Gun Control- Just of interest

[Dark Knight]

"Between April and November 2001, the BBC reports, 'the number of murders in the [London] Metropolitan Police area committed with a firearm soared by almost 90% over the same period a year earlier'--notwithstanding Britain's 1996 ban on handguns. Observes the BBC: 'Although all privately-owned handguns in Britain are now officially illegal, the tightened rules seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld.'"

- OpinionJournal.com, 1/7/02

Gun control does not work.

[fa_jing]

Sorry if I offend anyone with my relentless viewpoints, you are all free to disagree as long as you do so politely. That said, it appears that gun control in the UK is in fact having the desired effect: Guns are taken out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, making them all the more dependant upon, and subject to, the government and law-enforcement agents. Call me paranoid.

-FJ

[Dark Knight]

"Guns are taken out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, making them all the more dependant upon, and subject to, the government and law-enforcement agents. "

And the problem is that law enforcement is not there when you are attacked.

[Radhnoti]

What a surprise! Are you telling me that CRIMINALS are disregarding the LAW? The laws being pushed down the "common" man's throat would make a lot more sense if the lawmakers were forced to live within the same restrictions. For example, take away the guns used by the bodyguards/security protecting these "elite" individuals.
Um...I agree. :)

[joedoe]

Gun control works OK here.

[Budokan]

There's nothing wrong with responsible and safety-conscious people owning guns.

Unfortunately, there aren't too many of those who fit that definition out there.

[Dark Knight]

Between 1980-1995, Australia's firearm-related death rate was cut nearly in half and its firearm-related homicide rate nearly by two-thirds. (The former decreased 46%, from 4.8 deaths per 100,000 population to 2.6; the latter decreased 63%, from eight per 100,000 to three). In 1995, the annual number of firearm-related deaths fell to its lowest point in the 16-year period.

Despite this real progress over a decade and a half, the demented acts of a lone gunman in Port Arthur, Tasmania, on a Sunday in April 1996 were used to launch a massive campaign against law-abiding Australian gun owners. Rather than acknowledging one man's insanity, opportunistic gun control activists and scared politicians rushed to blame "loose gun laws." It didn't matter that those laws required any Tasmanian who wanted to own a firearm or even an air rifle to pass a gun handling course and carry a photo-bearing gun license that had to be produced prior to the purchase of any firearm or ammunition. The end result for all Australians was a government turn-in scheme and the follow-on destruction of more than 640,000 hunting rifles and shotguns.

Ban supporters, including gun prohibitionists in the U.S., are actively promoting the legislation's alleged crime-fighting benefits. Crime statistics, however, contradict them. For example, from 1997-1998, assaults and armed robberies increased in all Australian states. Armed robberies increased from 42% of all robberies in 1997 to 46% in 1998. The number of total violent crimes and the numbers of all individual categories of violent crime, with the exception of murder, increased. In addition, unlawful entries rose 3.3% from 421,569 in 1997 to 435,670 in 1998.

[Dark Knight]

In a March 22, 2000, letter, Australia's Attorney General Daryl Williams raised objections to an NRA video (www.nralive.com/gunban/gunban.cfm) which asserts that after the Australian government's confiscation of hunting rifles and shotguns, armed robberies rose, assaults with guns rose, murders with guns rose and home invasions rose. Williams said NRA was using "misleading" statistics to make its case against gun control. He also claimed "the national firearms agreement has succeeded in removing more than 640,000 dangerous weapons from circulation in the community." Would he call it "misleading" to say instead that "the national ban has led to the destruction of 640,000 commonplace semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns?"

If the Attorney General has a real problem with NRA's video, his problem is much closer to home than NRA headquarters. The video shows real people protesting their loss of liberty and loss of the right to self-defense. Those people are Australians. And the statistics presented in the NRA video were reported in real newspapers--Australian newspapers. Here are several examples:

"The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws.
--Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997.

"Gun crime is on the rise despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre, but gun control lobbyists maintain Australia is a safer place. . . . The number of robberies involving guns jumped 39% last year to 2183, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and assaults involving guns rose 28% to 806. The number of gun murders, excluding the Port Arthur massacre, increased by 19% to 75."
--"Gun Crime Rises Despite Controls," Illawarra Mercury Oct. 28, 1998.

"Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%."
--"Gun crime soars," Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998.

"Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme, which removed 225,000 registered and unregistered firearms from circulation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996 before the scheme started."
--"Killings rise in gun hunt," Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 23, 1998.

"Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls in a decade and its lowest arrest rate ever."
--Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 11, 1999.

"The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago."
--South Australia Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, reported in The Advertiser, Adelaide, Dec. 23, 1999.
Attorney General Williams should look closer to home if he truly objects to "misleading" the public policy debate. In fact, he should look directly at the anti-gun group Gun Control Australia (GCA). When the Sporting Shooters Ass'n of Australia (SSAA) recently ran a TV campaign that promoted the shooting sports as activities for the whole family, GCA spokesman Randy Marshall said: "People should not be fooled by pretty images of family life enjoying shooting--shooting is about practising to kill--that's why guns are manufactured. Every person who joins SSAA helps destroy the gun laws which protect Australians."

[Aramus]

A friend of mine was in the special forces, while in Texas he came upon a "funny" incident.

In Texas you can bear firearms...keep this in mind.

An armed robber possessing a shotgun thought it would be to rob a Texas bar in the middle of the day. Walking in with his duster he opened it wide and started to demand money. 80 shots later from the patrons of the bar, the man landed a little bit of a distance away. The police said that most of the bullets did indead hit the would be robber. He didn't even get a chance to fire off a shot and someone in the bar took the time to reload and keep firing.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the bar has not been robbed...anytime.

[fmann]

Current gun control implementation is too ogreous, unwieldly, and just plain inefficient. While I'm for gun regulation, there has to be a better and simpler way to do it.

Gun control does not equate with crime control.

I'm not for the ban of guns outright, but rather moderate regulation and oversight. I mean, who really needs an AK-47 or M4A1 with 40mm 'nade launcher?

[Dark Knight]

"I mean, who really needs an AK-47 or M4A1 with 40mm 'nade launcher?"

Why not? Why do you need a motorcycle that goes 185mph, the speed limit is 65.

Its not about what you need, how much crap is around your house that you dont need? Its about free rights to own what you want.

AK 47's are produced in this country at about the same price as the imported ones. But they are not the choice of gangs.

[JerryLove]

Its not about what you need, how much crap is around your house that you dont need? Its about free rights to own what you want. So if that guy down the street rambling about how McVeigh was a wimp, was buliding himself a fission bomb, he should be allowed to because it's "what he want's to own"?

The should sell rufies at the club your daughter likes to go dancing at it, in case the young men there "want to own" them?

[fmann]

On a side note:

Criminals prefer cheap handguns (usually .380 or 9mm junk guns like Lorcin, Bryco, Jennings, etc.) and submachineguns because of concealability and disposability. Most persons with carry permits also carry handguns, though usually higher quality ones. Allowing for the carry of handguns puts people on par with the criminals.

And while I am one to err on the side of freedoms, it's all about "freedom" and not anarchy.

[Radhnoti]

Getting back to Dark Knight's point for just a bit. I'm friends with a few folks in the sheriff's dept. for my area, they think anyone not owning a gun for home protection is pretty foolish. We have MAYBE 4 vehicles patrolling our county at a time...this includes the occasional state trooper. Most the time these guys stay in a central location (the only "town" in the county), and there are places that take about 40+/- minutes to reach at the edges of the county.
Do most gun control advocates live in major population centers, closer to those they feel will protect them?

Jerry Love, do you think those guys buying the rifles would use them if they KNEW there was a good chance someone would fire back at them? And if they DID snap and buy the guns...do you think (if many in the club were carrying) they'd do it more than once? If you check the statistics, violent crime decreased in the states that adopted concealed carry laws. That seems to indicate (to me) that criminals were thinking twice. "That old guy looks like an easy target...he's BOUND to be carrying." ;)
Everyone seems to think that criminals don't think at all...they just DO it. Why? I think that when they ask them why they did it in prison, that's what they tell them. What SHOULD they tell them? "Yeah, I realized the old couple wasn't armed...snuck up on them, killed them and got caught. I've been considering doing this for a few weeks now, I'm pretty surprised I got caught and convicted. I'll probably be out in less than five years since the system is clogged with people just like me." NO. They say, "I don't know why I did that. I just didn't think. I'm SO sorry." :rolleyes:
Just my opinion, worth about as much as you paid for it. :)

[jaz1069]

3 rounds in the same hole.

Nuff said.

[JOHNNY]

Guns do not kill people, People do. I believe that handguns should not be given to felons or convicted criminals. But civilians should be able to protect themselves if the deem necessary. Just my .02
johnny:D

[myosimka]

Thanks for the overdone witticism that's no longer witty, Johnny. No they don't kill people. They just make it incredibly easy. Nuclear weapons don't kill people either, what's your point? Oh right, the sound byte argument tactic. I bow before it.




Radhnoti and Dark Knight,

The only way that one can make assumptions about causation(well, accurate ones) is the existence of control groups. That means multiple systems alike in all cases except the tested causation. Ie. municipalities that are exactly alike in all aspects except for gun-control or concealed carry laws and tracking the crime rates across them. (In economics, we start every sentence with the phrase,"all else being equal") Plus you need enough comparisons to overcome statistical irregularities.

Example: I have heard the concealed carry laws reducing crime rates argument before. Problem is the violent crime rates in the US are noticably lower than they were years ago(according to FBI stats) This in a time of more restrictive gun control nationally-Brady bill, background checks, waiting period, etc. So if the crime rate is falling everywhere and it falls in an area where there are concealed carry laws does it mean concealed carry works? Nope. Not implying it doesn't just saying that statistics don't automatically reveal causation.

Another example: people have quoted the failure of certain areas to lower crime rates through gun control. DC is given as a prime example. It's true gun control doesn't work in DC. Not because gun control doesn't work but because it's impossible to enforce it in the US. As long as DC borders the state which sat at the top of the ATF's gun-running list for years, gun control can't work. There are no checkpoints, no interior borders, no patrols in the US. And no, I don't want them. But you can't really pinpoint failures of local gunc ontrol in this country because it doesn't exist. We have local gun control LAWS but not actual control.

I have seen stats that support both sides of this argument. Hell, compare the ****cide rates in western Europe to the US. That's just scary. Would gun control ever work in the US? Probably not. Don't know. The genie has been out of the bottle for an awful long time. Do concealed carry laws reduce crime? Don't know. But if you really want to reduce crime, why not carry openly instead of concealed?


Also Darkknight, we clearly restrict the weapons people can own for the public safety and most people agree it's necessary. They just differ as to how far. And please remember that some rights stop where others begin. You find a way to keep the bullets on your land and you'll get no more complaints from me.


Radhnoti, why is you argument about what criminals think anymore valid? Sounds like baseless speculation to me. We can all come up with unsubstantiated theories. No, I don't know what criminals are thinking at the moment . But again I think open carry laws would be the way to go.


Since someone is sure to lay into me:


I have personal feelings on guns based on the idiots I have seen handle them. Plus according to the statistics people seem to love so much, my children are more likely to be accidentally shot by a law-abiding moron than by someone with criminal intent. So I am in favor of more restrictive ownership laws. Don't want them outlawed, just want them subject to some sort of safety regulation. There was a waiting period on my learner's permit before I got a driver's license and it has to be periodically renewed; I get my car inspected annually; every elevator I get on has been inspected; fire marshals come into businesses; building inspectors approve plans; health inspectors check restaurants. Why can't we have people go through mandatory, periodic safety training? Why can't we have a periodic inspection to insure that people store their guns safely. As your neighbor, I feel no need to prohibit you from owning an AK(just seems silly to me) but I would like to know that your 5yo can't get to it. That's all.

And before we go quoting the US constitution let me remind you that limitations exist on everything. Newspapers have been enjoinged from revealing details of military operations. Freedom of speech has been limited for a multitude of reasons. A constitutional right doesn't mean that no limitations exist on that right. Again, I have no desire to outlaw gun-ownership. Just to require certain common-sense safety regulation.

[Radhnoti]

Myosimka, I suspect that the stats you're using to say your kids are more likely to be shot than a criminal is the same one widely protested by gun advocates. It counts anyone younger than 18 who gets shot as a child, including gang-members. I agree that statistics often reflect whatever "reality" the group touting them wants them to reflect.
Also, I agree my "argument" was speculative, but I was referring to other speculation, typically given by liberal pundits. I think we both agree that either point of view could be true, or not.
To my mind, the pro-gun arguement is one of common sense with an eye toward the lessons of history. It's good that a criminal doesn't know whether the person he's about to accost is carrying a gun. It puts a bit of uncertainty into his "job", makes his life a bit more stressful and ultimately might convince him to choose another career path.
I would point out (in reference to your response to DK) that the restrictions you say everyone agrees to be necessary don't...or shouldn't apply to law abiding citizens with no history of mental illness. Gun control groups seem to be SO certain that everyone, usually with the exception of themselves, is incompetent and child-like, and require "adult" (in other words, THEIR) supervision. It's extremely arrogant to assume that you care more for your neighbor's five year old than they do...or to assume that they're too stupid to "Keep that AK out of the five year old's hands."
To be completely honest with you, I (personally) would have no problem with limited restrictions...even registration of every gun, if the gun control organizations (and history's lessons) hadn't made it clear that this was just the first step in a crusade to ban gun ownership. Also, this is where the "eye toward the lessons of history" comes into the typical gun advocate's position. You simply can't subjugate a well armed populace. My understanding is that Hitler HAD to ban guns to solidify his control. I've heard first hand accounts of the way Fidel Castro took the guns from those who had followed and trusted him. Gun registration is the first step in a gun ban. Requiring steps to allow gun ownership would imply that the government has the right to restrict that which should be and IS a right in our country.

[fmann]

There are only 3 types of lies: lies, d amned lies, and statistics.

If I can't get a gun, I'll hurt someone with a fork.

Just like you say that concealed carry may or may not reduce crime, gun control may or may not reduce crime.

So again, if the end result is so uncertain, why err on the side of restricting freedom?

I am for gun regulation, but one that is less "reactive," tabloid, and aimed at appealing to the masses instead of actually being proactive and addressing the problem.

And just like people should be tested for driving, people should be tested for minimum competency for gun ownership. And just like 80 years shouldn't be allowed to operate an automobile (even though they do in Florida), there has to be a cut-off for competency.

[myosimka]

1) accidental gun deaths of children in this country seriously outnumber hom0cide findings. It's still a number that is nearly statistically insignificant though.
2)uncertainty factor- I speed. I know that there might be cops around. I still speed. I slow down when I see one. Actual presence is a better deterrent than potential. Yes this anecdotal and only my mindset. Still think concealed carry is not the way to go. If you want to reduce crime, have open carry laws.
3)The restrictions that I was discussing should apply to everyone. I was talking about the class of weapons. I don't feel private citizens should hold nuclear weapons or biological agents. Nearly everyone agrees that some weapons should be restricted.
4) I don't think I care more for the lives of children. I think that I am exercising more foresight on the point. I didn't care about children any more after the day I saw a loaded shotgun lying on the floor of a closet during a real estate inspection. I simply wasn't aware that the gun was there. I don't think that the owner of the gun who had 2 daughters underage 10 doesn't love his daughters. Just that he was careless. And I didn't want to take the gun away. I wanted him to unload it and put in a safe place. And require he and his daughters to take gun safety classes.
I will never have a gun in my house. I will take children to gun ranges and teach them to shoot. I think they should know how. That way they'll understand guns better and be less likely to get hurt by one. I don't want guns outlawed because I love children more than my neighbor; I just want decent safety measures because I love children and I disagree about the threat levels.
5) I don't care whose supervison it is but there should be something. The Energy department monitors nuclear energy and requires safety training to work in the industry. The AMA has mandated certain training programs for biohazard waste. The state governments require tests for driving licenses. You don't think mandatory safety training for gunowners is reasonable?
6)Ah the lessons of history...How did Hitler get the guns? That's right, took them through the threat of superior force. If the gov't decides to take your guns, do you honestly think you can stop them? If they decide to seize your home can you stop them? You can subjugate a well-armed populace with a better armed military which ours is. What shields us is that the government is made up of people unwilling to execute those orders. That we train our soldiers that they have a responsibility to disobey an illegal order. Guns don't protect you from the government. They never have. Name one situation where someone successfully defended themselves from the tyrannical US government through armed resistance. What protects us is a pluralistic, democratic government.
7)Registration is not the first step in banning things. Cars are legal, drug labs are not. Which are registered? Are the notions of regulation and restriction correlated? Yes. Is it a logical progression. Not necessarily.
Yes, some gun control advocates would like guns outlawed. But then again some gun advocates feel that minors should be allowed to bring guns into schools. Please try not to judge all by the extremists.
Lastly the slippery slope argument. Yes, following a principle to it's absolute extreme is a danger. Yes, once something is put in motion, it can be hard to stop. Yes, people try to present their argument in palatable fashions so that their audience is slowly acclimated and will accept and even support greater and greater concessions. All these things are true. Yes, moderation and compromise are difficult roads to follow. But I live in a country where there are more licensed gun dealers than gas stations. I live in a country where there are as more guns than people. I live in a state where people complain that private citizens can't buy more than one gun per month because it interferes with Christmas. I live in a country where gun-lobbiests seek to lift laws restricting guns on school property. Where the handgun death rate/per capita is nearly 600 times that of Japan(where citizens have the right to bear arms) 45 times that of Germany, 300 times that of Great Britain... Yes, slippery slopes can be dangerous. And we've already slid down one.







And if you want to argue statistics, here's my favorite: In 1996 alone, handguns killed:

2 People in New Zealand

13 in Australia

15 in Japan

30 in Great Britain

106 in Canada

213 in Germany

and 9,390 in the United States.

[myosimka]

1) I don't think it's that uncertain. I think sensible gun control works as evidenced in western Europe. I am uncertain as to whether it's possible in this country. Guns nearly outnumber people here. How do we regulate it now. Plus the NRA is bloody vocal and wellfunded. I don't think guncontrol can happen in this country. not trying to argue with you just wanted to clear up uncertainty issues.

2)please remember that my freedoms are restricted by the widespread guns in our society. My wife was afraid to leave the house because she saw a hunter take a shot across our property about 2 months ago. So I see your point but I feel that either way you are restricting someone's liberties here.

3)I agree. Reactive responses are bad. I think people should actually sit down and talk out reasonable responses. In my experience though, people respond with registration is the "first step in a crusade to ban gun ownership" and if people won't agree to any level of compromise where do you go from there?

4)Totally agree about the competency thing. I disagree with the age limit though. If an 80yo can drive and handle a gun safely-great. Same for 90 or 100. My 81yo grandmother is a great driver. My 84yo grandfather should have his license pulled 25 years ago. Testing and certification are the keys. Not age limits. IMO.

[guohuen]

It's not about availability of weapons. It's about violent societies. More murders are commited in Washinton D.C. every year without firarms than with.

[jon]

"Guns do not kill people,"
-Your dead right...
Its the bullets that fu(k you up:rolleyes:

[Radhnoti]

Jon, I'd be willing to bet that the guns and bullets don't give a d@mn. They are just tools, that's the point Johnny and his "overdone witticism" was getting across.
I've already stated that stats can be used to bolster ANYONE'S arguement, here's my useless stats bolstering my position:

"Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice, Second Edition, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ-105506, March 1988. For 1985, for robbery and assaults, the following is how many incidents involved a firearm and how many involved a knife. Robbery/ Assault: Firearm 23%/ 12%;Knife 21%/ 10% In both robbery and assault, a gun was actually fired and hit the victim only 4% of the time in all incidents in 1985. Victims were actually stabbed in 10% in the incidents involving knives.

A study by Wilson and Sherman: At least one medical study compared very similar sets of wounds ('all were penetrating wounds of the abdomen'), and found that the mortality rate in pistol wounds was 16.8%, while the rate was 14.3% for ice pick wounds and 13.3% for butcher knife wounds. (These percentages show that mortality rates for each wound was so close, that the differences are almost irrelevant.)

A study by Gary Kleck, Ph.D. Of Florida State University concluded that as many as two and one-half million citizens lawfully use firearms for self-defense annually, three-fourths of whom use handguns, resulting in the saving of as many as 400,000 lives. Using government crime statistics and Kleck's study, we find that a gun is:
50 times more likely to be used for defense than to be used in a suicide
50 times more than to likely to be used for defense then to be used to commit a homicide
535 times more likely to be used for defense than to accidentally kill someone.

A semi-recent study by John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard of the University of Chicago concluded that allowing honest citizens to carry concealed handguns deters violent crimes to the extent that if those states without right to carry provisions in 1992 had adopted same, at least 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided.

States in which citizens have the right to carry concealed firearms have a 24% lower total violent crime rate, 19% lower homicide rate, 19% lower aggravated assault rate, and a 39% lower robbery rates.
Civilians legally capture 2 to 3 times, and lawfully kill 5 to 6 times more violent criminals than do the police."

All these stats mean about as much to me as do the opposition's. Statistics, polls, etc...all are just political tools in my estimation, bent and twisted to support or refute the claims made by the organizations PAYING to have the study run in the first place. I have no doubt that anyone following the debate who supports gun control will have problems with some of the findings above...in the same way I had problems with some of the findings myosimka was using. It's all smoke and mirrors, don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain who's paying to have his point made for him.

I'm not going to start the "quoting you" game to match points, but you make reference to Hitler taking guns through superior force. That's true, but to bring that superior force to bear he first had to pass gun registration laws. THEN, after having the lists stating where all the guns were he swept in and took them. This is the reason for the strong resistance to any sort of listing of guns or gun owners, including gun registration, mandatory safety training, etc. Anything that can provide lists of guns and gun owners is bad.
Also, to argue that your rights are violated though the FEAR that some gun violence might occur is a strange argument to my mind. I don't like rap music, should it be outlawed on the off chance I'll run into it? The hunter who shot across your property, I'm fairly certain, broke already existing laws (assuming you own the property and hadn't given him permission to be there) and you probably could have prosecuted. If the law protecting you is already there, a new more restrictive law is unnecessary.
The REAL problem facing pro-gun advocates is that we've allowed very reasonable, nice people like you to make your very nice, reasonable arguement over and over without bothering to make a counter-argument. So, now we have a position that's become basically "politically incorrect" and we're forced to defend our beliefs. The thing about defending is, you never GAIN, you can only lose. The simple fact is U.S. citizens have the RIGHT to own firearms, it was GUARANTEED us by our forefathers. People and organizations trying to control guns are attacking the freedoms and rights of law abiding citizens, from a sense of fear and/or superiority. If they fear guns they think restricting them will make them safer, ignoring the fact that criminals will not bother to follow the restrictive laws in the first place. If gun control advocates come from the "superior" mindset they feel the "common man" is too stupid or incompetent to be allowed to own something so dangerous, the arrogance of this particular assumption is galling to me. People like this will never point at YOU (while you're there) and say, "You shouldn't have a gun." They'll show statistics or people who did something foolish and say, "These kinds of people shouldn't have guns." Which seems quite reasonable, the trick of it is that there's no way to distinguish between "them" and "you" when writing a law.
The simple fact is, compromise is an unnecessary loss for pro-gun advocates. We don't have to compromise, no one has the right to decide this issue for gun owners. If you are a gun owner, no matter the current political climate and touchy feely politically correct BS, you have the undisputed RIGHT and freedom to own a gun. Tell yourself that, and more importantly tell anyone who asks the same thing. Be reasonable, be nice, but be firm...it's a small step toward reversing the anti-gun hysteria that's been pushed by gun-control advocates for too long.



:rolleyes:
Oh my gosh, I hope no one takes me as seriously as I just took myself. Did I really write all that? I'm going to go post in one of the "Ralek stinks" threads now....
;)

[jon]

My little joke...
Guns dont kill people... Bullets do.
Is really at heart an anti gun statement, the point being that the gun doesnt kill them but it sure as hell makes it MUCH easyer.
Picture this...
your walking home one night its dark and your by yourself[ok so your a not a smart one] as you walk past an ally someone pushes a round cylindrical object into your back. You freeze imediatley fearing the worst, a shrill voice demands you wallet thinking this is some cracked up dope fiend you reach into your back pocket not turning around and hand him your wallet. You feel the object removed from your back and then the sound of footsteps running away.
Ok now lets say you have two options here one your armed, two your not.
If your unarmed my money says you let that robber run on his way and thank your lucky stars your still alive.
Now say you have a gun, your humilated, angry and you can SEE the guy RUNNING away! There are many many people out there who take a shot and more than likely gun down a 14 yo child who had his finger in your back.
Sometimes we have to just admit we are not all capable of having others lifes in our hands. We all would like to play god but in reality we have no where near that level of understanding.
People used to carry swords everywhere for this same 'i have right to protect myself' logic. The end result was people killing each other left right and centre and criminals becoming more powerfull than the govenment. That is why our martial arts we practice were invented in the first place remember?
The sooner we melt them all down the better imho...

[fmann]

Originally posted by jon
Sometimes we have to just admit we are not all capable of having others lifes in our hands... People used to carry swords everywhere for this same 'i have right to protect myself' logic. The end result was people killing each other left right and centre and criminals becoming more powerfull than the govenment. That is why our martial arts we practice were invented in the first place remember?

European aristocrats used to carry around pistols, swords, etc. all the time. Samurai carried swords around with them, too. However, they didn't run around killing each other left, right, and center. Nor did Japanese and European criminals become more powerful than the governments. True, there were peasant revolts against monarchies, but the success/failure was determined not by guns, swords, etc., but by pitchforks and the hearts of the people.

There are people who can't chew gum and walk at the same time, yet it's perfectly legal for them to drive. There are 80 year olds in Florida with a blind spot as big as Texas, yet they can still drive. I say if you want to restrict freedoms and not be hypocritical, you have to start on a more fundamental level. A car in the wrong hands is far more deadly than a gun.

It not only takes quite a bit of skill to aim and shoot at a person properly, but it also takes quite a bit of guts, lack of ethics/morals, etc. to shoot someone: The majority of the sheeple out there have a hard time even putting up a fight even when it's justified. Here's a test: Walk up to a complete stranger on the street and smash their head with a brick. If you can go out and actually do that without butterflies in your stomach, you deserve to be locked up.

And if you're saying to yourself, "I could never go out and just do something like that -- I'm a decent, upstanding human being," then replace "brick" with "gun".


We all would like to play god but in reality we have no where near that level of understanding.

I've always been puzzled by that idea: a weapon lets you play god? Gods have the powers to create. A weapon doesn't give you that. Whether it be by fist, by fork, or by firearm, if I want to hurt you, I will.

If the end result is so uncertain, why err on the side of restricting freedom?

[Radhnoti]

Jon, I knew you're comment was anti-gun, I was referring to Johnny@martialartsmart.com's comment.
It is illegal to fire a gun at someone running away from you, you are only allowed to defend your life or the life of someone else (at least that is my understanding). So, there's already a law (in the U.S.) preventing (as much as any law "prevents") your scenario.
Let's change your scenario just enough to make it "on topic" for this forum. Instead of carrying a gun, our hero is an accomplished martial artist. He gives up the wallet, turns and sees it was a kid with no gun. The same humiliation and anger prompts him to give chase and upon catching the "kid" (my 14 year old nephew is bigger than me) inflicts injuries upon him that lead to death. "Sometimes we have to just admit we are not all capable of having others lifes in our hands.", so martial arts should be banned. No? But this man's ability to kill FAR exceeded this poor child's ability. Such knowledge is dangerous and must be supressed! If you think my comparison has no basis in reality, then consider what China did to the Shaolin temple because of a fear of their martial ability. In my scenario, as in your's, the problem was not the tool (gun or martial ability) but the man using the tool. Practicing martial arts and/or carrying a gun doesn't equate to "taking another's life into your hands", it's a tool like any other that can be used properly or improperly. In both our scenarios it wasn't the victim who was originally infringing upon another's freedom, it was the criminal. And had the martial artist or the gun owner spun around and acted in self-defense (shooting the assailant or driving his finger into his eye socket) then I'd not have faulted them for taking responsibility for their own well-being. Neither, I believe, would a jury (if it even went that far)...at least in my area of the country.
I agree with fmann, it's best to err on the side of freedom.

[myosimka]

The stat about 2.5 million crimes prevented is contested by the FBI. I never...oh what the hell.

I have throughout this discussion advocated firearm ownership rights predicated upon a condition of mandatory safety training. If you guys wish to keep making the leap from that that I want to outlaw guns, I can't really contest it. I can't argue against your unfounded assumptions about my position.







And by the way, my wife called the police and they refused to investigate. He wasn't on our property. Firing over someone else's property is not illegal. And since without finding the bullet my wife couldn't show that the bullet crossed a roadway, we had no recourse. But thanks for making assumptions about facts not in evidence.

Oh and do me a favor and stop telling me what gun-control proponents think when you clearly don't listen to them. Mandatory safety training. If you feel that's an unreasonable violation of your right to own a gun, then I thnik you have demonstrated by example a problem with some of the pro-gun rights movement. If you don't think safety training is unreasonable then we are in agreement. Yes, registration is necessary to enforce the training. If you can find a way around that, let me know.

[dnc101]

Myosimka,

I agree that training in firearms safety is a very good idea, as long as it is real safety training and not more anti gun propoganda. The NRA's Eddy Eagle program is an excellent safety course, and it is not pro gun propoganda. Unfortunately, it is often difficult or impossible to get this into any public education facility because it ( or any true safety program) is opposed by the anti gun crowd. And I see more of the liberal/ emotion based anti gun sentiment being fed into our schools and programs. One example: I used to teach First Aid for a national organization as a volunteer. I resigned because they cut some of the medical training to put in a safety curriculum which included overtly anti gun propoganda.

Another type of training that we need to reinstitute in our schools is honest history- not revisionist history. Our founding fathers wisely mistrusted government. They recognized the tendency of government to regulate and controll, and thereby restrict freedom. That is why the Constitution in its' original form restricted government, and it is why the Bill of Rights was included to guarantee certain freedoms that were thought necessary in order to maintain a free society. It is not just chance that the First Ammendment protects our right to express our political ideas and the second provides for our ability to defend this (and other) rights. These were (and still are) the two most important foundational rights which guarantee our freedom.

[Radhnoti]

Well said, dnc101.
myosimka, any sort of regulation or registration COULD be an important step toward a gun ban. I don't assume you want a total ban, but I know that the people who do want a total ban want to start with the same steps you support. I think this is one of those, "We're not paranoid, THEY really do want to get us." situations.

We had a similar incident to yours where I live in which my father-in-laws neighbors were firing at something on their property and using his as a "backstop". He called the police and they came out and made them stop with a warning that if forced to come back out they'd have some sort of penalty. Maybe a disorderly conduct citation? To be honest I forget, but the gist of it was that the neighbors had to stop. Sorry you didn't have an equally satisfying experience. Had the police in your area done their job properly I feel they'd have at least spoken with your hunter.

I feel any attempt at registration is a violation of my rights. I hear you, I understand what you're saying. But we disagree.

[dnc101]

Thanks Radnoti.
Two of my favorite quotes:

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

"Just because you are parinoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you."

[myosimka]

dnc101, Actually I am of the opinion that you are exercising revisionist history as well. Short of conducting an interview with the federalists, it's not really possible to do anything but speculate. And as for your speculation as to why the amendments are what they are...Please note that the 2nd amendment clearly states the purpose behind it. And it's not defense from tyrannical governments.

Also I don't think that firearm safety in schools is the way to go. I don't think that people should be required to go through firearm training. (Encouraged but not required) Only those people who want to own them.

Also any form of gun safety program should involve discussion of gun dangers and the possibility of not owning them. Just as any decent safe sex course should include abstinence education. Education that doesn't present both sides is definitely biased. And I've read the NRA gun safety curriculum from an instructor friend-it never mentions not owning them. (He actually pointed it out to me as a deficiency in the program.) In all fairness, it was not the Eddy Eagle program. Maybe they have added a section on non-ownership. Personally I'd have to see that class to believe it though.





Radhnoti- "I feel any attempt at registration is a violation of my rights." So your children don't have birth certificates? What about bloodtyping donors? Testing for diseases? The widespread maintenance of extensive medical records has not led to a limitation of my health rights.

Also, the solution that you recommended for handling the hunters is great-1) if it had worked and 2) if I cared about catching criminals as opposed to safeguarding my home. A class where people were trained and then tested on trajectories, penetration, muzzle velocity, windsheer, gun handling and local laws prior to the event seems a better solution than calling the cops after it has happened. Isn't that the whole argument behind armed home defense: Active prevention beats police enforcement after the fact? You never addressed the safety training question. Are you opposed to that as well? If not, how would you recommend it be implemented without some form of registration? I am certainly open to suggestions. If we can implement it without registration I am all for it.

[dnc101]

myosimka,

I must disagree with all your premises (regarding my post), and therefore with your conclusions as well. I am not practising revisionest history (read on), and we don't have to go back and interview the founders (the Federalists were only one faction) to know their intentions. They were educated men who wrote prolifically and in specific terms about their beliefs, their intentions, and their reasoning in all things.

Interestingly, the Fifth Circuit Court recently completed a review of the Second Ammendment, and subsequently issued an 80+ page statement upholding the right of individuals to keep and bear arms (own guns). In backing up their ruling extensive use is made of the letters, journals and other writings of the men who authored the Constitution.

[dnc101]

Myosimka,

All classes in schools are not mandatory, and I agree that it would not be right to require everyone to go through a full firearms safety course. I do think some basic safety instruction is a good idea for everyone, but I would not be in favor of a Federal mandate for schools to do so. So we may not be too far apart on that point.

As for the NRA firearms safety courses, they are mostly written for those who own, use, or may come in contact with firearms. So they don't mention not having or owning guns. The Eddie Eagle program is based in the reality that guns exist, and therefore there is a potential for a child to come in contact with them. If this happens, the child should know what to do- leave it alone and contact a responsible adult. Yes, not owning a gun is one way to avoid what to you is a dangerous situation. But it is not foolproof. I was a rifle range coach in the Marine Corps, and it was easy to pick out those who had previosly had firearms experience and those who did not. Too many times I saw some idiot treat a military firearm as a toy, and thereby endanger all arround him.

Let me also acknowlege the fact that there are those equally (or more) idiotic individuals with firearms experience and safety training who mishandle guns. But, like any responsible group, gun owners tend to police their own. Those who irresponsibly handle firearms are severely censured, and all means are taken to correct them. It is comparable to a martial arts group correcting someone who habitually takes potentially crippling or lethal shots in sparring.

[JOHNNY]

KEEP YOUR SMART COMMENTS TO YOURSELVES!!! ESPECIALLY Radhnoti AND JON. DO YOU REALLY THINK I MADE THAT COMMENT SERIOUSLY!!!! I MADE THE COMMENT TO RILE PEOPLE UP. IT WAS ALL IN FUN. THIS ISSUE CAN BE DEBATED FOREVER. EVERBODY NEEDS TO LIGHTEN UP. I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE SHOULD NOT BE GUN CONTROL BUT ON THE STUDIES THAT I HAVE DONE FOR NUMEROUS REPORTS FOR AND AGAINST GUN CONTROL HAS BROUGHT ME TO THE CONLUSION THAT GUN CONTROL ONLY MARGINALLY HELPS. I DO NOT HAVE TIME TO STATE STATISTICS AS YOU MUST HAVE. I FEEL THAT THERE SHOULD BE GUN CONTROL BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE WILL STILL FIND WAYS TO OBTAIN A WEAPON ILLEGALY IF THEY CAN NOT PURCHASE IT LEGALLY. I AGREE WITH FMANN IN MANY ASPECTS. ALL I KNOW IS IF I AM DEPLOYED I WILL HAVE NO TROUBLE USING MY M16A2 AND MY "BULLETS". AND TO JON IF YOU WANT TO MAKE FUN OF PEOPLE LIKE A LITTLE BOY YOU CAN EMAIL ME AT THE ADDRESS ABOVE AND SAY IT DIRECTLY TO ME NOT ON THE FORUM. THAT IS JUST CHILDISH!!!! OH AND BY THE WAY THAT SMART WAY THAT YOU PUT FU(K NEEDS TO STOP.

JOHNNY
SEMPER FI :mad:

[dnc101]

Johnny, Johnny, Johnny...

If you make comments intended to rile people up, you can't complain when they take it personal and reply in kind.

But I definately agree with you about useing cleverly UNdisguised obscenities- and I applaud you for taking a stance. We, as martial artists, teach respect of others. This behavior clearly shows disrespect.

I'm not being judgemental here. I have been guilty of using obscenities, and this fact was pointed out to me. They wrere right, and now I'm passing along the lesson I learned.

By the way, Jarhead, SIEMPER FI- and good luck!

[JOHNNY]

DEAR DNC 101
I AM A BIT CONFUSED ON HOW I AM USING OBSCENITIES.
PLEASE POINT THEM OUT AND I WILL GLADLY NOT USE THEM ANY MORE. I KNOW NOW NOT TO MAKE "WITTY" COMMENTS BECAUSE SOME TAKE IT PERSONAL. ITS ALL IN FUN AND I GUESS IT WORKED. WELL THANKS FOR YOUR RESPONSE AN EMAIL AND I WILL BE CAREFUL ON MY CHOICE OF WORDS.
THANKS
JOHNNY
GODSPEED
SEMPER FI:D :p

[joedoe]

LAY OFF THE CAPS A LITTLE :D

[JOHNNY]

Sorry!!!!!!!! Forget to take them off sometimes
Johnny:D

[jon]

Obviously your ego has left you without a sence of humour...
I made a joke and then tried to put forward my view on this DEBATE, i never "MAKE FUN OF PEOPLE LIKE A LITTLE BOY "
I think i will alter that right now becouse your obviously way more concerned with your ego than your points. So for this post alone ill play the 'child' and respond to you in kind.

"KEEP YOUR SMART COMMENTS TO YOURSELVES!!!"
- How did you become a moderator? You cant handle people disagreing with you or making fun of your views. You need to lighten up not everyone will always see things your way.

"DO YOU REALLY THINK I MADE THAT COMMENT SERIOUSLY!!!! "
-NO!!!! Do you really think my comment was serious?

"I MADE THE COMMENT TO RILE PEOPLE UP."
- So its ok for you to 'RILE' people up but not ok for me to make a smartass comment. OK!

"IT WAS ALL IN FUN."
- So why are you so worked up about the responces?

"THIS ISSUE CAN BE DEBATED FOREVER."
- Well this is a public forum and a 'street reality' forum at that i would think gun debate was a pretty solid topic really. Obviously having a long lasting debate is not one of your primary aims. Maybe we should all just agree and go home huh?

"EVERBODY NEEDS TO LIGHTEN UP."
- Says the man who writes a whole post in caps and uses a million exclamtion marks.

"TO JON IF YOU WANT TO MAKE FUN OF PEOPLE LIKE A LITTLE BOY YOU CAN EMAIL ME AT THE ADDRESS ABOVE AND SAY IT DIRECTLY TO ME NOT ON THE FORUM. THAT IS JUST CHILDISH!!!!"
- Your calling me a child! Your behaving like some kind of vendictive lunatic who refuses to let anyone make fun let alone disagree with him, you then have the nerve to accuse me of being a child? For what? My joke? Obviously you think anyone who doesnt see things your way is a child. Keep your head stuck in the sand its obviously worked for you so far, most likely the safest place for it.
I have no wish to contact you privately, as you have made your comment in public ill happily take up my position in the same way.

"OH AND BY THE WAY THAT SMART WAY THAT YOU PUT FU(K NEEDS TO STOP. "
- Point taken, i wont use it again on your forum... You didnt really have to repeat it either you know? Maybe you just had to give a run yourself?

I dont even know who you are ive never spoken to you but your obviously not in full control of your sences... Calm down and think before you go off on a tangent.
I had no problem with you or your views, i was just making a stupid joke. You obviously took that to mean i was somehow personaly insulting you, which says a lot for your character and ego, NOT mine.
Was a great way to meet you Johnny, I wont post here much anymore as obviously im not welcome to have my own views! Or make a joke for that matter.
Jon

[Radhnoti]

:confused:

This was the worst mental breakdown I've been witness to since RENEGADE_MONK posted calling Ralek names and said he KNEW that he was No_Know and all No_Know's stuff was to be deleted from now on. :) Rereading all this I don't see anywhere in the thread a smartalek comment that I aimed at you. Wait a minute, let me read my stuff again....
OK, were you referring to me calling what you said an "overdone witticism"? It was a quote, in quotes because myosimka was the original author. Let me guess, you don't have time to post your findings from your "...NUMEROUS REPORTS FOR AND AGAINST GUN CONTROL" and you "...DO NOT HAVE TIME TO STATE STATISTICS" or to actually read what was written. I realize that they train you Marines to be aggressive, but c'mon...lay off the caffeine amigo.
;)

[JOHNNY]

Okay Jon,
Maybe I did come off a bit harsh and I apologize for that. When I made my comment I put that is just my .02 cents meaning that I was just stating my opinion. You can disagree with something without making fun of there own quote. That is what made me mad. My ego is fine actually and I became a moderator by working with Kung Fu Qigong and knowing the editors. I work with them and I am helping them out due to the lack of people to go on this forum. :D I do not need the smart remarks as this is a discussion. My remark was not towards no one as yours was directly towards me. You are welcome to post as long as it is understood that it is a joke. You are welcome to disagree anytime with me as I do not mind. I do mind the childish remarks though. Your views are more than welcome and I never contradicted them in any way. So it is your choice whether or not to post I am here just to view and occasionally give my .02.
Godspeed
Semper Fidelis
Johnny:D

[jon]

Read a few of my posts and you will soon see my temper gets me into pleanty of trouble. I never like being talked down and as a result ive sparked up pleanty of times when i didnt really need to. This is looking again like one of those times.
I think what we have is nothing more than a misunderstanding, i meant what i said about only trying to joke. I only actualy posted the second post becouse i got interested in the debate. Hence my first post was just meant as a silly joke, addressing it to you personaly was a mistake. The second post was me actualy seriously trying to take part in the discussion.
Again it wasnt so much me making fun of YOUR quote, as just your quote reminding me of a comedy skit from my old work. That was a part of one of the jokes, Guns dont kill people, its the bullets. It then go's on for a few more lines which ill spare you all the pain of hearing. Again i did not mean to offend you or question your right to post anything you feel like, i just like to occasionaly make fun of serious things, dont take me to heart.

Respects and regards
Jon

[Dark Knight]

"And if you want to argue statistics, here's my favorite: In 1996 alone, handguns killed:

2 People in New Zealand

(Ill have to find New Zealand)

"13 in Australia "

Licensing of gun owners was imposed in 1973, each handgun requires a separate license, and self-defense is not considered a legitimate reason to have a firearm. Registration of firearms was imposed in 1985. In May 1996 semi-automatic center-fire rifles and many semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns were prohibited. As of Oct. 2000, about 660,000 privately owned firearms had been confiscated and destroyed. However, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, between 1996-1998 assaults rose 16 percent, armed robberies rose 73 percent, and unlawful entries rose eight percent. Murders increased slightly in 1997 and decreased slightly in 1998. (Jacob Sullum, "Guns down under," Reason, Australia, p. 10, 10/1/00)

"15 in Japan "

Citizens have fewer protections of the right to privacy, and fewer rights for criminal suspects, than in America. Every person is the subject of a police dossier. Japanese police routinely search citizens at will and twice a year pay "home visits" to citizens' residences. Suspect confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate is more than 99.9%. The Tokyo Bar Assn. has said that the Japanese police routinely engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even in cases where suspects claimed to have been tortured and their bodies bore the physical traces to back their claims, courts have still accepted their confessions. Amnesty International calls Japan's police custody system "a flagrant violation of United Nations human rights principles." Suspects can be held and interrogated for 28 days without being brought before a judge, compared with no more than two days in many other nations. They aren't allowed legal counsel during interrogation, when in custody may be visited by only criminal defense lawyers, are not allowed to read confessions before they sign them, and have no right to trial by jury. (Kopel, 1991, pp. 23-26.)

"30 in Great Britain "

"A June 2000 CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain 'one of the most violent urban societies in the Western world.' Declared Dan Rather: 'This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting a civilized island free from crime and ugliness. . . (But now) the U.K. has a crime problem . . . worse than ours.'" (David Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From Bad to Worse," America's First Freedom, 3/01, p. 26.) Street crime increased 47% between 1999 and 2000 (John Steele, "Crime on streets of London doubles," London Daily Telegraph, Feb. 29, 2000.)

"106 in Canada "

From 1978 to 1988, Canada's burglary rate increased 25%, surpassing the U.S. rate. Half of burglaries in Canada are of occupied homes, compared to only 10% in the U.S. From 1976 to 1980, ethnically and economically similar areas of the U.S. and Canada had virtually identical homicide rates, despite significantly different firearm laws

"213 in Germany "

Described in the Library of Congress report as "among the most stringent in Europe," Germany's laws are almost as restrictive as those which HCI wants imposed in the U.S. Licenses are required to buy or own a firearm, and to get a license a German must prove his or her "need" and pass a government test. Different licenses are required for hunters, recreational shooters, and collectors. As is the case in Washington, D.C., it is illegal to have a gun ready for defensive use in your own home. Before being allowed to have a firearm for protection, a German must again prove "need." Yet the annual number of firearm-related murders in Germany rose 76% between 1992-1995. (Library of Congress, p. 69.) It should be noted, HCI goes further than the Germans, believing "there is no constitutional right to self-defense" (HCI Chair Sarah Brady, quoted in Tom Jackson, "Keeping the Battle Alive," Tampa Tribune, 10/21/93) and "the only reason for guns in civilian hands is sporting purposes" (HCI's Center to Prevent Handgun Violence Director, Dennis Henigan, quoted in USA Today, 11/20/91).

"and 9,390 in the United States."

[Dark Knight]

Makes you want to live in a the gun free country

[JOHNNY]

WELL I GUESS I NEED TO RELAX A BIT AND MAYBE GET OFF THE CAFFEINE. LOL:) Well everthing is settled and I look forward to meeting most people on this part of the forum. And to Radhnoti I moderate this forum during work so I do not have my information on hand. I also do other things at work so I do not have all the time in the world to post. I get on here when I can and only to look over the threads and give my .02 sometimes.
Peace
Johnny
Semper Fi:cool:

[fmann]

Nice info, Dark Knight.

Like I keep asking, if the results are so uncertain (i.e., crime may or may not go down due solely to gun control), why err on the side of restricting freedom?

And as some of DK's examples show, to what degree do you restrict them and not be hypocritical and or violate the principles that this country was founded on?

[myosimka]

It's tempting to respond piece by piece to Dark Knight's response to my earlier post. But I am not going to as it is clear noone is in anyway being convinced or really looking beyond their own stance on the issue. Just debating in support of a position.

I will say: A lot of the statistics are pretty worthless my own included. Saying that the murder rate went up in 1997 in Australia when I have already shown a handgun ****cide rate of 13 and then back down in 1998. The number of murders in Australia is statistically insignificant, meaning the sample is not enough to generate a representative number that follows standard distribution properties and error stats.

And a lot of the other things you mentioned aren't about gun registration. Yes, Japan needs something equivalent to a 4th amendment. 5th amendment. The second amendment doesn't really ensure a fair legal system.


Lastly, would people please listen to me or don't bother responding. I am in favor of registration and mandatory safety training for gunowners. Not a ban! And many guncontrol advocates feel the same way. Yes, some are extremists. So are some pro-gun advocates. If you want to contest safety training please do so.

I have never suggested bans and yet people are responding to me as if I had. And my post of the prior statistics was to show that statistics exist to back up virtually every argument. (People would definitely argue it but I could pull out the coroners study on gunownership and fatality rates. Again I feel those numbers as flawed in predicting causality as anything else but they are as accurate as the numbers you have presented.)

dnc, I realize morons will still somehow complete a safety training course successfully. Just as a lot of idiots complete our first jump course. But a few give up. And if even 5% of them said this was just too much work/trouble/thinking and quit and don't get guns... That's a pretty solid number as it's well under 5% of gunowners creating the problems. There'd still be bozos shooting themselves and their kids and their neighbors, but I am not in favor of gun bans and that's the price you have to pay for guns. I just want to minimize that price in a way that makes sense. And mandatory training makes sense to me.


Lastly, please remember that limits on primary freedoms exist. Freedom of speech has all kinds of limits. Freedom of religion ends at state sponsorship as it would limit the freedoms of others. Freedom of assembly-personally I think the requirement of a permit to protest is a huge violation of our rights but it's necessary for maintaining the peace. Freedom of the press has tons of limits as well. Vulgarity, security, etc. The right to bear arms has limits. (If you think everyone should run around with plutonium or U-235, please don't respond. I think we are too far apart to even talk about things) My suggestion is not a ban nor is it the first step in some master plan of mine to eventually ban guns. I just want people to learn to use them safely. Too many times has a loaded gun swept across my path for me to think we are handling this question adequately.





P.S. Cracked me up though DK. no response to the 9,390 number? Like "It seems like a reasonable sacrifice" or something. Just left it in there.

[myosimka]

crime may not go down, there are tons of conflicting numbers on this. But the hom_ocide rates both accidental and murder are singnifcantly lower in any country I have ever looked at. In fact even with the exclusion of suicide, fatality rates are higher for gunowners in this country than non-gunowners. In fact, and this is from a former NRA instructor, the gun hom0cide rate, even after elimination of suicide and accidental rulings, is higher for gunowners. Freaky.

Those stats are part of the reason I don't own in my house. (Couple inheritance pieces in a safe deposit box and used to keep one at a local range)But again that's a personal decision about owning them. I think everyone should be allowed to own them. But for god's sake, learn to handle them safely.


by the way anyone else really annoyed by the new censor software? Aparently you can't have a discussion about hom0cide or hom0sexuality because someone decided that the periodic rude comment outweighs all other concerns. Argh!!

[Dark Knight]

"P.S. Cracked me up though DK. no response to the 9,390 number? Like "It seems like a reasonable sacrifice" or something. Just left it in there."


The numbers come from a total but no explination. Its like the 2.5 million times a gun is used in self defense, its substantially less of times the gun is fired but 2.5 million times the gun is pulled to stop a crime.

When you hear people talk about the amount of thimes a person dies from guns, how many are from illegal activity? less than .01% of gun crimes are commited by people who can legally own a gun. Of the 9,390 how many were not allowed to own a gun by law(Gun control did not work there) how many are shot by police doing something wrong?

The same for the numbers on youths that are killed each year, that number comes from people 20 down to 14. I dont consider someone 18 to 20 in that group, where most the killings are happening.

If less than .01% of ilegal shootings are caused by legal gun owners, who is doing the rest? And does that number include the number of self defense related deaths? Out of 2.5 million someone is going to shoot a robber.

Gun registering may not sound like a bad idea, but as we always see, someone comes along and wants to make a name for themselves and be "Tougher on crime" and pass the next step to get guns banned. Whether they believe in it or not all they want is to be known for doing something.

[myosimka]

less than .01% of gun crimes are commited by people who can legally own a gun." one in 10,000? Sorry dude but the domestic violence fatality rate was higher than that. Also the coroner's study you are going to force my hand on was of registered gun owners. Legal owners. So did you just pull the number out of the ether. Please tell me where that number comes from.
Also please don't spout that 2.5 million number as fact. The NRA has been touting that for years. Problem is they have developed some sort of stat for unreported crimes. In other words, made up numbers. The FBI has quoted a 700,000 number and said even that may be generous as they were also estimating unreported crimes. And really there is no way to tell. Also as the vast majority of crimes that are reported do not involve fatalities, it did not save 700,000 lives just stopped 700,000 crimes. you can argue that that is worth 9,000+ fatalities(and that number is handgun only) but at least argue it with unbiased facts. And yes I view FBI stats as less biased than NRA or studies funded by other pro-gun organizations.
And for the love of god, would you at least pretend to be reading the whole post?? SAFETY TRAINING!! And as I said earlier, if you want to tell me how to implement it without registration I'd be happy to hear it.

Also of course gun control doesn't work in this country. Progun advocates won't let it. Let's fight registration(even though we register births) how about my favorite: 'We don't need tougher laws. The ATF isn't enforcing the ones that exist.'














Giving it enough space so you read and have your reaction to that one which has been thrown about and now this one.
"The ATF are jack-booted thugs!!" Which is it? are they being too lax or too stringent?? Or is it just whatever suits your argument best?


Oh and by the way, you succeeded. You win the argument. Not in that you have proven your point. Not in that you have swayed someone's opinion. In that I quit. I will not discuss this issue with someone who makes up facts not in evidence to support his case. .01%? Please!

[fmann]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

So how will regulating guns curb crime if the majority of criminals get a gun from a source that will bypass background checks and laws in general?

I'm very moderate on this issue:

I'm for effective regulation of guns, safety training, etc. as I've stated, but I have realized that gun control is not the answer to curbing crime -- and that's been the point I've been sticking to, regardless of the statistics of deaths, homicide, suicide, etc..

And if reducing crime, and crime-related deaths, is not a guaranteed result, then why should anyone give up their right to own a firearm? They can choose not to, but at least give them that choice.

[myosimka]

Oh and my favorite are of course the legal aguments. Favorite federal quotes:


in 1996 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an individual had no standing to raise a Second Amendment claim. In Hickman v. Block the court held, "Because the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the states to maintain armed militia, the states alone stand in the position to show legal injury when this right is infringed."

In short, the federal courts have consistently given the Second Amendment a collective, militia interpretation. Moreover, no gun control measure has ever been struck down as unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds. The federal government is clearly free to regulate the possession and transfer of specific categories of firearms in order to promote public safety.



Yet perhaps the most significant case is the 1980 decision in Lewis v. United States. The majority opinion, joined by then Chief Justice Warren Burger and current Chief Justice William Rehnquist, ruled that restrictions contained in the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibiting felons from owning firearms were constitutional. In its analysis, the Court applied a "rational basis" standard, which requires that the remedy need merely be "rationally related to a legitimate purpose." The application of this standard is revealing. When determining whether a statute meets equal protection requirements, statutes that impinge on fundamental, individual rights—such as freedom of speech or the right to counsel—are judged by the more rigorous "strict scrutiny" standard. In Lewis, the Court stated, "These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms do not trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties." The opinion listed voting, the practice of medicine, and even holding office in labor organizations as "activities far more fundamental than the possession of a firearm."


In United States v. Warin, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1976 expressed exasperation with the misguided arguments made by the defendant in attempting to persuade the court that the federal law prohibiting possession of an unregistered machine gun violated his Second Amendment rights. Upholding the defendant's conviction, the court stated, "It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with every argument made by defendant...all of which are based on the erroneous supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the states."


And in January 1991 the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the 1986 congressional ban on the manufacture of new machine guns. The Court let stand a ruling by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Farmer v. Higgins that denying the plaintiff a license to manufacture a new machine gun was not unconstitutional.

Oh and by thew way, the courts have enver struck down a cguncontrol law and second amendment grounds.

[Dark Knight]

I know its hard to listen to the truth after 8 years of lies.

"Also of course gun control doesn't work in this country. Progun advocates won't let it. Let's fight registration(even though we register births) how about my favorite: 'We don't need tougher laws. The ATF isn't enforcing the ones that exist.' "

This is a Report for Parents, Prosecutors, and Policy Makers by
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
By Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman. If you believe the FBI, Im sure you will believe your Senate

Read the report.



http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/guns106.htm

[Dark Knight]

"Lastly, would people please listen to me or don't bother responding. I am in favor of registration and mandatory safety training for gunowners. Not a ban!"

"Also of course gun control doesn't work in this country. Progun advocates won't let it. Let's fight registration(even though we register births) how about my favorite: 'We don't need tougher laws. The ATF isn't enforcing the ones that exist.' "


If you are not for banning guns, but gun safety education (The NRA runs and no anti gun organization does), but you say that progun advocates wont let gun control work.





Im not sure what your point is.
You are putting a lot of effort out for something, please give a summery.

My point was just that gun control does not work, and most gun crimes are done by people who cant legally have a gun.

[fmann]

Originally posted by Dark Knight
My point was just that gun control does not work, and most gun crimes are done by people who cant legally have a gun.

I think it depends on what you want gun control to do. Current implementation of gun control does not work and is not enforcable to the fullest.

Gun control alone can't curb crime. However, good gun laws can make gun ownership a much smoother, safer endeavor for the average upstanding citizen.

[Metal Fist]

Isn't Socialism wonderful? This gun control crap is just the way in which the Socialists make their first move to make one totally dependent on the Gov't. They really couldn't give a rats a$$ if you are safe or not, and crime isn't their concern. Their control over you is their concern and in Great Britain and Australia it seems to have worked. If one wants to really remain free and have Liberty then retain your weapons and force the "Anti's" out of business and out of the country if necessary. This is a very serious problem.
Historically the Socialists first want to register and then confiscate weapons, then you are really screwed. They think that to be secure one must give up ones freedoms, BULLS**T. My freedom is my security, especially if owning firearms is part of that. You really don't need police forces, all they do is after-action clean up
operations, they are usually never there when needed and respond after the smoke has cleared. Take Columbine High school
as an example, the Sheriffs deputies waited outside for a long time before they ever went in, by then several students were dead and the two little pukes who did it all had killed themselves.
What a bunch of men that was, even their "bad-a$$ed" SWAT
guys hid outside, probably crapping in their drawers, who need police if they are too scared to do their job. Personal gun ownership, the ability to use a firearm and personal responsibility
is what's needed. Remember, gun control is the ability to hit your target, even when it's running from you.:D

[myosimka]

Crap. Got 200 words into my reply and forgot the futility of even talking to you.


I like the way you discarded the .01% number and are now simply saying most.


And you may like the line about hard to listen to truth...but NRA and Orrin Hatch supported numbers are a bit biased. Sorry, dude.(Yes I consider the FBI more objective than the Senate minority leader) And, obviously most gun crimes are committed by criminals. Did that actually have to be said? But that study deliberately neglects negligent hom0cide. (And expressly states it) that's what I want to see reduced. Hence mandatory gun safety training. And a program that also mentions the statistics of ownership v. nonownership which the NRA does not. Oh and HCI does sponsor gunsafety course. So stop making things up. You may not like the content but they do have courses and seminars. And yes, it too is biased. I wouldn't want to see either side controlling the curriculum of the mandatory course.


Lastly, I have said that I am not sure gun control is going to work in this country(as far as keeping them from criminals). There are more guns than adult citizens of the US. That means a difficult number to track. That's why they are so easy to obtain illegally. And I don't actually want stricter gun control laws. I want stricter enforcement such as the URL you just posted advocates. " Given the nearly universal acknowledgment that the aggressive prosecution of criminals who use firearms illegally produces a substantial drop in violent crime" -from the very site you listed. hmmm. and I would like to see mandatory safety training for gunowners.

[Radhnoti]

myosimka,
I'm all for more aggressive prosecution of existing gun laws. I'm completely opposed to any forced training, which means lists of gun owners and could lead to denial of gun ownership rights.
Here's a link to a site discussing how gun lists are being abused even now in this country. Obviously, the site is pro-gun...

http://www.kc3.com/news/chicago_confiscation.htm

[dnc101]

For a moment there I was going to suggest that we all go to the QIGONG list and recenter ourselves! But it looks like you got there and sorted things out.

Johnny, I wasn't saying you are vulgar, I complimented you on taking a stand. I did make a little fun of your hot blooded/ aggresive response- Dieful Hunts tend to get that way sometimes.

Myosimka,
I understand that you are only advocating training gun owners here, though I suspect from the tone and content of your posts that your feelings may go further than that. But that is speculation, and it is the only speculation I've made in this thread.
It is tempting to get bogged down in details here and answer you point by point, as you've made some errors that beg to be challenged. For example (OK, so I can't resist at least one)- a court ruling that gun control is the purvue of the states is not a ruling that only militias can own firearms. And even if it was, the "militia" is, according to those who wrote the Second Ammendment, private individuals who are citizens of the various states and who own firearms. There, I feel better.
Now, lets see if we can bring this discussion down to a manageable level. We both acknowlege the value of firearms safety training. The possible points of contention are:
*You want only firearms owners to be forced to have this training, I would like it made easily available to everyone but required for no one. Mandatory training of only gun owners is de facto registration.
*Registration. You seem to have no problem with registration, I have a big problem with it. As others here have pointed out, registration is the first step to confiscation. That you and many others do not intend to confiscate guns is irrelevant. The fact is that there are many in our government who do, and a list of gun owners would be essential to their implementation of a confiscatory effort. That the list was compiled with good intentions would have no bearing on how it is ultimately used.
*You raise the question of who would administer this program- and that is a potentially sticky point, as the administrating agency would have the opportunity to insert their own bias. Who do you suggest? I'd be OK with the local police, but local governments may not want to further stretch their budgets, and federal dollars mean federal control- so that is out.
*Restrictions on ownership. There are certainly those who, for whatever reason, can't handle either the responsibility or can't physically handle a firearm. I can't really guess at where you would draw the line here. But there are already enough laws saying who can't own a gun- in fact, I'd say there are too many. An armed society is more than able to police itself and control those irresponsible individuals who misuse or abuse their rights. Remember, your right to swing your fist stops at my nose, and your right to use a firearm stops when it is pointed at someone else without cause. I know you have a thousand and one scenarios of tragedy and doom. So do I. I can only say that we all make a thousand and one choices which have life or death consequences for others every day. So I see no problem with the average person being able to decide when it is necessary and proper to use lethal force. If your kid with a loaded finger (from an earlier post) hadn't tried to intimidate and rob someone, he'd still be alive. And if the hothead who shot him in the back hadn't let his ego and temper get the best of him, he'd not be facing manslaughter or murder charges.
*You seem to trust government to stop at registering guns- I don't. There is a movement in this country right now to regulate the martial arts and to register all martial artists. This includes restricting the types of arts you can study. It also puts you and me in a whole different class when it comes to defending ourselves. I know, we already are, but I'm talking about the type of unrealistic expectations of lawmakers whose only exposure to martial arts is the movies. A survivor of the Nazi concentration camps said it best- "They came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I remained silent. Then they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so again I remained silent... And then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me." This is not just an argument about gun control (or registration). It is about all our fundamental rights.
*By the way, all I own is a muzzle loader. And I have taught gun safety as well as shooting skills. Would you still want me to be trained/registered? Could I maybe just take a refresher course, and if so how often? If I don't have to be trained, but I want to be any how, would I have to go out and buy me a modern firearm? I am of the opinion that most people can make up their own mind about how much and what type training they want or need.
*And who... (I cringe when asking this) , who is going to pay for this, and how much? I mean, if you are going to include practical application as well as class time, the cost could be prohibitive. If the administrating agency had an anti gun bias it would be easy to structure the class so as to be prohibitive in this and many other ways and to effectively ban firearms by making it impossible to qualify to own them.

I, nor any one else I know, advocates unrestricted ownership of nuclear weapons. And there are already restrictions on ownership of fully automatic firearms (machine guns), and I agree with this to a point. But I don't think that any further restrictions are necessary or tolerable.

[jon]

This is kinda starting to scare me.
I live in Sydney Australia and in a pretty bad part of town, you will 'occasionaly' hear gunshots but its not common. That said im 24 i grew up doing all the things i proberly shouldnt have, i joined gangs, i hung out with thieves, i was a little brat...
I have NEVER SEEN a hangun... Ill just repeat that NEVER...
Im happy to say that, now considering i grew up this way im pretty sure if i had lived in America i would not only have seen one i would be packing about three right now.
Im glad as hell we have gun restrictions over here, it means I only have to deal with knives rather than firearms. Thats a big happy smile on my dial when i walk around at night. Yeah if you want to hurt me you will try anyway but trust me its a lot easyer for me to defend when im not worried about being shot as well as stabbed.
I hate to say this and im sure some will take offence but i view guns as cowardly, i view people who carry them as being people who want to feel like they can take a life at any second. People who want to defend themselfs and there loved ones learn to fight and learn to look out for and avoid potencial danger situations. They dont simply 'pack heat' to even the score.


For Metal Fist
"This gun control crap is just the way in which the Socialists make their first move to make one totally dependent on the Gov't."
* Thats one of the most ammazing peices of paranoia ive ever heard.
"Their control over you is their concern and in Great Britain and Australia it seems to have worked."
*Im an Australian, now how exactly do view the govement as 'controlling' me due to my lack of firearms? Please clarify that statement, again its pure paranoia. Mind telling me who this 'Their' is that your refering to? Which international mind controling govenment body would this be?
"They think that to be secure one must give up ones freedoms"
*Again totaly paranoid and devoid of fact, what did you call freedom before guns where invented? Gunless freedom?
"My freedom is my security, especially if owning firearms is part of that."
* Thank you for proving my point about many gun owners being cowards, by your own admision your only interested in your personal security if owning a gun is part of it.
"Remember, gun control is the ability to hit your target, even when it's running from you."
* Shooting a man fleeing from you shows about as much 'control' as the average street junkie. Again cowardly act.

That was not meant for everyone only metal fist, it angers me when i think of paranoid lunatics who believe they have the god given right to bare firearms becouse they cant be bothered to learn to fight the hard way.
All those others who just want a gun for there own protection in there home i can understand. My real gripe is with people carrying them around in public and this idea that we should all have a right to carry handguns.
Im enjoying reading this though there has been some great points put forward from both camps:)

[fmann]

Originally posted by Radhnoti
I'm all for more aggressive prosecution of existing gun laws. I'm completely opposed to any forced training, which means lists of gun owners and could lead to denial of gun ownership rights.

Well, we have car licensing and registration to prevent people without the minimum competency to drive from owning a car. I don't really see a problem with applying a similar model to guns.

You can't show the minimum competence to drive? No car for you.
You can't show the minimum competence to safely handle and care for a firearm? Then no firearm for you.
You commit vehicular homicide or DUI or whatever? Goodbye to your drivers license. Also jail time and fines.
You commit homicide, a crime, etc.? Goodbye to your gun license. Also jail time, fines, etc..

[jon]

Car licence vs Gun licence
With all due respect this comparison is badly flawed.
I could write pages and pages of uses for a car in daily life, i can think of one use only for handguns... Killing things.
Maybe we should all be allowed to strap plastic explosive to our bodys so that incase of emergency we can have the right to suicide, plus take out the whole block:p

[dnc101]

A smile on your dial because there are no guns down under?
I'm sorry you feel that way. And I'm sorry you had such a rough life. And I'm sorry, you are wrong. I don't care how bad you think you are, facing several attackers armed with sticks and knives is probably going to get you severely hurt or killed, unless you have a gun. Then you might have a chance. And carrying a gun does not make any one a coward. I'd say the coward is more likely to be the one who has to go cyber to get in someones face. Don't bother to tell me all about your exploits. I'd then have to say you are probably lieing, and the discussion would degenerate into a CAPITALS CONTEST. Sorry.

Remember Jon, this is a martial arts discussion. So how is it you think we who value our rights as Americans (you may not understand the sentiment- again, I'm sorry for you) don't have the courage or the gumption to practice and learn to fight with our hands? Many of the martial artists I know do consider firearms training to be an integral part of a well rounded training regimine. But that is in addition to empty hands and other weapons. So once again, you come up short when we use the standard that you espoused. We study more than you, therefore we are better than you. Sorry, Jon.

Net let's look at the idea that those who carry guns only want to know that they can kill anyone they want. Who said that? And how did you get inside our minds to see how we think, or what motivates us? It sounds to me as though you may be applying your standards to the rest of us. Or maybe that is the attitude of those you grew up with. Either way, that is a terrible attitude to live with. I'm really sorry for you.

Jon, this is a sorry post to have to write. But your attitude evokes pitty from me. I may be parinoid, but the attitude you displayed is pathetic.

[dnc101]

fmann,

Funny you should use that analogy. Yes, we do register cars and license drivers. Who do you think owns your car? Legally, the person or entity that holds the title owns the registered vehicle. So, if you want to have your eyes opened, go and get your title. It is best to look at the "title" to a car that is paid off, that way you don't have to consider the banks role in ownership. My guess is that if you read carefully you find that what you have is a certificate of title. The actual title is held by the state, and technically that means they are just being kind enough to let you use their car. They can stop you from using it any time. And that is what those of us who oppose gun registration will not sit still for. I shoot my muzzle loader when, how and where I want, as long as it doesn't endanger you or your property.

[red_fists]

Hi.

I like the system that my Home country uses.

1.) Owners/Collectors Licence:
Anybody is entitled to OWN a Gun, It needs to be kept at home at all times.
i.e. no carrying in the street, home defense ONLY.
2.) Sports Licences:
You are allowed to take the Gun between your home and your place of sport/hunting.
Club Affiliation and/or hunting licence needs to be carried with the Gun.
3.) Carrying Licence:
Very hard to get, you need to show a valid reason for needing to carry a Gun in the street. Out of 5 Taxi Drivers that apply it is
rare that 1 gets the licence
Gun needs to be carried openly and Licence need to be shown on request of a LEO.
The Gun licence application needs to be
acompanied by a Certificate stating that a Gun safety & shooting Course has been attendet. As well as a certificate of an installed Gun safe in the premises where the holder lives.

For Licence 1 & 2 the Gun must be empty and stored/moved seperate from the Bullets.
Not all guns are legal for all types of Licences, and some type of guns are outlawed.
Each Licence(regardless of type) is limited to a certain number of guns that are registered on the Licence with Purchase Date, Serial Number, Caliber,etc.

Few People in my Country want Guns after they received gun training during the national service.

Military Gun training does not count towards a civilian licence.

Just a different viewpoint.

[jon]

WOW that was pretty nasty:(
For a start i tried pretty hard to say that most of my post was directed at Metal Fist who i really do think is very paranoid. I also stated that many good points had been raised by both camps. Seeing as you see fit to try and come accross all high and mighty then fine take your big stand as an American, i could really care a lot less.
Lets look at this shall we...

"And I'm sorry you had such a rough life. And I'm sorry, you are wrong."
*Im sorry you cant tell me my opinion is 'wrong' thats something you will have to have a proper go at changing, insulting me only reinforces my point.

"I don't care how bad you think you are, facing several attackers armed with sticks and knives is probably going to get you severely hurt or killed, unless you have a gun"
* My whole point was if THEY have guns its going to be impossible, it likely will anyway but i would rather not have that particular problem to deal with.

"Don't bother to tell me all about your exploits. I'd then have to say you are probably lieing, and the discussion would degenerate into a CAPITALS CONTEST."
* I never bothed to try, i told you i didnt have a sheltered childhood. Your assumption says much about your charactor, you obviously have severe trust problems and dont like people who disagree with you as you assume i will automaticaly swear and yell at you.

" So how is it you think we who value our rights as Americans don't have the courage or the gumption to practice and learn to fight with our hands?" -Insult cut out
* I wasnt speaking of everyone but i do think many carry handguns becouse they dont want to have to learn to defend themselfs properly, again you assume im talking to you personaly.

"So once again, you come up short when we use the standard that you espoused. We study more than you, therefore we are better than you. Sorry, Jon. "
* Your argument is totaly invalid, just becouse you train firearm defence does not mean firearms should be around. Over here i dont train much firearm defence becouse we dont have guns everywhere, put that in your pipe and smoke it! We dont have to defend against them becouse we dont NEED to! Your implication regarding your study is laughable, you ask me not to tell you about my exploits and then procede to come out with this rubbish. Yes your much 'better than' me:rolleyes:

"And how did you get inside our minds to see how we think, or what motivates us?"
* It was my opinion and i stated it as such, i made no reference to any paper or evidence. Just my views im sorry you find them so repulsive.

"It sounds to me as though you may be applying your standards to the rest of us. Or maybe that is the attitude of those you grew up with. Either way, that is a terrible attitude to live with. I'm really sorry for you. "
* This is gold... Let me make sure of this, you feel sorry for me becouse i think gun legislation in my own country is a good idea?
Or is it my personal opinions on people who feel the need to walk the streets with handguns? Keep feeling sorry for me then.
As for applying my standards, i mearly gave you an example of
what its like in a country with good gun control. Obviously this is something you couldnt live with.

"Jon, this is a sorry post to have to write. But your attitude evokes pitty from me. I may be parinoid, but the attitude you displayed is pathetic."



Before anyone else gets on my case i really dont have a problem with anyone who follows the laws in there own country. If you are legaly allowed to carry a gun its proberly a perfectly good idea. I will always believe however that the best policy is simply no guns, as such i dont have a high respect for those who view them as being a necesity, thats way to easily proven wrong...
The reason for the tone in this post is becouse dnc decided to have a crack at me for my personal opinions and did so by using nothing but insults.

[myosimka]

good points and we can certainly agree to disagree. Just want to again point out a couple of things.

We can argue what the second amendment says. To each of us the wording seems clear and obviously it's not because we don't see it the same way. The courts have almost universally held that this is a state right. And in fact the wording supports registration."A well regulated militia..." And constitutional scholars are pretty much in agreement on this.

I really am in favor of safety training and yes I think a periodic(5-10 year) review is a good idea. And only with the weapons that you own. Yes it certainly seems that registration is necessary for that. (I said that before but you must have missed it) If anyone can show a way to accomplish this without registration, I'll listen. I just can't come up with one.

I am not really going to address the logistics argument as it's a new element in an unresolved debate. No point in discussing how to do it if we can't agree it's a good thing. Licensing fees could cover periodic review. Tax manufacturers of the guns to cover the safety courses. Include guns under the luxury tax laws. All kinds of options. Having paid for gun safety training, I can tell you that the expense if it were only done once with truncated challenge/reviews like done for CPR certification is not expensive. But we are getting way ahead of ourselves.

This also one of my favorite quotes:
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Part of that means that we don't argue against common sense policies that might potentially lead to problems. Most people here are having a problem with safety training because it requires registration which could lead to confiscation. And I certainly recognize that you are practicing vigilance. But so am I. Our incidental hom0cide rate is higher than the intentional rate in many countries. That's scary to me. I want to do something about it. Safety training is the only way I can think of to reduce that(I think trigger locks are a bad idea) Institute it and exercise the vigilance by not allowing anything that actually impinges upon ownership rights. Pay attention when you vote and don't elect officials who support gun bans. Be vigilant but not paranoid. Don't let that paranoia interfere with sensible safety measures.


Fmann, thanks. Nice to talk with people and realize that people I thought were on the other side of the fence actually have some common ground. The joys that can come from civil discussions of issues rather than what usually goes on here.

Blue Skies,
Hank




P.S. dnc, I also think you have me confused with someone else. The kid with a loaded finger? Not in any of my posts but since you brought it up:"So I see no problem with the average person being able to decide when it is necessary and proper to use lethal force. " Anybody remember the Lousiana case a few years back where a guy shot a Japanese national that he said was breaking into his house. He was unarmed and found on the front porch in front of the front door. No sign of forced entry. So I think that some people do have serious problems determining when appropriate force is called for. And yes, safety training should include a discussion of legal issues. I certainly discuss it in MA classes.

[fmann]

Originally posted by dnc101
They can stop you from using it any time. And that is what those of us who oppose gun registration will not sit still for. I shoot my muzzle loader when, how and where I want, as long as it doesn't endanger you or your property.

So basically you are telling me that people will idly sit by while the supposed "untrustworthy" government confiscates our cars? Really? I can see what you are saying, but it makes no sense realistically. If the government confiscates my car without reason, it'll be all over the news, all over the media, my House Reps and Senators will be getting calls from their constituencies, etc.. It will be more of a pain for them to do it -- which is why rarely does it happen.

If you do the same thing with guns and you are properly trained to own, fire, and care for it, then if they come around and take it away, the same outcry will happen.

[dnc101]

Jon,

Yes, my post was a bit insulting, I suppose. It was a reply in kind to your post in which you stated that we who enjoy firearms and freedom are paranoid and cowards, and even murderers at heart. And directing it at another individual for the most part is a thin shield to hide behind- you spit your venom at all of us.

As for cussing at me, its been done before. My point here is that it shows disrespect for everyone reading this forum. My young son reads this, and while he has heard it to, it is a bad example.

So you think I fight like a girl? Thank you. I know a few girls that can hold their own pretty well, even with real bad boys like you.

I've never been in a stand up fight? You're sure? I could make all kinds of claims here, but what is the point? Let me put it this way- I listed my initials and my location when I joined this forum. This is a small town and the martial arts community here knows me. They can get on and read this at any time. So, I do have some accountability for what I say. And I have been in fights, some serious. And I have used a gun- and just showing it ended the confrontation. I was alone, there were two of them. One had a chain, the other a club, and they were spreading and moving so that I'd be between them. I pulled a semi-auto pistol, and they reconsidered. I'd say we all won that one- neither they nor I got hurt. So now, go ahead and tell me I'm lieing- I promise not to throw you any capitals.

I have said that all I own right now is a muzzle loading rifle. You think I sleep with it under my pillow? Wierd! Do I load it, or just cuddle up real close?

No, I don't feel sorry for you because of your views on gun legislation. I feel sorry for you because of your attitude, which, as I said, is pathetic.

As for my problems with trust, I trust those who are trustworthy. I don't view this as a problem.

I didn't say firearms should be arround because we train for them. I was refering to your accusation that we don' bother to train for empty hands fighting, we just pick up a gun and an attitude. For the record, most of the gun training we do is unarmed against a gun- negotiating skills and disarming.

I have a high and mighty attitude? OK, if you say so. Let me take this oppornuty to invite you to come up to my standard. The view is great up here, and folks are a lot nicer.

[dnc101]

Myosimka,

Maybe I did get your example confused with someone else. Sorry. But it did prompt you to make a good point. Yes, I remember the case you mention. And it was tragic. I don't remember what happened to the guy that shot the kid, but I hope he was held accountable- that means at least a manslaughter charge. If I remember the details right, I'd say it should have been 2nd degree murder, possibly even 1st.

Yes, we disagree on a lot of things, especially the Constitutional scholars. Registration and more taxes passed on to the consumer are also a problem. But we do agree on training being bennificial. And, I agree that both the legal aspects of owning and using a gun and the option and possible bennifits of not owning one should be covered. So, how do we build on our agreement without compromising either of our strongly held convictions?

A basic class, through a public medium, which covers safety, legal issues, and the option to own or not? This could be funded by the states. And I'll bend on "mandatory" if you'll bend on "every one"
( actually, the every one is a compromise for me too, but that is the only way I can see to address the registration issue).

Then how about voluntary safety, use and maintenance training by private organisations if you want it? I know that several of these programs already exist for gun owners. Does any one you know of teach avoidence and legal issues for non gun owners? Of course, the individual taking the course would have to pay his own way. But maybe you can think of some incentive to take the training.

[dnc101]

fmann,

You are correct about the outcry in either case. And our government is only as trustworthy as we are vigilant, so there should be an outcry when necessary.

[Metal Fist]

DNC101- :D . I get responses from Liberal/Socialists like Jon all the time when it comes to gun control and our rights. Their venomous rhetoric is, as you said, a shield(although a flimsy one)to hide behind. The fact that their reactions are so agressive and vile only reinforces the fact that they don't even have a clue.
As was mentioned in an above post, as a Martial Artist I do consider firearms training an important part of my MA training.

In response to JON and his accusations of my being paranoid and cowardly, HAH. Are you a "head" doctor? If not then you are badly mis-informed. I am neither paranoid or cowardly and if you can't see how the gov'ts of our and most of the other countries are forcefully interjecting their Socialist ideals into our lives, well then you must be suffering the "frog in the boiling pot"syndrome.
I would much rather use my fists to beat the crap out of some puke who crosses the line with me, a gun is too easy. I guess I enjoy the blood sport too much.:D I get a warm and fuzzy feeling when I face some a$$wipe who thinks I am a target.:cool:
Read my signature line, it's how I live my life and it applies to all parts of my life.

[dnc101]

Interesting post. You list Japan as your location. Is it your "home country"?

I was stationed in Japan in the '70s, and I was in Okinawa when we turned it back over to the Japanese. I did not know that they could own firearms. I don't even remember the police there carrying them, though I could be wrong. And I'm sure the police would have some access to firearms in any case. I do remember the red and white battons they used- and the respect they commanded from even the baddest of the bad!

One question- if (as in the first use of a gun you listed) you have a gun for home defense, what good is it to keep it unloaded? A self defense firearm is generally kept in a state of readiness, because if it is ever needed it would probably be needed immediately. This has been one of the main principles taught by all firearms defense courses I've seen. And my own (somewhat limmited, fortunately) experience bears it out. Can they get a permit to keep it loaded?

Japan is a beautiful country, and their culture is fascinating.

[red_fists]

Hi dnc101.

No Japan is not my Home Country.

As for the unloaded issue, you can have the Clip and Gun sitting next to each other.
Or have the gun loaded as long as it is on you.

But for storage Guns and Bullets are seperate.

But it is assumed that you will defend yourself against an Intruder not somebody already in the House.

Yes, you can own Guns in Japan, but it is tough to get a Licence. Those Licences are for sports shooting or hunting only.

Non-Firing Guns can be bought over the Counter for Collectors.

Most of the Gun Holders come from the armed services or from the Police.

But than I also need a Licence to own a sharpened Tai Chi Sword.
Seeya.

[jon]

Ive deliberately taken a much sweeter tone for this post as i dont want to continue to argue with you over something we have both already made up our minds over. That said i did think i should clear a few things up.

For a start my comment regarding carrying small arms as being cowardly was out of place, i can admit that. I should have stated that my real feelings towards this relate to people living in my own country where carrying a handgun is illegal. For a person to carry a handgun here they really would be a coward as no one else carrys guns. IF however you live in a country where carrying of small arms is legal i can totaly see why you would want to have an even score card. My reasons for viewing it as cowardly are based on the fact that over here guns are not commen hence carrying one means your trying to tip the odds heavily in your favor. So i guess i should appologise to those who are perfectly within there legal rights as it was not you im aiming at.
These are not meant to start another stir i just wanted to clear a few things up:


"directing it at another individual for the most part is a thin shield to hide behind"
* This is really not my fault, you took a post i addressed to someone else and decided to make a personal issue out of it

"As for cussing at me, its been done before."
* I deliberatly tried to not swear and only use silly insults that wouldnt be taken to seriously. Im sorry if your kids read this but remember you throw the first stone here. My comments where a bit out of place but you didnt need to respond with personal insults.

"So you think I fight like a girl? Thank you. I know a few girls that can hold their own pretty well, even with real bad boys like you."
* You obviously missed the humor in my comment, it was due to your way of trying to twist my words to fit your arguement. Most girls are great at this tactic, i said you insult like a girl not fight like one. The comment was also not really supposed to be sexist or serious, it was very much tounge in cheek.

"I've never been in a stand up fight? You're sure? I could make all kinds of claims here, but what is the point? "
* I couldnt possibly know how well you fight, i said 'proberly' and the comment was again more a silly insult than serious debate.

"I listed my initials and my location when I joined this forum."
* Ive listed my real first name, location and the name of my sifu, i have to be carefull what i say and i can respect you have the same responsibility.

"I have said that all I own right now is a muzzle loading rifle. You think I sleep with it under my pillow? Wierd! Do I load it, or just cuddle up real close? "
* Definately loaded and im certain you do cuddle it close:p [j\k]

"No, I don't feel sorry for you because of your views on gun legislation. I feel sorry for you because of your attitude, which, as I said, is pathetic."
* I tried to restate my view with a little more accuracy above, if you still view it as pathetic then fair enough, we will just have to disagree. Still you would do better to try and sway people to your view rather than just insulting theres. This whole thing has only made me more happy we have gun restrictions in place.

"I was refering to your accusation that we don' bother to train for empty hands fighting"
* I was very carefull to say that 'SOME' have the attidude of why learn to fight when you can carry a gun. Please stop accusing me of things i havent said and taking my words well out of context.

"I have a high and mighty attitude? OK, if you say so. Let me take this oppornuty to invite you to come up to my standard. The view is great up here, and folks are a lot nicer."
* My post was in responce to yours, i hardly see how you can claim your standard is above mine when your the one who started with the personal insults. As for folks being a lot nicer, this board [street\reality] has been nothing but a hassle for me and ive only made a few posts. Im a regular on both the main forum and the southern and i never cop this kind of treatment. I think ill avoid these 'nicer folks' you speak of thanks.

I have no wish to keep this going Dnc I only orginaly wanted to state what it was like in a country with good gun control and give my opinion. I can respect not all will agree with it but that is no excuse to then start hurling flames.
I even noticed my so called 'insults' have been edited out of my post, thats beyond a joke and blatently against freedom of speech. There was no swearing and the whole paragraph was tounge in cheek. This board wreaks of bad management and a sence of 'locals only'... I will make it my buisness to let others know this, I see no point in posting when its not even certain your view will be recieved intact.

[- I Edited out my own lame threats to the moderators about freedom of speech withdrawl:rolleyes: ]

[dnc101]

Jon,

Actually, you're right. I love that gun (sniff)!

Seriously, thanks for the apology, the new tone, and the clarification. I can accept that your post may have been taken wrong. But when you started out, the comments were directed to what appeared to be gun owners in general, then you moved on to a particular individual. So yes, I took it as a personal attack. Maybe I should have asked for clarification before I had at you, so I too must apologise.

As for the comment that was edited from your post, I can only guess that it was seen as possibly offensive to women.

I'd also like to clear up one point, even though no one has yet accused me of this. I don't dislike Australians. In fact, I liked both of the Crocodile Dundee movies. He's my hero! Did you see that shot he took- at least 300 yds downhill, a quick snapshot, under fire, and he creased his partners head and saved his life! If you guys can shoot like that, it seems a shame to disarm you.

I've never been to Australia, so I don't know what it's like there. And your laws are your business. I have read comments from a lot of you which decry the loss of freedom and the injustices of gun control. So I know it is a contentios issue there, just as it is here. And it tends to get peoples hackles up quick. I can argue politely with those who have opposing views (read some of my discussions with others). But your comments raised my hackles, and I bared my fangs and went for the jugular. You have a good point- that is not the best way to change someones mind.

I'm sorry you had such a rough time here ( I'm not being mean spirited this time). I do think you have to take some responsibility for that, though. You have to admit, some of your comments were pretty rude as stated, regardless of how they were meant. Of course, so were my replies, so I'm willing to call it even for my part in this mess.

One last thing- the bad issue. Of course I have no idea how bad you are, or whether you are a coward. That was a "Yeah, so are you" reply, which I admit is not really a higher standard. And I don't mean to come off as bad either. I have been in a few fights, but I'd be ashamed to tell you how many I lost. Attitude sometimes counts for more than training when things get really nasty ( sorry guys, but if you think different, you are in for a rude awakening ). And I've had the misfortune to meet some who went to the MA school of hard knocks who would eat anything you throw at them and still come on hard. They were bad, I was had. Trust me, I would have loved to have had a gun a few times, even one on one. And truth be known, there are times I've backed off from a fight. It was a bitter pill to swallow. But when the deck is stacked against you, it's like they say, "Discretion is the better part of valor." It just doesn't feel that way at the time. So I guess this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black ( or in your case, the billie ). And my guess is that most of us, or at least those of us who didn't have the sense to stay out of the bad areas, have had similar experiences. It doesn't make any of us cowards.

So Godspeed, and keep up the training. And I hope you reconsider about leaving the forum.

[jon]

You have just shamed me:(
That was proberly the most intelligent well thought out responce ive ever read on this forum - with a dash of humour:)
Your views and your opinions are well stated and to be frank you have actualy turned me slightly in your direction. I have to admit i have no idea as to the standard of interlect or thought process that a gun owner has and i was stupid to act like i did.
You sir deserve your gun, if everyone else who owned one also had your sence of reason we proberly wouldnt be in this mess.
I feel a bit stupid about my being so axed at my comments being cut i just couldnt believe they werent seen for what they where. The main forum is a total mess of swearing and general insults and i was a bit shocked at this moderators lack of humor. Also just to be a real fly in the ointment you can only construde my comments as sexist if you already believe men to be superiour. Otherwise [just as you wisely did] you would simply see it as either pointless or a compliment.
Anyway it was a real pleasure to read your post and you have certainly made me both feel less insulted and more in favor of your argument.
Full props to you dnc101 you have my respects.
Jon

[myosimka]

since we are on the subject of rights and freedoms. Freedom of speech is a great thing. The problem is most people presume (a)that means a guaranteed forum and (b)that any restrictions are a violation of that right. And that just ain't so.

Somebody's paying for server space and domain registration. If they want to let people talk on their site, that's their right. But they also get to make the rules. And if they pull your comments, then they are expressing their freedom of expression. Ie. they control their webpage.

(If only they'd exercise it more regularly, maybe we'd be spared Ralek, jacki, Spinning Backfist and all the rest.)


That being said the filter is darned annoying. I understand cutting out some but it annoys me to not be able to say ****geneous, ****cide, ****sexual...all of which I can see cause for in polite debates on martial arts, weapons, etc. (And personally cutting out the 'offensive' stuff is annoying too.)

[fmann]

it's homicide, not hom o cide.

[dnc101]

Jon: Even up, then. And no worries, mate ( best Aussie accent )!

Myosimka: Excellent point! But this is a bit scarry- you are sounding a lot like Rush Limbaugh. The way he put it, you have the right to speak- but you don't have the right to have anyone listen.

Also a good point about the regulation of the site. It is unfortunate that we live in a litigious society, and they have to protect themselves.

While we are on this subject, I'm sorry I chose an individual letter to point out the disrespect inherent in public profanity. That was, in retrospect, a little disrespectful in itself ( that is to everyone who had to endure the tirade of emotions I was engaged in ).

Moderators- that would have to be a tough job sometimes. And since I complained this thread probably came under a little extra scrutiny.

Jon, since you havn't come into contact with guns, I would assume you havn't met a lot of gun owners. So it is understandable you wouldn't know how we think or view firearms. If you're interested, I'll give you a look inside my mind.
*A gun is a tool, and like using any tool you have to pick the right one for the job. Some are made for combat, some for self defense, hunting, target shooting, plinking, and some are mostly ornamental.
*A gun may be a sporting accessory- hunting and target shooting are good examples.
*A gun may be a work of art. Keep your Rembrandts, I'll take the functional beauty of a well crafted firearm any day.
*Guns are science at the level of the common man. Shooting is a very technical art. Trajectory, wind velocity and direction, and temperature are just a few of the things to consider in making a well placed shot. And you must discipline your body to take and hold a good, steady position. Your mind must also be disciplined to bring it all together before you squeeze the trigger. And handloading your own ammo is going through an entire production process from design, product testing, manufacture, quality control, distrubition and use.
*Guns are history. From military firearms that helped decide the fate of nations to those that opened "new" lands to exploration and settlement, the history of the modern world was written with guns.
*Guns are security. Self defense is a legitimate use for any tool, from empty hands to firearms. And no nation is truly secure without a well armed military.
*Guns are myth and legend. This is especially true in America, where we have the tales of the West- some true, most embellished, and then there's Hollywood.
*Guns are a moral issue. Like having martial arts training, having a gun carries a lot of responsibility. You can't give life, so you don't have the right to take life without good reason, whether by intent or by negligence. As with anything, accidents may happen. But it is your responsibility to make every reasonable effort to prevent them.
*Guns are a social issue. I don't think I need to say anything about that on THIS forum.
Pretty impressive for a hunk of metal and wood, don't you think?

Good on yer, mates! ( OK, I'll stop with the corny accent- jeeze! )

[dnc101]

On a personal note, you too have gained my respect.

Some times we loose sight of the fact that everyone here is a martial artist. And whether we train for fighting, sport, or just for fun, we've all put a lot of effort and discipline into our art. I think that speaks volumes of all of us, we just have to stop and listen.

The same goes for shooting. It requires a lot of the same effort and discipline as the martial arts to do it right. But I have to admit that there are some who don't put in much more effort into their art than putting down the cash and taking it home. And there are a few who are rediculously irresponsible or, as you said, want an edge. No one dislikes them more than responsible gun owners. The good news for you is that the edge gained without discipline can, and often is, turned against them. A person who depends only on the possesion of a gun to control the situation is in a defensive mindset. As a martial artist, you probably can see the folly in that, as well as the opportunity for you. You just have to be cognizent of the fact that it isn't the one that holds the gun who has the advantage, it is the one who controls the gun. And that, sir, is you- if you've trained a little and know a few of the basic principles. I'd recomend playing with it ia little just for the experience. It is fun as well as useful to practice disarmament. Get a toy dart gun for a little realism- if the dart hits you, you did it wrong. Add some weight for a better feel ( lead inthe handle works ). And cut off the trigger guard- your partner will appreciate not having his finger riped and twisted off. And don't forget about rifles and shotguns- whole different ballgame there. If you want to try it let me know and I'll give you some more tips. Maybe even start a new thread.

Just a thought or two. Good training, and good luck.

[jon]

dnc101
Thank you for your insights you seem to have a good handle on the whole situation. One idea i could see as certainly more benificial is better gun education in the states where they are common. Mainly in the area of handling of firearms and saftey issues related to the use of them. I think the points you brought up on history was interesting as well. I sometimes forget i have a room full of chinese swords which i love dearly and would never allow anyone to take away.
I have trained a little gun disarming but i have to say if your close its not to hard, if your more than 4 feet away your basicaly toast.

Regarding the issue of moderation on a public board, i edited out my previous post becouse i had basicaly flipped my lid but i will restate here what i said in much sweeter terms.

This is actualy a private board thats paid for by advertising, if comments are constantly edited for poor reasons and views are not able to be expressed in full then people will simply stop comming here. Hence no more money no more board...
There is nothing to stop me [other than my good will] from making it a mission to let others know about this 'moderation' and in turn ruin any reputation that this street\reality forum has.
Im sure if i posted this even on the main page of this very site it would do enough to stop some people from ever posting in this section again. If you dont believe it then fair enough but you only need to look at the number of people who post in the main section on topics that obviously 'could' go on here to see that this board already doesnt have much of a reputation.
A shining example of this shoddy standard can be seen in JF Springers post which was not at all rude and mearly stated Ralek had not shown up. This post was fine on every other forum on this site yet for some reason Johhny felt the need to delete it here. I would be VERY interested in knowing just how he justifies that one on a commerical public message board.
We have enough to worry about with trolls we dont need to worry about having to please finicky moderators to go with it.

[fmann]

Moderators have to use their judgement on what they deem is appropriate. If there is a thread that was cross-posted everywhere on the forum, then why not just link to the main thread instead of allowing all these side threads to take up bandwidth?

Wasting bandwidth and space = wasting money.

Same thing with appropriate conduct. If you following the Whippinghand posts in the Wing Chun forum, you know that the moderators adhere to a code of minimal conduct: control the flames and brash, crass comments. It's not that hard to express oneself without stooping to a low level.

[dnc101]

Points well taken about moderators and advertising, and this being a public forum. I don't know how much harm you'd actually do, but my experience has been that when I go off on a personal crusade I make more people mad at me than my intended victim. For example, we sure got a reaction from each other, Jon. And if I'd ever learn to keep my mouth shut I probably wouldn't get nearly the experience to throw arround here.

You are right about distance and disarming. Even four feet is dicey. That is where negotiation comes into play. If I can talk him out of it, OK. But the main purpose of negotiation is to give him a false sense of security and control and draw him in close enough to give me the edge. This is done verbally, of course, but body language is more important. And you do have to be careful what you say.

There are methods to disarm from across a room. I can't do it- you have to move with the speed of Neo ( but no dramatic wasted motion ) and the athletic moves of Jackie Chan. And it is only intended for the situation where he's going to kill you regardless. It involves moving forward in a serries of rolls, never taking your eyes off his trigger finger. As he aims and squeezes you reverse your roll. ( I'd rather negotiate! ) And the first time it was shown to me I completely nullified his counter attack by crouching and fireing, which took away one of the angles I had to deal with and put us both in the same plane of operation. I doubt that the average punk who somehow got ahold of a gun would think of that, and since a lot of them tend to just spray the area and hope they hit something you might have a chance by just rushing in a serries of dodges. It would beat standing there and getting shot.

Education is also a good idea, and it is one area that all sides prety much agree on as benifficial. But we tend to disagree when it comes to content and a few other details, even among those who aren't totally opposed to guns. Myosimkas posts are a good example of that viewpoint. I am obviosly pro gun rights- although I don't have a problem restricting full autos with 'nade launchers, and nukes are a definate no no.

There is a radical anti gun faction that does not want any gun safety education. A couple of years ago the pro gun side called their bluff by giving them everything they wanted, including registration, but not an outright ban. President Clinton refused to sign it. He instead raised the standard- I think the excuse was a petty detail in the trigger lock portion of the bill. Wayne LaPierre ( VP of the NRA ) called that one perfectly when he said that they didn't want gun safety, that they desire a certain level of gun violence so they have an issue to demigogue. And of course, that radical element wants nothing less than a total ban on private firearms ownership. In other words, if someone has to die to provide them with the headlines, that is fine- they hate guns so much that the ends justify those means. Unfortunately, we find this attitude mostly in the elite circles of politics, the media, education, and Hollywood.

[myosimka]

Thanks fmann!! I finally get to go back to my parents and ***** about my classical education. Putting to gether latin roots hom0 and cidium I have been spelling it wrong for years. I still get to ***** about the terms hom_osexual and ****geneous though.

[tnwingtsun]

There Is No Middle Ground

by Larry Pratt
Executive Director, Gun Owners of America

February 6, 2002

"A new book makes it clear that understanding the gun control debate is hardly likely to end the debate.

The book is entitled Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control, and it is written by two well known authorities in the field, criminologist Gary Kleck and attorney Don Kates.

Those who claim to be for "reasonable, common sense gun control" deny their intentions of banning guns, but their own statements and their own logic belie their denials.

Kleck is willing to support certain limited gun control measures but believes that the absolutist logic and statements of the leading pro-control advocates has polarized the debate. Those in the Handgun Control, Inc. camp (now known as the Brady Center to Stop Gun Violence) have made the middle ground untenable according to Kleck.

He quotes Rep. William Clay of Saint Louis saying:

"We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases."

Likewise, Kleck quotes Rep. Bobby Rush of Chicago saying that:

"ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."

Just as blatant is this citation from syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer:

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea....Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."

And of course, the Sarah Brady file is full of statements about how each new gun control conquest is a good first step. In fact, Kates mentions that HCI went to court to keep the DC gun ban from being repealed.

HCI donated to the unsuccessful handgun ban referendum in Massachusetts in 1976, and at one time belonged to the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. Nowhere on the HCI website does one find a condemnation of a domestic or foreign gun ban.

For these and many other similar reasons, Kleck lays the blame on the door of the leading pro-control spokesmen for the refusal of even moderate pro-gun freedom supporters to accept any controls whatsoever.

Moreover, the nature of the gun controls put forth is to impact mostly the non-criminals. This further convinces the middle-of-the-road gun owner that gun regulations are unlikely to have much impact on anyone but them. They get the point. Gun controls are aimed at the law-abiding, not the criminals.

In other words, the best arguments against gun control compromises have come, ironically, from the "we want it all" statements and policies of the Sarah Brady fraternity.

This helps explain why, according to Kleck, the non-compliance with the California semi-auto ban has been around 90 percent.

Kleck provides a substantial collection of quotes from prominent Americans who favor banning guns, topped off by former President Bill Clinton. Regarding a ban, Clinton said:

"I don't think the American people are there right now....But there are certain kinds of guns that can be banned and a lot of other reasonable regulations that can be imposed."

An example of constantly raising the bar for gun owners to jump over is the HCI law suit against Beretta. HCI said that it was negligence for gun companies to make guns without a "gun loaded" indicator. Beretta makes handguns with such devices, but HCI sued them anyway — the indicator was not good enough for them.

Of the half-dozen states that have registration laws, Kleck finds that

"state registration laws have no measurable effect on rates of crime or violence....HCI places highest priority on giving the government a resource that would indisputably facilitate mass confiscation of guns, but that has no documented value for reducing crime or violence."

Kleck submitted his chapter on the absolutist goals of Handgun Control to HCI, but they refused to comment.

At the end of the day, my reading of Armed makes crystal clear to me that giving in to the slightest of the demands of the pro-control leaders (in and out of Congress) is to set foot on the slippery slope that plummets toward victim disarmament."



QUOTES TO REMEMBER
Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins. — Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, whose testimony convicted John Gotti.



As for training??

My first session happened when I was five years old,I climbed up
to grab a rifle on my grandfather's gun rack,next thing I knew I saw stars from the back of his hand,a lession never forgot.

That was back in the old days when morals were of a higher standerd.

Firearms were a big part of my life growing up,hunting(and fishing) and maybe it was that socity was differant in those days
where the family took it opon themselves to educate their children.
There were many more firearms back then,boyscouts were trusted when it came to target practice,they were provided training but most already had this knowledge from Dads,Uncles,ect.
What has changed since those days?
Alot!
Are we being progressive to the point that the old ways no longer have bearing with our children?
Take a look at video games children play today,most are violent.
Take a look at the movies hollywood cranks out!
Our children are watching these movies!!
The left and the right complain about the violence in movies and games.
Who pumps the money into the lefts campains?
HOLLYWOOD!!
I was programed as a child to respect firearms as the ocean,I do not fear either one but I respect BOTH!

As a soldier I was programed to be aware at all times where my muzzel was in relation to my buddy in the stack(shoot your buddy and your OUT!).
Maybe I got lucky that my family ranging from WW2 Vets-Nam Vets took an interest in instilling morals that are on the decay
in todays world.

And who is responsible for this lack of edjucation for our children?

Its NOT the Govs place,its ours as parents,uncles grandfathers!!

And the punks that were not lucky as I was brought up with firearms knowledge because they have parents that either not care or they have no guidence and use a firearm to harm somebody else(see product of their envioment)
then all the reason for me to own a firearm and teach my children the right way!


As far as class 3 firearms are concerned(select fire rifles,machine guns) I would much rather engage an untrained person with a subgun or a crew served weapon with my firearm using fire control.

BTW,a Simi-large capacity-mag rifle is NOT an Assult Rifle(see class 3 weapons)


Any person WELL trained in the art of firearms Military/Police knows that a well placed shot is better than the spray and pray mentality.

As far as resisting my/our of the people US Gov. if they go bonkers
not surviving,think again.

[Radhnoti]

Well said. I especially liked the portion discussing the "untenable" nature of the middle ground for pro-gun advocates.
Great article tnwingtsun. Very relevant to the discussion, in my opinion. :)

[tnwingtsun]

Like it or not, we are the militia
By Jessica Mainard, Collegiate Programs Director - SAF

The militia is often discussed in the pro-gun foundation where I work. Usually I’m on the other side of the fence arguing against its existence. Being young, maybe I just don’t understand. I’ve never felt the need to enlist into a military service that does not even exist in any measurable way. I even remember saying just six months ago “Why do we need a militia? We’re the leaders of the free world. We’re the United States of America.”

This question came to mind again while reading an Internet newsgroup post, so I researched the history and definition of this “militia.” Often people refer to “militias” as those people with bunkers in the mountains and all varieties of strange political beliefs. Sometimes you’ll even hear people argue that the militia is actually now the National Guard (which was once state militias and later nationalized to become an armed service) but in fact that is not the case.

The ready militia is defined in 10 USC 311 as: “All able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…and under 45 years of age who are or have made a declaration of intention to become citizens of the United States.” Additionally, another provision allows for a reserve militia, which includes women, children and the elderly.

The interesting thing is just how implausible the militia really is. It cannot be summoned by any government, but must be mustered from within. Additionally, there is no penalty for not fulfilling a militia responsibility. How does one know when it is his or her responsibility to muster the militia?

I wondered what form a “muster” might take. A guy standing on the street with a bugle, playing some civil-war-era charge? Maybe a broadcasted call to arms?

My eyes fell on a article from the Washington Times. Peter Hannaford wrote about United Airlines’ September 19 flight 564 at Denver International Airport.

On the tarmac, waiting for takeoff, the pilot addressed the passengers giving directions on how to attack and disarm a would-be terrorist. He closed his comments just before takeoff saying:

The Declaration of Independence says “We the People” and that is just what it is when we’re in the air; we, the people, vs. would-be terrorists. I don’t think that we’re going to have any such problem today or tomorrow, or for a while, but sometime down the road its going to happen again, and I want you to know what to do. Now, since we’re family for the next few hours, I’ll ask you to turn to the person next to you, introduce yourself, and ask them to do the same.”

As his statement ended, all of the passengers began to applaud. I read this for at least the third time before I realized that this pilot has just mustered his own militia, and moreover, this was not the first time that’s happened recently.

Reports from cellular phone calls show that the passengers (quite possibly all of the passengers) of flight 93 took a vote to attack the hijackers who may have been intending to crash the jet into the White House or Capitol.

From among those passengers, volunteers stepped forward to attack the hijackers. Unarmed, with no defenses, a stewardess boiled water in the galley to be used as a weapon, hoping to injure or distract their captors. The volunteers then phoned mothers, wives and friends. One even called a telephone operator asking her to pass a message to his wife and kids, and to recite the Lords’ prayer with him.

The volunteers on that flight were not as well qualified as many soldiers in defense, but they were capable of mounting their attack. Mark Bingham was a physically fit Rugby player who had once wrestled a gun from a mugger’s hand. Tom Burnet was a star quarterback in high school he was fast and muscular. Jeremy Glick was a judo champion, and Todd Beamer, a father of three, sounded their final battle cry. Ending his phone call to the telephone operator, he shouted “Are you guys ready? Let’s Roll!”

These brave men died in a field in rural Pennsylvania. Hardly a glamorous or overwhelming show of force, with no war or obvious victors. Some people are even critical of the decision to award them the President’s Medal of Freedom, and Purple Hearts for their courage and sacrifice.

This passenger militia left a legacy and a new standard of duty for their children, and an entire generation. My generation. Showing us that there is no such thing as great men, only ordinary men in extraordinary circumstances. Men who rise to the occasion like they did.

I’d like to close with a poem from Herman Melville, ironically, written the day President Abraham Lincoln died. There is a sobbing of the strong,


And a pall upon the land;
But the people in their weeping,
Bare an Iron hand;
Beware the people weeping when they bare the iron hand

[tnwingtsun]

Too much text for this forum,some may read some may not.

Those on the anti gun/registration(same thing) side tell me what you think.



http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-noc1.html




Read before you reply.