case to be made. But the vast majority of human beings in industrialised nations live in cities and their suburbs and have no pressing need for a firearm at all. Offset against many of the things I've already said in the preceding posts, there is a compelling case for general proscription of firearm use.

Dingfod

12-31-2004, 01:57 PM

wade-w

12-31-2004, 02:03 PM

Farren, do you advocate banning guns completely? What about people who live in isolated rural areas were large predators are common?

ETA: Crosspost. I don't find your arguments compelling, Farren. Not compelling for a ban on firearms, anyway. I do find some of your points persuasive arguments for better training in safe handling of firearms. But I've always advocated that anyway.

Farren

12-31-2004, 02:37 PM

Your "or must guard against dangerous predators" could cover a lot of different types of predators, including the two-legged kind. I'm not of a mind to take away people's right to defend themselves from attack by any means necessary, even lethal force.

Even by, say, rocket-propelled weaponry? Deadly Poison? Anthrax? The point I made above is that criminals generally match/exceed whatever weaponry is commonly available to the law-abiding citizenry. In countries with severe restrictions on firearms and good law enforcement, firearms are hardly ever used in the commission of crime. Its a straightforward relationship.

The reason I ask about rocket propelled weaponry is that one can keep using your line of reasoning all the way up to tanks. I'm sure there are no small number of survivalist types who think that would be reasonable. The point is it self-evidently impacts on the ease and nature of violence in a nation, just as medicine containers that aren't child-proofed self-evidently increase the nature of emergency ward admissions.

So society draws lines, proscribes certain behaviour. Thats a necessary function of a cohesive society. Wherever its drawn it will be a less than perfect choice, but some boundaries are more reasonable than others. In the example I gave in my preceding post, the difference between a gun and a knife in criminal hands is huge in a car hijacking or bank robbery situation. In a home invasion situation a criminal armed with a knife can be fought with the back of a chair, a golf club or half a dozen other common objects. A criminal armed with a firearm generally can't be.

Apart from that, as I said earlier other objects like knives have some utility other than killing and target shooting. A device designed with the primary purpose of killing effectively is an extremely logical place to draw the line.

As I said, law-abiding citizens are a, possibly the major source of criminal firearms (except for those simply bought by criminals at a gun shop). Of necessity, the argument that citizens should be equipped with deadly instruments to protect their homes automatically implies that criminals must have ready access to deadlier equipment. Its a self-feeding philosophy of deadly violence and I don't find it awfully convincing.

Farren

12-31-2004, 03:24 PM

What I'm saying is I could wake up one night (as a friend did) with a gun pointed at me, all because Joe Public up the road wants the inaliable right to bear firearms.

Most of the arguments gun enthusiasts make show their absurdity when they're recast for other items. Why can't I keep Ebola samples if I'm properly trained? What if I want to culture different strains of Ebola as a hobby because I'm a biology enthusiast? I'll take all the necessary precautions. Ebola isn't dangerous if you're properly trained to handle it. Honest.

Properly trained my ass. How is one properly trained to respond when someone breaks into your home when you're not there and takes away your firearm? How is one properly trained to resist surrendering their firearm when someone comes up behind them and sticks a gun at the back of their head?

Then there's the issue of when you consider deadly violence appropriate. Some homeless kid (we have lots of those here) breaks into your house to steal something so he can eat. He's a scrap of a kid and no danger to anyone. Do you shoot him or just subdue him?

Lets assume you've got a conscience and you try to establish these kinds of things before you shoot, unlike the guy I mentioned in a preceding post that shot his own daughter dead in his effort to prevent a home invasion that wasn't one.

Now if you are in fact dealing with a murderous criminal who's armed to the teeth and has killed before that puts you at a distinct disadvantage. Not only does he have experience of actually killing people while all you have is target practice and maybe buck hunting, but he's not concerned about having to first establish whether shooting you dead is appropriate.

Of course the disadvantage would be a lot less if the weapons you both carry weren't guns - and he probably wouldn't have a gun if you didn't insist it was your inaliable right to carry one.

Dingfod

12-31-2004, 03:27 PM

In countries with severe restrictions on firearms and good law enforcement, firearms are hardly ever used in the commission of crime. Its a straightforward relationship.One I think that is one side of the chicken and egg argument. It is a matter of causation. Do they not use guns because they don't think they have to or because they're not available? Both of those point to you being right. The problem is that the general populace in most of those societies were never armed to begin with so I think it is culturally acceptable where probably is not in armed societies like the USA. Thus, the apples and oranges comparison.

I'm wasn't even going to go into the hyperbolic anti-tank weapon being not only allowed by but the intent of the 2nd Amendment argument because I think it hurts gun rights more than it helps. A handgun or rifle cannot stop a tank from moving unless jammed in the tracks somehow. Properly dug and placed ditches and concrete barricades can. A well placed rifle shot can prevent a tank from being able to fire its main weapon though, see what happens when you try firing with a lead bullet wedged in the rifling of that cannon.

I think its a little late for banning guns in the USA and South Africa, too many guns are out there already. Guns are endemic to America, a country founded on armed revolution, cemented by armed civil war, and settlement of a wild unexploited frontier by killing everything in its way, from bears and wolves to indigenous tribes. Hmmm, sounds a little like South African history, doesn't it? There may be as many as 250-300 million guns in the USA, how many do you think would show up if a gun ban law requiring them to be turned in went on the books? I'd guess that number would be about half even if there was payment for them, leaving 100-150 million guns mostly in the hands of what would have been law-abiding citizens had not this new hypothetical law been passed. Gun buyback programs in most cities have been about as successful as the dollars for weapons programs in Iraq, mostly netting old and nonfunctioning firearms. So, measure us, judge us, hate us, for what we already are, because that part of American society will probably be a long time changing.

Farren

12-31-2004, 03:40 PM

I've certainly considered that problem. The thing is, the same could be said of peacemaking efforts anywhere. In mediating a civil war you have to convince both sides to turn in their rocket propelled weaponry and so on. Its not easy but its been done. And the effort should, clearly, be made. Iraq is a poor example and there are better ones.

Gun restrictions are gradually being increased in South Africa and an enormous number of firearms, both old and new have, in fact been turned over to the government. 8 years ago the most common firearm in the commission of a violent crime was an AK-47. Now its mostly pistols.

I don't think "it's hard to change" is a strong argument for not changing, especially with all the good reasons to make that change and become a more civilised society.

As far as addressing whether criminals feel less need to use firearms in countries where the citizenry is thusly armed is concerned, I think I've already addressed that. Regardless of criminal motives, a confrontation involving knives is, as I've illustrated in preceding posts, qualitatively different for the better of all concerned.

Dingfod

12-31-2004, 03:50 PM

But Farren, it comes down to the argument "I'll give up mine if he gives up his first." You'll not find too many people in the USA, who feel threatened by violent crime, that would be willing to readily give up their best available tool for defense. The criminal element certainly isn't.

I think the main reason more of your violent crimes are being committed now using pistols instead of AK-47s is one of concealibility. Once carrying weapons around was made illegal, a pistol is the weapon more easily concealed, and pretty much as effective for person-on-person violent crime.

Dingfod

12-31-2004, 03:55 PM

Farren, stop adding shit after I've posted, dammit, or I'll come over there and show you why I don't need a gun to scare people. {just kidding}

I don't think "it's hard to change" is a strong argument for not changing, especially with all the good reasons to make that change and become a more civilised society.It has been my reason that I...
1) am not losing weight,
2) keep working a job I hate, and
3) stay in an unhappy marriage.

OK, not a strong argument, but it is a reason that it isn't going to change quickly. Hmmm, same as me.

Farren

12-31-2004, 03:58 PM

Yeah but if the law simply said "Give up your firearm. Period. Or we arrest you" people don't have too much leeway. Sure, there would be an interim period of insecurity while the law shuts down supply chains and roots out firearms in criminal hands, but history is full of situations that were perpetuated because of the fear of short-term consequences - and as a result societies suffered far more in the long term.

Besides, if truth be told, how many times has someone pointed a gun at you during the commission of a crime? I've spent most of my life in one of the most violent cities in the world and the only time I've ever had a gun pointed at me was by a crazy-assed drunk biker outside a nightclub when I asked him to stop pointing it at his friend who he was pissed off at. Sure, I know prolly around ten people (edit: probably more like 15-20) who have had a gun pointed at them but police statistics suggest they would be far more likely to get shot if they had a gun and tried to use it instead of just handing over the car, money or whatever.

I should think it should be better in the States and if it is, as far as I'm concerned the short term insecurity is worth the relatively small risk.

Oops crosspost

Dingfod

12-31-2004, 04:00 PM

This thread is making me want to go shoot something. I've got four or five hundred rounds of .22 ammo that need to be shot up or it's going to go bad. For me, there isn't anything much more fun than making a nice lisarea salad with 17 or 18 rounds of ammo fired as rapidly as possible, repeated 20 times. Then I can heat the dinner rolls with the hot rifle barrel.

Farren

12-31-2004, 04:04 PM

:D

You and Hunter S Thompson would get along well, Warren.

Dingfod

12-31-2004, 04:22 PM

Yeah but if the law simply said "Give up your firearm. Period. Or we arrest you" people don't have too much leeway.Think of the logistics problem this would be. In a country with a little over 1 million underpaid police officers and about a million in the military active duty and reserves combined, going door to door to collect my estimated half of the firearms would take quite a while. You aren't going to send one or even two police officers to a house to collect guns from reluctant gun owners, it'll take a team. Remember, the police and military have other jobs to do besides collecting guns from what were until then, law-abiding citizens. Also, there'll be those won't resist the searches with violence but will that grease up their unregistered guns, wrap them in plastic and bury them somewhere until the door-to-door confiscation period is over.

Doing it your way is a nightmare that I wish not to even contemplate. The government would probably have to bring the tanks and Hummers home from Iraq and other overseas locations just to fight the militia groups, whose ranks would be swelled by throngs of people that previously thought they were just government conspiracy nuts. I'm not saying it would be majority, it would take the majority supporting the law to have it ever get passed, but an armed minority of tens of millions would be a force to be reckoned with, even by the greatest military in the fucking world.

I think if we are going to disarm America the best way to get started is to disarm the government, lowering the need for criminals to feel the need to have guns to commit crimes, and then ultimately making the populace feel safe enough to give up their guns. Better that than instantly turn law-abiding citizens into criminals if they don't want to give up something they legally purchased with their own money.

wildernesse

12-31-2004, 05:27 PM

As I said, law-abiding citizens are a, possibly the major source of criminal firearms (except for those simply bought by criminals at a gun shop). Of necessity, the argument that citizens should be equipped with deadly instruments to protect their homes automatically implies that criminals must have ready access to deadlier equipment. Its a self-feeding philosophy of deadly violence and I don't find it awfully convincing.

I don't think that saying that citizens should have access to handguns (I'm choosing handguns because that's what most people here in the US are talking about when they are talking about crime, and not my brother's competition shotgun) implies that criminals have deadlier equipment. To me, it just implies that criminals have the same equipment. After all, if criminals had deadlier equipment, then regular folks would want the same--they're not going to be arguing for putting themselves at a disadvantage. Most common criminals around here don't have more deadly weapons than the locals though, IMO. I feel like I may be missing part of the point, especially if law-abiding citizens are a/the major source of criminal firearms then how do criminals get deadlier equipment than the citizens they are stealing from?

Random "research" that entertained me:
I read the crime reports in the paper--around our neighborhood it's purse-snatchings and marijuana usually. Cash grab at the local Chinese buffet last week. For our city, for Dec 11-16, the crimes listed involving guns are: arrest and seizure of assault rifle, recovery of a stolen 9mm semi-auto. during a search warrant, gun battle over wheel rims involving .45 and 9mm (no one injured), .22 rifle and shotgun stolen.

Other weapons: man hit in the head with a bottle during a mugging by two other men, man arrested on marijuana charges had 3 knives on him, pot-smoking kid was found with a pocketknife at school.

Based on my extremely limited sample of my city of just over 100k, with nearly 30% below the poverty line, I would agree that stolen guns appear to be a problem, but that it doesn't appear that the criminals are using weapons above and beyond what the local citizens may have.

Dingfod

12-31-2004, 05:42 PM

Here in the USA, a robbery with a gun or even a knife is considered armed robbery, at least for the purposes of criminal charges. All others are what they call strongarm robberies, either by overpowering the victim, or just stealing the cash or merchandise by intimidation. The stats aren't broken down, but it appears that only about 1/3 of all robberies are committed with a gun, a real gun anyway. Lots of robberies are committed with BB guns, pellet guns, or even toy guns.

And, like Wildy said, most criminals are not better armed than most gun owners, they often are most often armed with .22, .25 or 9mm handguns, all which are inferior in everyway to a larger caliber handgun, let alone a .30-06 rifle. My .30-06 is semi-automatic but it isn't an assault rifle because it doesn't have a pistol grip or hold more than 5 rounds.

Of course, in honor of Wildy, "Don't worry, Wildey will get them."--Charles Bronson in Death Wish III.
http://www.roger-raymond.tmfweb.nl/wildey.jpg

lady cop

12-31-2004, 06:19 PM

then there's miami...where the dealers and players carry mac-10's and other assorted tools of their trade. it escalates constantly, the police are at a disadvantage unless SWAT is called out, which is not for everyday street crime. i carry dept.-issued HK 45, and my off-duty concealed (semi-formal) a smith 9. after 9-11 we secretly had israeli moussad out at our academy training us in some exotic weapons, now those guys were seriously dangerous we were in awe. (nice piece there warrenly!)

Dingfod

12-31-2004, 07:13 PM

Socratoad

12-31-2004, 08:01 PM

OK :toad: has to hop in here, although he knows not why. This damned arguement tends to go on and on and on .. From my point of view it appears that many Americans somehow equate gun ownership with freedom, manliness and in many cases godliness.

Does any one of you ever stop to realize the for as long as I can remember the US has been the most violent society among the so-called western nations, until recently dethroned from that dubious honour by the Brazilians?

Oh yup yup, one can just as easily be killed by knives sticks, huge wads of bubble gum or perhaps even overly enthusiastic French kissing ..... damn those cheese eaters. The point is that most people in the US that are killed are not killed by "criminals" so to speak, but rather by family members who have been drinking to excess, and whatcha know ..... the gun just happened to be there.

There is too much fudging of the arguments for the fucking cherished right to bear arms as I see it. Yes rifles, shotguns are often a necessity in rural areas, but what the fuck are handguns for, or machine guns? And why is there any need whatsoever for even rifles or shotguns in the cities. If there were not so guns were not allowed to be sold like loaves of bread then the police would not have to be armed to the teeth.

As mentioned earlier by Farren people are shooting their own children. People seeking help when their car breaks down are shot merely because they knocked on some drunken asshole's door late at night. No I don't exaggerate. In the small city were I live there is a young widow who was sitting in their broken -down car when her husband was shot. They were trying to come back home from a vacation in Florida.

Several years back a friend of mine, a doctor, decided to move to Houston Texas because the money was much better. That in itself kinda pissed me off as he was far from poor and like every other doctor the taxpayers/citizens had paid for most of his education. But I digress. I''m an expert in the field of digression. Before three years had past my friend was back practicing in Toronto because he could not stand taking his turns in the emergency wards as gunshot victim s rolled in all too fucking frequently .... many of them children e\whose crime was the need to pee in the middle of the night, and so half drunk dad, the macho man, preached under the pillow and grabbed the gun. Then there were the other members of families shot by their spouses , and when the drunk sobered up he (and yes its usually a he) could not even remember shooting anyone.

I do not expect this little screed to do other than elicit opposition from most Americans here because you live in forest and thus cannot see the trees. I'll just stop here because I've had this discussion many times for forty or so years, and for what? perhaps because I'm a masochist. And yes I was raised on a farm.

Now carry on.

Dingfod

12-31-2004, 08:36 PM

Oh, yeah. A semiautomatic firing eight rounds consisting of cut-off and reamed Winchester .284 cartridges with 300 grain .475 caliber bullets with impressive ballistics for a handgun, 1900 fps muzzle velocity and 1900 lbs/ft muzzle energy. Compare that to the legendary .44 Magnum at 1300 and 1210 respectively. I just don't currently have a spare $3500 to buy one.Let me add: nor would I even if I had the money. I've got a college-bound lass in a year and a half and need to put back a bundle before August of 2006. Buying expensive guns never have and still don't fit into the picture. But, hey, a macho gun-loving animal-killing Merkin can dream, darnit.

Children get run over by their own parent's cars by accident and people get hit and killed by cars when they're walking to get help for their car that is broken down on the freeway, and drunken drivers kill people by the hundreds every damn day. Much like guns, cars are just plain dangerous in normal every day use, but hardly anyone is advocating banning cars for that reason.

Actually, I don't necessarily disagree with Farren or Socratoad about the end result, a society where people are not killing each other, only about how we get there. Guns are just the tool of choice for violence, but only a tool. It is the violent tendencies within the human species that needs to be eradicated. How do you do that?

Socratoad

12-31-2004, 09:27 PM

Hi warrenly, I really don't want to get too far into why humans and especially some societies more than others seem to be almost addicted to violence. Especially because the New year is upon us and I want to remain in the mellow reflective mood I'm in.

I could go into a long rant about the american fascination with violence. Even the way you train your soldiers. But I'm quite afraid that any listing of what I see as the pathologies present in American culture would tend to make me appear as an rabid anti-American. I assure you such is not the case as in general I love Americans. The love of my life. The woman I was married to for twenty years until her death was an American..

Every society, certainly mine, has its pathologies, however have you ecer stopped to wonder why your next door neighbour has always had a much lower violent crime rate than in your own nation? The gap is lowering though as your culture via economic and Hollywood produced violence prone has become rather smothering in its reach.

As I young man who when going to Europe for the first time could not help but notice that in France sex was portrayed rather openly in their movies while violence was quite strictly controlled. Oh yes even the sex scenes were done in a sensual non-violent manner.

Just a couple of thoughts on th subject. As I mentioned above I really don't wish at this time to get into an in depth discussion about the gun issue as in my experience it can, and usually does become very heated. Plus my mind is somewhere in South East Asia. All I am really able to see is the faces of frightened children.

Maybe after some time has passed I might have something worthwhile to add to this never-ending discussion.

Dingfod

12-31-2004, 09:47 PM

Every society, certainly mine, has its pathologies, however have you ecer stopped to wonder why your next door neighbour has always had a much lower violent crime rate than in your own nation?Canada? Uh, because there's only about 30 million people in a country with almost twice the land area? Or, because until relatively recently there was a relatively homogeneous population there? Or, because Canada didn't win its independence by armed revolution or fight a civil war to keep it together?

The gap is lowering though as your culture via economic and Hollywood produced violence prone has become rather smothering in its reach.I've been blaming a lot of things on the proliferation of MTV and American culture via satellite and cable television such as the ruination of small town American culture, I might as well say it is ruining other cultures now.

As I young man who when going to Europe for the first time could not help but notice that in France sex was portrayed rather openly in their movies while violence was quite strictly controlled. Oh yes even the sex scenes were done in a sensual non-violent manner.I'd much rather television portrayed sex and sensuality rather than chase scenes and violence, but the prudes of America are aghast at the sight of a nipple yet don't think a thing about people breaking each others bones either side of the halftime nipple show. Admittedly, as a whole, we Americans are fuuuu-uuuucked up, the most recent election shows just how bad off we are.

Just a couple of thoughts on th subject. As I mentioned above I really don't wish at this time to get into an in depth discussion about the gun issue as in my experience it can, and usually does become very heated.Thanks for sharing what you have. You won't find heated and warrenly in the same thread, i can't handle the stress. An amicable discussion about Americans love for guns, I can do, but I'm not a radical by any stretch of the imagination.

Plus my mind is somewhere in South East Asia. All I am really able to see is the faces of frightened children.I'm keeping up with all that as well. I am frustrated there isn't much I can do for them here.

Maybe after some time has passed I might have something worthwhile to add to this never-ending discussion.You've added food for thought already. Socratoad, zap a few flies with your tongue, kick back on the lilypad and take it easy.

Adora

01-01-2005, 12:12 AM

This thread makes me so happy I live in Australia.

viscousmemories

01-01-2005, 12:12 AM

I said quite a lot against the proliferation of guns in America in this thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=430) on the assault rifle ban, but honestly as a result of that thread (and a similar one at IIDB) I'm less certain of my views than I was.

Socratoad

01-01-2005, 12:30 AM

viscousmemories

01-01-2005, 12:49 AM

ApostateAbe

01-01-2005, 01:17 AM

I have never owned a gun and I have no experience using guns. But I want to keep gun ownership as free as possible. Any group of people who do not own guns is vulnerable. After the election, a lot of heartbroken Kerry-voters talked of civil war, but such a prospect was made even more hopeless by the fact that the conservatives are armed to the teeth along with the US military, and the liberals are as defenseless as a cooked turkey dinner on Thanksgiving day. If a tyrannical US Commander-in-Chief launched an effective propaganda campaign directed at conservatives to incarcerate, deport or kill all the liberals in America, there would be nobody and nothing to stop them.

Socratoad

01-01-2005, 02:01 AM

VM, I just read some of the never ending gun debate on the thread you listed above. Its really all so damned wearying. Although I disagree with the pro-gun bunch profoundly I kinda miss Dantonac. Where did he go?
He left, Toad, as he announced here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1295). But just to forewarn you, I'm afraid you aren't going to find that discussion any more uplifting than the one on gun control.

OH gees, I had no idea. I missed that very rough bit of drama. I crossed swords several times with Dave when I first came on this board and jumped to the defense of Adora during one particular attack, but over time I thought I saw a glimmer of light showing through someone I thought was rather troubled. And that is what I meant by kinda missing him. I had thought that by getting to know him a little better I might actually come to understand just what was bothering him so much about so many things.

Underneath this often sarcastic curmudgeonly exterior I really do dislike disharmony and feel bad when someone lashes out because they themselves are hurting

However seeing as I was not present during all that nastiness I will drop this now. In closing, I can quite understand Beth's reaction considering her own painful experiences.

Sometimes methinks some misfortunes and pain could be avoided if only someone can keep cool enough to try to understand and reach out a helping hand. Often what we lash out at are the symptoms, not the actions.

But then what the hell do I know. :(

lady cop

01-01-2005, 02:07 AM

Socratoad...if i may digress...happy new year and i find you to be a very intelligent and excellent writer. thanks . i am happy to "know" you.

Socratoad

01-01-2005, 02:18 AM

And a very Happy New year to you too Lady Cop, and may the new year bring a little more serenity into the lives of all of us.. When all is said and done that is all anyone needs, and perhaps even craves. Even those who are so damaged that they are both unable to articulate or understand the reasons for their dissatisfactions and resentments,

And so the mouthy :toad: hops down off his soapbox.

PS: I'm your fan as well

D. Scarlatti

01-01-2005, 08:49 AM

Never fired a gun in my life and have very little desire to do so. I realize lots of people are into keeping and firing guns, and I think it's a respectable hobby - for the most part. Some people are utter fanatics and my questioning of their psychological balance increases in proportion to the fanaticism. Having said that most of the gun owners I know or have known were extremely responsible and respectful of their weapon's killing power.

I'm fairly persuaded that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, as opposed to the collective right argument that has been put forth in some fairly lofty judicial circles, but within reason. Like any constitutional right, there are limits. What those limits are is obviously where the debate is. I suspect even Larry Pratt agrees, for example, that the government can restrict completely a convicted felon's right to keep and bear arms.

I think conceal carry laws are fucking nuts. I don't care for the idea that the slob in front of me at the Pick 'N' Save is carrying a concealed handgun, but I also realize that that's an unfortunate fact of life in most of America. I don't live in a gated community either. I live in a fairly rough part of Milwaukee but I don't feel any need to walk around armed. Most of the shooting that goes on in public here consists of scumbags shooting other scumbags.

justaman

01-01-2005, 11:16 AM

I'd repeat sentiments already mentioned a couple of times in that I'm glad I don't live in the U.S. :P

I remember having a long debate about this somewhere ages ago. I remember two major points coming out of it one for me, one against me (I was anti-guns :P )

The one for me which wasn't refuted terribly well was that if your government was prepared to pump the same amount of money into anti-gun laws as it was into wars of dubious justification abroad, you'd probably remove the easy availability of firearms - especially assault weapons - in a few years.

The point against me which I did a fairly horrible job of refuting was that the majority of citizens prefer to have weapons easily available. Mostly - as someone mentioned already - because they saw it as an extension of their liberty, citing that amendment (the 2nd?) in the Bill of Rights countless times. But also, by and large, because they felt safer with owning a weapon. This was what I tried - and failed - at refuting, though I still think it's the wrong way of thinking about safety. It's like throwing more landmines down to protect yourself from the enemy. It might work, but it also screws you over in the long-run.

It's difficult, however, to convince people who constantly feel immediate threats (which I do not) that safety can be better acheived by throwing down what they see as their only protection. I have to concede that point.

Dingfod

01-01-2005, 12:07 PM

The one for me which wasn't refuted terribly well was that if your government was prepared to pump the same amount of money into anti-gun laws as it was into wars of dubious justification abroad, you'd probably remove the easy availability of firearms - especially assault weapons - in a few years.Yes they could, but "our" government is not likely to do that in the current political landscape, whether or not there might be a majority that favor at least some degree of gun control. It isn't that the NRA is a more powerful lobby than the gun control one, it is to which group the politicians are more likely to listen. The ones in power now are not inclined to lean toward gun control unless their core constituency also leans in that direction. Since their core is extreme right-wing, it just isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future. Plus, if you look at the most recent election, our "war president" and his pro-war, pro-gun policies just got confirmed by a majority of the voters.

justaman

01-01-2005, 01:07 PM

Yes they could, but "our" government is not likely to do that in the current political landscape, whether or not there might be a majority that favor at least some degree of gun control. It isn't that the NRA is a more powerful lobby than the gun control one, it is to which group the politicians are more likely to listen. The ones in power now are not inclined to lean toward gun control unless their core constituency also leans in that direction. Since their core is extreme right-wing, it just isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future. Plus, if you look at the most recent election, our "war president" and his pro-war, pro-gun policies just got confirmed by a majority of the voters.
I couldn't agree more.

JoeP

01-01-2005, 02:32 PM

Actually, I don't necessarily disagree with Farren or Socratoad about the end result, a society where people are not killing each other, only about how we get there. Guns are just the tool of choice for violence, but only a tool. It is the violent tendencies within the human species that needs to be eradicated. How do you do that?
Shoot them all? :(

Dingfod

01-01-2005, 04:04 PM

JoeP

01-01-2005, 08:08 PM

Shoot them all? :( :yup:
:twoguns: :assault: :lasergun:
Fight! Fight! :catfight:

:draw:

:gatlin: :gatlin: :gatlin: :gatlin: :gatlin: :gatlin: :gatlin: :gatlin: :gatlin:
:gatlin: :guns: :twoguns: :assault: :twoguns: :assault: :guns: :gatlin:
:gatlin: :gatlin: :gatlin: :gatlin: :gatlin: :gatlin: :gatlin: :gatlin: :gatlin:

Socratoad

01-01-2005, 08:17 PM

:hide: If you two don't stop immediately I'm gonna come out from unner this chair and hit you with my purse.

JoeP

01-01-2005, 08:32 PM

:sorry:

lady cop

01-01-2005, 08:45 PM

:policecar: :ambulance: :ambulance: :ambulance: :firstaid: :doctor2: :nurse: :nurse2: :firstaid: :grave: :preach:

viscousmemories

01-01-2005, 08:46 PM

Well for whatever anecdotal evidence is worth I've lived in like 10 cities across four states in my 36 years of life in America, and I have never been in a situation where I required a firearm to protect myself. So the argument that Americans need guns to feel safe rings pretty hollow to me.

It does seem self-evident to me that there would be an exponential increase in gun related violence as the number of guns increases, but that doesn't seem to be the case in other countries (such as Switzerland) where gun ownership is widespread.

And like Farren, it seems to me that the ease with which critical/fatal injuries can be dealt out with guns makes them substantially different than other weapons/machines.

I'm still on the fence I think, but I also agree with Scarlatti that Constitutional rights can and should be limited when appropriate, including the second amendment.

Dingfod

01-01-2005, 08:59 PM

Socratoad

01-01-2005, 09:01 PM

OK, this is just a thought, but the gun thing is something I've thought about for years. So many gun deaths happen when the person with access to the gun is drunk. Now in my considered opinion its no sense comparing guns with sticks, knives, etc, for the simple reason that it takes none to little cognizance to simply pull a trigger when one barely is capable of thought let alone action. Its all rather impersonal when one is bombed out of one's tree .... something is perceived as annoying and there is the gun.

How many more people might be killed if all drunks were armed rather than just have their fists to lash out with? The problem with most reasoning as I see it is that most people equate gun deaths with gangs or criminals, when in fact most gun related deaths happen within families.

Dingfod

01-01-2005, 09:32 PM

Actually according to the CDC 2002 Injury Mortality Report, suicides make up 56.6% of all gun deaths in the U.S. Homicide, by sober people or drunkards, account for 39.1% of them. Accidents only account for about 2.5% (762, compare that to 767 deaths in bicycle accidents). As a matter of fact, risk factor and all, you are only about twice as likely to be murdered by a gun as a pedestrian is getting killed by traffic. Is anyone telling pedestrians to stay home? No, of course not.

Interesting sidebar: Police shot and killed 300 people in 2002, or only about 1% of the total gun deaths. How many of them were what we call police-assisted suicides?

On the other side of the coin, the number of times a gun is used to deter crimes, even possibly rape or murder is for the most part unrecorded and under reported, but by some estimates is more than 1 million times per year, with the NRA saying it is more than 2 million times a year.

I don't know why I'm staying in this, I know I'm not going to sway any of you anti-gun people to my POV. Hell, I'm not even the best spokesperson for the issue because I too don't believe in completely unregulated gun ownership. I would even support requirements for training and competency requirements, licensing and even actual registration. See why I'm not an NRA member?

Dingfod

01-01-2005, 09:42 PM

Interesting information if available from the CDC (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html). About 30% of all gun homicides occur between the ages of 15 and 24.

viscousmemories

01-01-2005, 09:58 PM

Well for whatever anecdotal evidence is worth I've lived in like 10 cities across four states in my 36 years of life in America, and I have never been in a situation where I required a firearm to protect myself.Neither have I, but that doesn't mean I don't feel safer having one if it ever became necessary.
Well you'd probably feel even safer if you barricaded yourself in the house and never ventured outside, but you're apparently not doing that. (This absurd argument brought to you as counterpoint to your comparison between car and gun related deaths :D).

So the argument that Americans need guns to feel safe rings pretty hollow to me.Remind yourself that you thought that if the situation does come up.
I think instead I'll just lament the fact that I can't legally own a gun because I'm a convicted felon. :P

But, perhaps you can subdue your attacker with your sharp wit. :D
I doubt it. In my experience violent criminals don't have a very nuanced sense of humor.

Dingfod

01-01-2005, 10:06 PM

Well you'd probably feel even safer if you barricaded yourself in the house and never ventured outside,Probably. ;)
... but you're apparently not doing that.Oh, I don't know. I don't really get out much any more, too scary and I can't stand people.
(This absurd argument brought to you as counterpoint to your comparison between car and gun related deaths :D).At least I'm consistent. I still ride in automobiles even though the risk of getting killed is half again more than getting killed by a gun. But, I'm almost never a pedestrian any more even though the risk of getting killed is about half that of getting murdered by a gun.

Edit: I ride a motorcycle. How fucking risky is that? So what I've got guns. I've got a motorcycle. I'm far away more likely to get killed or injured riding that than by anything else I do.

So the argument that Americans need guns to feel safe rings pretty hollow to me.Remind yourself that you thought that if the situation does come up.
I think instead I'll just lament the fact that I can't legally own a gun because I'm a convicted felon. :P[/quote]Oops, I knew that. I feel a bit stupid now.

But, perhaps you can subdue your attacker with your sharp wit. :D
I doubt it. In my experience violent criminals don't have a very nuanced sense of humor.Really, I figured a good pun would put them on the floor.

Or, was that punt... ?

Dingfod

01-01-2005, 10:12 PM

Zoot

01-01-2005, 10:40 PM

Do people actually support gun ownership because of the Constitution? Or do they support the Constitution on the matter cos they agree with it?

Zoot

01-01-2005, 10:42 PM

I just looked it up. I'm about 9 times as likely to die riding a motorcycle than to be killed by a gun by an means, accident, cops, suicide or homicide. Let's ban them sumbitches, there's only a couple million of them registered for the road, far easier to get rid of than guns.

Motorcycles serve a purpose beyond killing. As do kitchen knives and razor blades.

Farren

01-01-2005, 11:08 PM

I just looked it up. I'm about 9 times as likely to die riding a motorcycle than to be killed by a gun by an means, accident, cops, suicide or homicide. Let's ban them sumbitches, there's only a couple million of them registered for the road, far easier to get rid of than guns.

The problem with comparing stats like that is that most people don't take their gun out on the streets twice every working day and shoot it all over the place. Its a poor comparison.

Dingfod

01-01-2005, 11:08 PM

I keep hearing that argument. But, I also keep hearing about that guns are dangerous. So are a lot of things like motorcycles, or just walking down the street. If I am put in the position where I have to kill someone to keep them from killing me or someone else, I want the proper tool for the job and the best too I can think of for that purpose is a gun.

Motorcycles are very dangerous, 3162 deaths for a little over five million motorcycles registered. I've heard numbers of licensed motorcycles is only a little over two million. So, even thought they may have a legitimate purpose other than killing, they are pretty damn efficient killing machines, about 9 times better than the 180 million guns estimated to be in the hands of the 80 some odd million American gun owners.

Guns have other purposes too, like making salads. :D

Zoot

01-01-2005, 11:14 PM

Motorcycles are very dangerous, 3162 deaths for a little over five million motorcycles registered. I've heard numbers of licensed motorcycles is only a little over two million. So, even thought they may have a legitimate purpose other than killing, they are pretty damn efficient killing machines, about 9 times better than the 180 million guns estimated to be in the hands of the 80 some odd million American gun owners.

If guns were only likely to kill their owners, I'd be inclined to agree. But as it stands, the people who die from motorcycle incidents are usually the people who chose to ride the motorcycle. That's not analogous to guns. The objection isn't that guns cause death. The objection is that guns cause other people's deaths.

Farren

01-01-2005, 11:18 PM

A proper measurement of danger is relative to usage. Anything with a risk attached that's done extremely often is riskier than something with similar or even much more risk that's done far less regularly. It doesn't mean each individual instances are riskier. If you bathed 50 times a day the risk of you slipping and breaking your neck in the bath would be fairly high. That's basic stats.

Its a non starter. People can die by choking on pretzels. If you just want to arbitrarily draw lines according to even the faintest possibility of killing yourself, the same exercise can be done in the opposite direction. i.e. Rocket propelled weaponry and tanks for everyone! After all you could die by choking on a pretzel and pretzels are legal!

Aside from that, if a lot of people die on bikes maybe someone should be looking at why. Most bike nuts I've met like to travel at speeds so fast you get tunnel vision and something is a dot on the horizon one second then a lorry in your face the next. One of the people I spent christmas eve with was casually talking about taking his plates off last christmas and hitting 270 km/hour on a potholed stretch with his 13 year old son on the back. I've always wondered: Why are so many bikes legally sold that are designed to go up to 3 times the maximum speed limit?

Dingfod

01-01-2005, 11:24 PM

Gotta run. More later.

Farren

01-01-2005, 11:32 PM

[deleted] Just realised how you worked out your stats after re-reading your post.

In any event, I'd say you made a pretty strong case for regulating motorcycles more.

Socratoad

01-01-2005, 11:48 PM

Farren your reference to people dying from choking on pretzels is perhaps wishful thinking, at least in the case that readily popped into my mind. :D

Darren

01-02-2005, 05:07 PM

[QUOTE=warrenly]
Children get run over by their own parent's cars by accident and people get hit and killed by cars when they're walking to get help for their car that is broken down on the freeway, and drunken drivers kill people by the hundreds every damn day. Much like guns, cars are just plain dangerous in normal every day use, but hardly anyone is advocating banning cars for that reason.

Cars have, as their primary function, transportation utility. Guns, particularly handguns and assault weapons, are designed to kill people and have no utility value whatsoever.
I'm not a car fan, but public transport won't get me to and from work so I have to use a car. I'm all for speed limits and other safety measures to limit the danger involved, but at least cars are not designed to kill, even if they could (and should) be better designed from a safety point of view.

As to the central thread here, I loathe guns for a great number of reasons. Some of these reasons are private, others would simply rehearse the arguments already made by Socratoad and Farren :wave: .
I've never heard a really good argument for having, say, a handgun for self-defence. That's a chimera if ever there was one. I also think that any support, however small, for the arms industry is unwarranted.
I'm totally in favour of the wholesale banning of handguns and assault weapons. The banning of these weapons in my native Scotland followed the massacre of a large number of children in a primary school in Dunblane, Stirlingshire. The killer was an adult who legally possessed firearms, was a member of a gun club and was highly trained and experienced in their use. His weapons,training and experience helped him despatch many young children in a short space of time.

Here in Brittany, where I now live, there are lots of hunters who possess shotguns etc. for the purpose of killing various small species of animals. (Whatever gets you going, I suppose!) I don't, on the other hand, know anyone here who possesses or would want to possess a handgun, let alone an assault rifle. What for?
I'm not sure what the legislation is concerning handgun ownership in France, but the laws are certainly extremely tight over use of lethal force even in self defence. In any case, I don't believe that hangun ownership is widespread in this country. Thank goodness!
The Gendarmes and most Police do carry firearms here, though.
Also, especially in the East of France, there have been cases of robbery involving explosives, rocket launchers and assault weapons (the Gendarmes and Police are not generally equipped with these so there is some support for the idea of a civil "arms race" here). There have also been a fair number of French police killed in various attacks involving firearms, rare in the U.K. where the Police are not as a rule equipped with firearms (Northern Ireland excepted on both points). This seems to offer further support to the "arms race" argument.
A fairly recent incident in France involved an off-duty officer who let fly, for reasons not too clear, a round from his pistol while at home. It traversed the wall of his flat and killed a little girl next door.
In my view, (and in my experience) guns are not worth the trouble they cause, and should be gotten rid of as soon as possible.
So, all you gun lovers out there, beat them into ploughshares for humanity's sake!

Socratoad

01-02-2005, 05:24 PM

Good post Darren :wave:

And not because you mentioned my name. :D

Darren

01-02-2005, 05:31 PM

Dingfod

01-02-2005, 06:23 PM

Guns, particularly handguns and assault weapons, are designed to kill people and have no utility value whatsoever.This is the absolute last time I'm going say anything about this.* Again, I am not the best spokesperson for the NRA, I was never specifically defending the right to own handguns or assault weapons, in the wrong hands they are indeed a dangerous thing.

Darren, within that very sentence of yours, you have stated exactly what the utility value is of handguns and assault weapons (although I was never defending them to begin with), they ARE designed to kill people, that IS their utility value. I've said it a couple of times and I'm going to say it one last time, they are a tool with a purpose and if you need a tool for that purpose, there isn't much of a tool that is better suited for that purpose.

Farren, in Utah alone there were more than 40,000 concealed weapon permit holders, probably at least half of which carry their weapon every time they are out in the public. Extrapolating that to the general population of the country, not by population because that would mean multiplying by 140, but only by the number of states that have the liberalized concealed weapons permits, multiplying by 25, that means there are about 500,000 concealed weapons permit holders carrying their weapons every day. Compare that to motorcycles, where only about 100,000 motorcyclists ride theirs every single working day that they can. Just by those facts alone, a motorcycle is a much more effective killing machine than guns.

Ammunition sales subject to the federal excise tax exceed $500 million, so even if the average cost per round were a dollar that means 500 million rounds sold in the civilian market. Someone is shooting up all that ammunition and relatively few people are being shot by it.

One more point, I don't want to appear to be racist, but here's a fact that is kind of disturbing to me, and should be even more so in the black community, 46% of all gun killings are committed by blacks, who represent about 12% of the population. Even worse, over 53% of the victims of fatal shootings are black. I'm not even going to speculate what that means should be done.

Edited to say: *That's probably not true.

Dingfod

01-02-2005, 06:29 PM

you could die by choking on a pretzel and pretzels are legal!

:D And so they should be legal! :D

I think we should start a National Pretzel Association (NPA). Our slogan could be:
"Pretzels don't kill people, people.... oh damn"Pretzels have no utility value except for choking, they are almost 100% carbohydrates, empty calories, valueless. I cannot count how many times I've jabbed a hole in the roof of my mouth with the sharp point of a broken pretzel, they should be outlawed and the grain they are made with fed to the animals I'm going to shoot and eat instead. :D

Socratoad

01-02-2005, 06:33 PM

Symptoms Warrenly, symptoms, as are all the ills of society.

Dingfod

01-02-2005, 06:34 PM

If guns were only likely to kill their owners, I'd be inclined to agree. But as it stands, the people who die from motorcycle incidents are usually the people who chose to ride the motorcycle. That's not analogous to guns. The objection isn't that guns cause death. The objection is that guns cause other people's deaths.You are completely wrong about that, firearms are used in suicides 45% more than they are for murder or accidental killings.

viscousmemories

01-02-2005, 06:35 PM

Just by those facts alone, a motorcycle is a much more effective killing machine than guns.
But that totally ignores Zoot's point that motorcycles almost always kill their riders, whereas guns almost always kill someone else.

Dammit, crosspost. Hmm... so you're saying guns are used in 45% more suicides than homicides? That seems hard to believe... linky?

Dingfod

01-02-2005, 06:35 PM

Symptoms Warrenly, symptoms, as are all the ills of society.But, my dear Socratoad, that points to something wrong with the people, not the inanimate object known as a gun.

Dingfod

01-02-2005, 06:36 PM

Just by those facts alone, a motorcycle is a much more effective killing machine than guns.
But that totally ignores Zoot's point that motorcycles almost always kill their riders, whereas guns almost always kill someone else.Crossposter. Suicides by firearm in 2002 = 17,108, Murders 11,829.

viscousmemories

01-02-2005, 06:38 PM

Crossposter. Suicides by firearm in 2002 = 17,108, Murders 11,829.
Huh, well that's interesting. :yup:

Dingfod

01-02-2005, 06:52 PM

Crossposter. Suicides by firearm in 2002 = 17,108, Murders 11,829.
Huh, well that's interesting. :yup:
Want to know a stat that is even more interesting?
Canada has a higher suicide rate than the U.S., 12.3 100K pop. vs 10.4 per 100K pop.

Socratoad

01-02-2005, 07:05 PM

viscousmemories

01-02-2005, 07:07 PM

You may have wondered why many third world nations have relatively low suicide rates in spite of living in the midst of abject poverty. Closer to the equator, more sunshine ..... so sayeth the Toad.
That's an interesting theory. I've always assumed it was because they don't have the wealth and consequent luxury to spend a lot of time pondering the futility of existence.

Clutch Munny

01-02-2005, 07:32 PM

Not a surprise to me. Generally the more northernly the clime the higher the suicide rate. It relates to lack of daylight hours ..... S.A.D.

As I mentioned earlier .....symptoms, symptoms , though in this case not related to societal ills.

I have not looked recently, but I know that for quite some time Finland had the dubious honour of having the highest suicide rate, before that it was Sweden.

You may have wondered why many third world nations have relatively low suicide rates in spite of living in the midst of abject poverty. Closer to the equator, more sunshine ..... so sayeth the Toad.

The problem with just bare statistics is that they can be used to bolster just about any point one wishes them to.

Statistics are the start of research, not the end.

I was under the impression that Sweden never had the highest rate, nor was it ever much higher than the industrial world norm. The suicide canard has mostly been useful as a rightist dismissal of socialist forms of government. Finland's suicide rate is quite high, but not the highest in the world; and in many, many cases countries with less extreme variations in daylight hours have higher rates than those with more extreme variations. There is no good reason to accept the SAD theory.

The Edinburgh University Library Scandinavian Database seems to agree. (http://www.lib.ed.ac.uk/resbysub/scand_dbs.shtml#suicide)

Looking at the high positions of Russia and many former Soviet republics -- some of them far to the south of Scandinavia! -- suggests that rampant alcoholism is at least as likely an explanation, if indeed there is a polar bias towards high rates. Another massive confound would be the congregation of Catholic populations closer to the Equator, for whom suicide is a mortal sin.

Dingfod

01-02-2005, 07:53 PM

Suicide rates:
http://cebmh.warne.ox.ac.uk/cebmh/elmh/nelmh/suicide/images/international.gif

ApostateAbe

01-02-2005, 08:04 PM

Guns are scary. When someone shoots up a school, it is all over the news. They are in violent films and video games. A tragic scene usually involves a gun. A gun is designed for the destruction of living organisms.

I study Karate. The primary purpose of Karate is to beat the shit out of a human being. They say it is also about physical fitness, self-confidence, self-defense, discipline, yadda, yadda, yadda, but, really, it is all about inflicting damage on the body of another. Without that, Karate is nothing. I never intentionally inflicted harm upon another person using Karate. Yet I consider my knowledge of Karate to be vital for my own safety.

Freedom of gun ownership is a necessity to ensure lasting freedom in a society.

Those who do not have guns are weaker than those who do not. We have always lived in times of political stability and a relatively fair system of justice. These times will not last. When the government fails as a constitutionally-governed democratic republic, one rule will stay the same: those who have guns will make the rules and ask you to obey them. The only real question is the time it happens.

Whoever has the greatest martial might may soon abuse those who are defenseless. The original thirteen colonies of the United States knew it. They were hunters, and they found out about the importance of gun ownership when they won the war for independence. That is why they wrote and ratified the Second Amendment. Those on the island of Osaka found out when the Japanese shogun conquered them and took away their swords, so they secretly practiced an empty-handed fighting system and they adapted weapons from farm tools. The native Americans found out when they became conquered strictly because the settlers had lots of guns and knew how to use them. The Jews in Nazi Germany didn't know it, which is why Hitler's gun ban wasn't even necessary. The Jews never had guns in the first place.

In today's society, your first line of defense is the law. When the law no longer helps you, your second line of defense is raw physical power. You are willing to give up what could be your only defense for just what you think is a little higher chance of safety. You really think that is a good way to keep your kids safe?

Socratoad

01-02-2005, 08:05 PM

I can remember quite well when Sweden did indeed have an unusually high suicide rate, and speaking as about as rabid a left-winger as you are ever likely to stumble across, it had nothing to do with some sort of right-wing canard. As to the former Soviet Union, well for obvious reason such statistics were not kept.

Alcohol abuse, well yes, but what came first the chicken or the egg.

More Catholics closer to the equator? that can account for a minor percentage of statistical difference but hardly significant I think.

Example: Abortion is also considered a mortal sin, and yet Italy has one one the highest abortion rates on the globe.

Actually I was thinking mainly of central African areas/nations and many southern Asia ones were I have had considerable experience as an aid worker in years past. Catholicism plays very little part in those parts of the planet.

Are you suggesting that S.A.D. is just a rather weak theory? Try living in the north were the sun barely peeks above the horizon for months on end ..... You just might wish to consider slashing your wrists .... frequently. My apologies if you have spent time at either end of the globe.

I DO have to guard against such depression. I deal with it by having turned my home into a tropical setting: plants everywhere, lots of lights, all the spectrum. Small self containing systems on table tops with frogs and toads singing, birds singing and so on.

Farren

01-02-2005, 08:17 PM

Statistical comparisons of countries with and without good gun control always getted bogged down because deliberate violence and violent accidents have complex causes. A country in a state of revolution, bereft of serious firepower, will still have a lot of fatalities.

That's why I've steered clear of statistical arguments. Ultimately they establish little by way of pro or con arguments.

Nonetheless simple logic dictates that the widespread availability of lethal weapons facilitates more violence and more effective violence. As I've already illustrated with examples like a car hijacking and a bank robbery, there are many serious crimes where violence or the threat thereof is employed that are vastly more difficult if a knife rather than a gun is the only weapon available to the criminal.

Therefore simple logic dictates that, were all the other confounding variables (income, education, values, sunlight etc) the same for two countries, the country with widespread firearm ownership would suffer more from the more serious kinds of crime.

Country stat comparisons are all but useless unless you're willing to engage in some serious-minded labour to tease an untainted proof out of the stats, demonstrating clearly (and justifying) how you've weighted for confounding variables. Considerably more effort, I'd like to say, than I've seen here or elsewhere.

A case constructed of a logical causal chain, on the other hand, is (at least in the sciences) considered a stronger argument for or against something, in large part because of the problem of confounding variables.

Logic, IMHO, favours the anti-gun argument, unless extreme situations are considered. No wonder then that pro-gun enthusiasts often cite the extreme, as did Abe in his posting about Jews in Nazi Germany and other oppressed people. In fact I'm surprised he posted the tired "guard against tyranny" argument, given that it's been shown to be absurd in countless Internet discussions I've taken part in.

Such thinking comes with it's own massive problems. An armed Jewish population would not have prevented the Holocaust in Germany, unless they were considerably better equipped than the French army, at least. Unlike Northern Ireland or Palestine, the Nazi's obviously had no problem with outright extermination of the locals. In such a situation, a modern, well-trained army beats a citizens militia hands-down.

Curiously, Abe himself illustrates this by holding up the example of Native Americans being inadequately armed. Were they all equipped with pistols and rifles, they'd still be ineffective against a modern army. The difference in effectiveness between settler and native weapons is probably less than the difference between what a modern citizens militia can muster and a standing arming, absent allowing tanks in the backyard and helicopter gunships on the roof of every home.

Even if one were to consider Northern Ireland and Palestine's problems, it becomes immediately apparent that the most effective weapon of the motivated revolutionary isn't a gun but a bomb, designed to kill or maim as many within it's range as possible. Should we, then, endorse the right of citizens to own bombs as a guard against tyranny? Obviously this has it's own problems, since effective bombs are arguably far more risky objects to have in the home then firearms. For one thing, they're far less discriminate in accidents and if employed in suicide may risk taking out more than the self-euthenasing individual.

The "last defense against tyranny" argument is laughable on its face and logic dictates that, by facilitating or making massively easier violent crimes that would otherwise be impossible or impractical, firearms contribute to a less peaceful and happy society.

Dingfod

01-02-2005, 08:18 PM

A Swedish study: (http://www.biopsychiatry.com/suiciderate.html)
OBJECTIVE: The author hypothesized, based on research until 1991, that a five-fold increase in the use of antidepressants might reduce Swedish suicide rates by 25%. A subsequent 3.5-fold increase in the use of antidepressants provided a 'natural experimental situation' for prospectively testing this hypothesis. METHOD: Swedish statistics on suicide, use of antidepressants, unemployment and alcohol consumption were obtained for 1978-96. Time-series of the latter variables were compared with suicide rates. Demographic subgroups regarding age, gender and county were analysed. Suicide rates were also compared with the use of antidepressants in Denmark, Norway and Finland. RESULTS: Suicide rates decreased in accordance with the a priori hypothesis. Alcohol consumption and unemployment rates did not correlate well with suicide rates. CONCLUSION: This naturalistic study is not conclusive. The increased use of antidepressants appears, however, to be one of the contributing factors to the decrease in the suicide rate. It is of great scientific and clinical importance that this be evaluated by further studies.

Socratoad

01-02-2005, 08:21 PM

Suicide rates:
http://cebmh.warne.ox.ac.uk/cebmh/elmh/nelmh/suicide/images/international.gif

Thanks warrenly, quite revealing, but only as far as they go. Those statistics are quite revealing in what they don't say, for example were are the many nations much closer to the equator than those listed. Granted it could be that statistics for the nations I'm thinking about perhaps either do not exist or would be of such poor quality as to be meaningless. Still I would like to see them.

Personally I have been quite shocked in places I have been helping with aid organizations that no matter how grim, by our standards people, just did not seem to even consider suicide, whereas you and me and most "westerners" I know would more than likely have "offed" ourselves long ago. It was not just suicide but a general acceptance with pretty good cheer that I could not help but notice. Yes there are many reasons for their attitude toward life besides lots of sunshine, but Catholicism or even stoicism are not among them.

I can hardly wait for the fucking nit pickers among us to say,"but all that is merely anecdotal.. Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

Dingfod

01-02-2005, 08:27 PM

You know, this is the furthest I've ever argued or researched the issue. I'm not going to say my mind has been changed in the least and I probably have done nothing toward changing anyone else's mind, except maybe about the danger of motorcycling. But, I am done with this subject, I've exhausted myself and have a splitting headache. Hmmm, I wonder if a gun could cure that?

viscousmemories

01-02-2005, 08:27 PM

I can hardly wait for the fucking nit pickers among us to say,"but all that is merely anecdotal.. Don't kinock it if you have'nt tried it.
I considered saying that, but I know better than to try to argue about social science with someone who considers requests for evidence more substantial than personal testimony fucking nitpicking. :P

Socratoad

01-02-2005, 08:45 PM

I can hardly wait for the fucking nit pickers among us to say,"but all that is merely anecdotal.. Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.
I considered saying that, but I know better than to try to argue about social science with someone who considers requests for evidence more substantial than personal testimony fucking nitpicking. :P

Both vm, both, is the point I am unsuckseccessfully trying to make :D

One can, and usually does get a pretty/petty weird sense of the planet on which we dwell by suiting in ivory towers collating figures and statistics without experiencing life themselves.

An example I used in lectures years ago was that concerning Rene Descartes, considered one of the greatest philosophers, but not by me. Instead of lying on his back all day in his Paris apartment having "deep" thoughts, his philosophy might have been a little more well-rounded if he had packed a picnic lunch, a good bottle of wine and wandered down by the Seine and watched the ducks swim by as he pondered.

Am I the only one getting the point I've tried to make here? :chin:

livius drusus

01-02-2005, 08:52 PM

Relying on personal experience can give you just as weird a sense of the planet on which we dwell. If one is interested in exploring the reason for national suicide rates, then it seems to me that looking at said suicide rates rather than relying on one's own experience of a tiny minority of people in a fraction of countries is hardly nitpicking, but rather exploring beyond our little ptolemaic worlds.

Dingfod

01-02-2005, 08:56 PM

Don't kinock it if you have'nt tried it.Try what? Until the assault rifle and large capacity magazine ban lapsed the US had the most restrictive gun ownership laws it has ever had. I'm inclined to think there is something more than just gun ownership at play here, something deep within the American psyche, something wrong, dreadfully violently wrong. Fuck it, lets all get naked and have sex in public. When that becomes acceptable, I'll turn my guns into interesting lamps and I'll eat my hunting cap.
http://nths.newtrier.k12.il.us/academics/english/catcher/Images/hat3.gif

Socratoad

01-02-2005, 09:33 PM

Socratoad

01-02-2005, 09:44 PM

Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.Try what? Until the assault rifle and large capacity magazine ban lapsed the US had the most restrictive gun ownership laws it has ever had. I'm inclined to think there is something more than just gun ownership at play here, something deep within the American psyche, something wrong, dreadfully violently wrong. Fuck it, lets all get naked and have sex in public. When that becomes acceptable, I'll turn my guns into interesting lamps and I'll eat my hunting cap.
http://nths.newtrier.k12.il.us/academics/english/catcher/Images/hat3.gif

Sorry warren, that post was in reply to one cluth munny posted.

Is it my fault that I'm such a damn slow typist that by the time I post the conversation has moved on. Well, yes it is but thats another tale of woe.

Really though, my contribution to this thread has expired several posts ago.

Its a cold windy day here, a blinding blizzard is raging, I have to go out and get groceries and so I have been trying to cheer myself up by intentionally being controversial in an futile effort to lighten the thread just a tad, but to no avail. :( Bah humbug

viscousmemories

01-02-2005, 09:59 PM

...I have been trying to cheer myself up by intentionally being controversial in an futile effort to lighten the thread just a tad...
You tried to lighten things up by being controversial? I do not think that word means what you think it means. :D

Socratoad

01-02-2005, 10:06 PM

viscousmemories

01-02-2005, 10:13 PM

Sorry, I'm not doing very well. I meant to say ironically controversial.
Ah, okay. That makes sense to me. :)

So a blizzard, huh? We don't get many of them down here in Texas. When we do, though, we just shoot 'em. :D

lady cop

01-02-2005, 11:21 PM

Clutch Munny

01-03-2005, 02:15 AM

Socratoad, my post (and the actual evidence linked therefrom) made the following points:

1. Sweden, to all evidence I could uncover, has never topped the suicide rate list. The canard that it does seems to trace back to a speech by Eisenhower. Your claim that Sweden used to be number one, or even right near the top, seems to be false.

2. Finland, to all evidence I could uncover, does not currently top the list. Your claim that it does, therefore, seems to be false.

3. The data on suicide rates charts no neat connection between latitude and suicide rate; whatever non-neat correlations there may be are massively confounded by factors literally too numerous to list.

4. Hence there is no good reason to point to SAD as the, or even a, major factor in regional suicide rates.

Now, in light of your remarks:

* I have been no more "nitpicky" than you. You didn't make unspecific or vague claims; you made specific claims about specific countries and specific causes of suicide. My responses simply engaged your claims at the level of precision you chose. To complain about nitpicking looks like sour grapes.

* One's politics have little to do with whether one comes to hold a false belief that is widely circulated in part for political reasons. One may be an atheist yet believe that Israelite slaves built the pyramids, on account of the popular dissemination of the notion.

* Of course I made no claim about the existence of SAD; hence your rather aggressive claims about its reality are irrelevant. Notice, by the way, that latitude does not even neatly correlate with amount of sunlight. To give just one example (and to invoke your conditional apology): I spent most of my youth in northern Saskatchewan, where the days grow very short indeed through the winter, but where the daylight hours were typically brilliantly sunny -- though damned cold. Later I lived well to the south, in Vancouver, where there is much less variation in daylight hours, but substantially less sunshine during the day in winter, owing to eight months of disgusting fucking clouds. (I experienced some depression during winter months in Vancouver.) Yet another confound for the latitude-->SAD-->suicide theory.

Finally, you should learn something about Descartes before using him as an example. He was a practical and experimental scientist of the first order, and got his hands plenty dirty. His first two laws of motion, taken together, later became Newton's first law (modulo some details), and he introduced the idea that collisions between bodies should be characterized in terms of principles of conservation. He experimentally studied human physiology, astronomy, optics, and kinetic physics, besides doing more reflective study like philosophy and of course his astonishing work in mathematizing geometry. He was wrong a lot, to be sure, but what he wasn't was an armchair-dwelling shut-in.

Socratoad

01-03-2005, 03:19 PM

Clutch munny, I wish to make a public apology to you here on the board, as you probably know by now I sent you a PM apologizing for my unseemly behavior.

There were extenuating circumstances for my behavior, however I do not wish to use them as a crutch for such antagonistic behavior. There was much truth in what I posted yesterday, but I deliberately twisted facts in order to throw you and perhaps others for a loop. That conversation could have actually become very enlightening had I but queried your remarks with a modicum of respect. It is highly unlikely that we two will ever become bosom buddies, but this apology is without reservation.

Clutch Munny

01-03-2005, 03:43 PM

Clutch munny, I wish to make a public apology to you here on the board, as you probably know by now I sent you a PM apologizing for my unseemly behavior.

Not a big deal! No serious apology is necessary.

There was much truth in what I posted yesterday, but I deliberately twisted facts in order to throw you and perhaps others for a loop.

Well... not to harp on it, but actually there wasn't much truth in it. That was my point. I don't think that such observations have to be made or taken very personally (though why I think this, when they so often are, is a good question).

It is highly unlikely that we two will ever become bosom buddies, but this apology is without reservation.

Again, no apology is necessary. And I'm already good buddies with one bosom, which, could it but testify, would surely extol my attentiveness. I'm always looking to add friends, though. :yup:

Socratoad

01-03-2005, 03:49 PM

Dingfod

01-03-2005, 04:25 PM

Now, isn't this thread a warm and fuzzy place? Awwww.

Socratoad

01-03-2005, 04:36 PM

Glad you noticed warren, but seriously I don't enjoy playing the role of a creep. It makes it so damned difficult to look in the mirror :yup:

Dingfod

01-03-2005, 04:55 PM

I have to creep up to the mirror to even see myself, a sudden look can scare the hell out of me.

viscousmemories

01-03-2005, 04:57 PM

These discussions always get too convoluted for my taste. For example why do threads on the subject of gun control so often turn into an argument about gun abolition?

Is there really anyone seeking to abolish all private gun ownership? It seems to me most people are fine with people having rifles and shotguns for target practice and hunting. So isn't the real argument is about whether there should be restrictions on handguns and "assault rifles"? (And I know "assault rifle" is a somewhat ambiguous term, so for my purposes consider a 30/30 a hunting rifle, and an M16-A2 an assault rifle). Is there anyone who thinks handguns and assault rifles should not be regulated?

Darren

01-03-2005, 05:49 PM

Darren

01-03-2005, 06:07 PM

The Jews in Nazi Germany didn't know it, which is why Hitler's gun ban wasn't even necessary. The Jews never had guns in the first place.

Guns didn't help the Warsaw Ghetto uprising much. Many countries were first defeated by the German military before the Jewish sectors of the population were identified and deported. It wasn't the absence of guns but the Jewish communities' vulnerability as a minority which was fatal for them under Nazi rule.

Dingfod

01-03-2005, 06:41 PM

Is there really anyone seeking to abolish all private gun ownership?It seems to me that Farren and others were making that argument.
(And I know "assault rifle" is a somewhat ambiguous term, so for my purposes consider a 30/30 a hunting rifle, and an M16-A2 an assault rifle).Yes it is ambiguous. I have a Remington Model 7400 .30-06 semi-automatic rifle that can fire all five rounds as fast as I can pull the trigger five times. Because it has a removeable magazine clip, it is possible to fit it with a 10 round magazine clip (http://www.floridagunworks.com/p-1037.html) instead. I could even tape together several of them so I could switch rapidly. Does that make my rifle an assault rifle? Not by any legal definition, it doesn't have a pistol grip or a magazine that contains more than 10 rounds. It has more than twice the bullet energy at any range than the 5.56mm M16-A2 (which, being selectable to 3-shot burst fully automatic, makes it a real assault rifle), making each round fired from my rifle far more accurate and deadly than the puny Colt rifle. It makes me wonder, why the distinction?
Is there anyone who thinks handguns and assault rifles should not be regulated?I think I've been more or less making that argument, however, I don't think they should be totally unregulated because I firmly believe there should be a training and proficiency requirement to gun ownership and also I'm not against registration or background checks. These viewpoints are why I've failed to join the NRA. What I am not arguing for is the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution allowing the average person to posess machine guns, mortars, grenades, anti-tank weapons, bombs, and other weapons of mass mayhem being necessary to prevent a tyranical government. Even though that was most likely the intent of the founding fathers, it is a bit of an outdated concept these days.