Fascinating read. Enjoyed it. Thank you Marc.
Gun Control
-
it also failed to take such things as people with a history of mental problems, or violence into account, among others
-
It’s funny. Every stabbing i’ve seen in the ER - the patients walked away from hospital within 2-5 days. Maybe half required exploratory surgery to deterimine any possible bowel penetration, the others didn’t even need a stitch. In every circumstance, the presence of a firearm in the vicinity could have chnaged things dramatically for these people. A cynic might say “oh well, these people are wastes of space and it would have been better if they had been wasted”. At the same time, a little alcohol can turn a little argument into an ambulance ride and a hospital stay if a knife is in the vicinity. A gun changes everything.
Same thing with kids. They don’t nearly as often stab themselves to death as shoot themselves to death. And send me the news reports of the mass stabbings with multiple homicides.
With regards to the “protecting the family with a gun” - of all of the 2-3 home invasions annually in this 700 000 berg, i don’t recall a gun being involved in them. At the same time, these typically target either old people, or younger people who are involved in organized crime to some extent.
So if you have a family, you are supposedly storing your weapons responsibly with the ammo in a different location from your gun. How realistic is it that you will assemble your firearm in time to not get shot? In adition the presence of a firearm usually tends to accellerate a situation in terms of violence. Ok, if i were in South Africa, then you have me - i’d also be tempted to sleep with a firearm in the bedside table as well as one in my wife’s. But really - is America as dangerous as South Africa? -
Another thing:
Why is it that many of the same kinds of people who believe that America should invade other countries to prevent them from having weapons capable of killing many people from a distance believe that they should be allowed to own weapons capable of killing many people from a distance? -
So if you have a family, you are supposedly storing your weapons responsibly with the ammo in a different location from your gun. How realistic is it that you will assemble your firearm in time to not get shot? In adition the presence of a firearm usually tends to accellerate a situation in terms of violence. Ok, if i were in South Africa, then you have me - i’d also be tempted to sleep with a firearm in the bedside table as well as one in my wife’s. But really - is America as dangerous as South Africa?
Ummm… by “different location” it could mean in the same room. As for South Africa and the United States, the difference might not be that great in city areas with a large % of crime.
-
@TG:
So if you have a family, you are supposedly storing your weapons responsibly with the ammo in a different location from your gun. How realistic is it that you will assemble your firearm in time to not get shot? In adition the presence of a firearm usually tends to accellerate a situation in terms of violence. Ok, if i were in South Africa, then you have me - i’d also be tempted to sleep with a firearm in the bedside table as well as one in my wife’s. But really - is America as dangerous as South Africa?
Ummm… by “different location” it could mean in the same room. As for South Africa and the United States, the difference might not be that great in city areas with a large % of crime.
i’d suggest there is a fairly impressive difference.
In the US you may live and never be touched by a rape (at least a rape by someone you do not know). In SA it is impossible. Life is very cheap there. -
I don’t know the exact facts of that, but point taken.
-
In the US you may live and never be touched by a rape (at least a rape by someone you do not know). In SA it is impossible. Life is very cheap there.
Im sure there is a difference, but Id like to see a source, saying it is impossible to not be touched by a rape. also, (this is coming from me, i dont have a source) ive never heard of a rape conducted at gun point (though that doesnt mean it doesnt occur of course), and the victims are obviously (at least in the vast majority of cases) women, who are less likely to own a firearm, let alone have one on them, since they often take place on the street or somewhere away from their home, where the gun would most likely be, so its not really applicable.
Why is it that many of the same kinds of people who believe that America should invade other countries to prevent them from having weapons capable of killing many people from a distance believe that they should be allowed to own weapons capable of killing many people from a distance?
I cant speak for everyone, but Id say that most of them are talking about WMD’s, artillery, ICBM, or other extreme long-range weapons, not a handgun or rifle.
A gun changes everything.
This is because a gun is so easy to get. if you were going to commit an armed crime, would you use a gun or a knife? a gun obviously, because its more effective than a knife, a gun is a better weapon than a knife ( :wink: mike, lol), and its so easy to get a hold of, why not use it? so make guns harder to get, i have no problem with that, but not impossible. and if a criminal cant get a gun, but a homeowner has one, whos going to back down, the gun owner, or the knife owner?
They don’t nearly as often stab themselves to death as shoot themselves to death.
Granted, but in the case of suicides, this is usually because if they dont act quickly, they will lose their nerve, and to them, its easier to pull a trigger than jab a knife into themselves (if i were going to kill myself, i would think the same way).
In the case of accidental death, this is because of careless gun owners, either storing a weapon loaded, or allowing their children to gain access to the gun and the ammo, without properly teaching them the safety necessary.But really - is America as dangerous as South Africa?
- you are in canada.
- yes, in some areas, more dangerous in some
- for example, in Operation: Desert Storm, when the Iraqis launched Scuds at the Saudi Arabian City of Riyadh, even if you were in the city proper, you were statistically more likely to be attacked crossing any street in NYC (New York City) than be affected by the large missiles approaching your position. Just something to think about
“Firearms are used three to five times more often to stop crimes than to prevent them” -FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States, annual reports
-
@cystic:
Another thing:
Why is it that many of the same kinds of people who believe that America should invade other countries to prevent them from having weapons capable of killing many people from a distance believe that they should be allowed to own weapons capable of killing many people from a distance?Umm, we’re talking chemical and biological weapons here, possibly even nuclear. That presents an entirely more dangerous potential for human casualties than any firearm you can show me. They can’t even be compared with each other using the same line of reasoning.
Besides, we don’t stop everyone else from having WMD’s. We try to stop crazy & dangerous people from having WMD’s. Just as we try to stop crazy & dangerous people from acquiring guns.
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
@cystic:
Another thing:
Why is it that many of the same kinds of people who believe that America should invade other countries to prevent them from having weapons capable of killing many people from a distance believe that they should be allowed to own weapons capable of killing many people from a distance?Umm, we’re talking chemical and biological weapons here, possibly even nuclear. That presents an entirely more dangerous potential for human casualties than any firearm you can show me. They can’t even be compared with each other using the same line of reasoning.
Besides, we don’t stop everyone else from having WMD’s. We try to stop crazy & dangerous people from having WMD’s. Just as we try to stop crazy & dangerous people from acquiring guns.
in my mind they do exactly the same thing. They kill people (with automatic weapons - many people) from a distance. Perhaps the numbers are greater, but after the first person (child/woman/man) what is the difference? It’s alright for a couple of innocents, but not for many? There is considerable hypocracy imbedded in this line of thinking. Basically America can have things its way, and Americans can have things their way, irrespective of the realities of its situation.
As for your definition of “crazy and dangerous” - good job!! You invaded a country with NO sign of WMD, and you completely ignored North Korea’s claims that “Hey - we have WMD!!”. In the meantime, France, Israel and Russia, as well as the Ukraine all have nuclear armaments. At the same time, it doesn’t appear that the crazy and dangerous people in the US have successfully been relieved of their firearms. I think we could start a pool - which city/occupation/school is the next mass murder of citizens going to happen in? I would win by saying New York, as its weekend killing rate with handguns compares nicely with Canada’s annual rate. Good job. -
in my mind they do exactly the same thing. They kill people (with automatic weapons - many people) from a distance. Perhaps the numbers are greater, but after the first person (child/woman/man) what is the difference? It’s alright for a couple of innocents, but not for many? There is considerable hypocracy imbedded in this line of thinking. Basically America can have things its way, and Americans can have things their way, irrespective of the realities of its situation.
and in my mind, and reality, you are wrong. they both kill people, but so do knives, so do fireworks, so do appliances, so do cars, so animals, so does pretty much anything depending on how you use it. so called “automatic weapons” are seperate and distinct from regualr firearms, that is, handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc. you also need to clarify what you mean by automatic weapons. there is condsiderable hypocrisy embedded in every line of thinking, including your own. personall, yes, i think one innocent or a few inncoents dying is more acceptable than many. thats why when we go to war, we still use guns, but not chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. the power difference is much greater than you seem to think.
As for your definition of “crazy and dangerous” - good job!! You invaded a country with NO sign of WMD, and you completely ignored North Korea’s claims that “Hey - we have WMD!!”.
No, no no. wrong. There have been plenty of signs of WMD in Iraq, inculding the testimony’s of many Iraqi’s, and the simple fact that none have been found means jack shit. There are miles of tunnels under Iraq, there are hidden palaces, bunkers, and military instillations, plenty of locations where they could be hidden. not to mention, the US didnt go about the prewar phase very intelligently, basically telling saddam we are coming to find WMD’s, so if you have any, your in trouble. i wouldnt be surprised if he smuggled them out of the country.
also, wrong wrong wrong about North Korea. they were not ignored. I cant speak for the president, but in my mind, Iraq was a more immediate threat. while clearly neither country is exactly “stable” i think NK is much less of a threat. Saddam is a ruthless dictator, who murders his own citizens without care, and invades his neighbors, which is even worse among Arab nations. Kim Jong Il (sp?) is smarter than that. he wants to stay in power, and while hes not exactly a stable leader, hes not going to do something foolish, like attack anyone with his nuclear weapons, knowing he would be ousted and killed. if saddam had the missile systems, there is no doubt in my mind he would launch them immediately at the US and maybe others. Im happy that Bush went after Iraq first, because they are more of a threat, and they should have gone down 12 years ago, this was a long time coming.In the meantime, France, Israel and Russia, as well as the Ukraine all have nuclear armaments
Im not sure what you are trying to prove with this.
as i look back on the post, i realized i didnt break it up very well, but o well.
-
not to mention, the US didnt go about the prewar phase very intelligently, basically telling saddam we are coming to find WMD’s, so if you have any, your in trouble. i wouldnt be surprised if he smuggled them out of the country.
Or more probably destroyed them.
-
@TG:
not to mention, the US didnt go about the prewar phase very intelligently, basically telling saddam we are coming to find WMD’s, so if you have any, your in trouble. i wouldnt be surprised if he smuggled them out of the country.
Or more probably destroyed them.
So you do think that he had weapons? Maybe I’m preaching to the choire here, I know CC doesn’t think he did, but I can’t remember your position TG. :(
-
Ummm… last time I checked, I supported this goddamn war and I still do.
-
oops sorry, thought we were talking about gun control :)
-
Settle down…I was just checking. :P
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
Becuase a 5 minutes response time isn’t always your best defense against someone trying to harm your family. :(
@Deviant:Scripter:
Just as we try to stop crazy & dangerous people from acquiring guns.
Who else but crazy and dangerous people threaten mz family? If they don’t have guns, why do i have to have one? How do they threaten me when they don’t have guns?
Why is a good solid door not enough for these five minutes?
And of course: I can think of much better weapons to fight in non-open spaces where i have the advantage of knowing the terrain by heart…. -
@F_alk:
If they don’t have guns, why do i have to have one?
If they don’t have guns, then you’re probably not going to need one either.
How do they threaten me when they don’t have guns?
If they’re crazy and dangerous, they’ll think of a way.
Why is a good solid door not enough for these five minutes?
It would be, if you could be sure they were going through the door.
And of course: I can think of much better weapons to fight in non-open spaces where i have the advantage of knowing the terrain by heart….
I’m sure you can. But the real question is, is there any reason for crazy and dangerous people to be attacking you and your family in the middle of the night? If there is, then wouldn’t you want to take every reasonable precaution?
-
Exactly. and gun control will not stop gun crimes. it will probably lessen it, i agree, but if a criminal wants a gun, they will get it. illegally, and then you will not have one. think about it. im not saying your going to be attacked in your home or anything, but it could happen, and if a criminal is in your house, would you rather have a gun, or no weapon? if you use gun control totally, you will not have a weapon, but he might. instead, use it to make the background checks stronger and more effective to keep the wrong people from getting guns. if they still want one enough, they will get one illegally, but at least you could have a gun as well to level the playing field.
-
@Grigoriy:
I’m sure you can. But the real question is, is there any reason for crazy and dangerous people to be attacking you and your family in the middle of the night? If there is, then wouldn’t you want to take every reasonable precaution?
Reason for crazy people…. doe they need reason?
And of cause i would take every reasonable precautions. Guns are not reasonable. -
For those untrainned to use them, maybe. But I much feel safer with a gun in my home, having been a victim to house robbery.
Suggested Topics
