• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gun controll?

You can tell me as a law abiding citizen I shouldn't have one all day long. It's your right in a society that allows freedom of expression.

Sure isn't going to stop me from owning one... or seven. :cool:
 
I encourage everyone, especially those opposed to gun control, to read Ocelot's post above in its entirety. It will save everyone involved a lot of stupid.


I agree, I've read it a couple of times and I'd call it perfect except I'm personally hung up on different types of guns bought and stored for different purposes.

For instance, I have no problems with people owning long guns for sporting purposes where these guns are properly stored when not in use . I have a really, really difficult time accepting a gun owned and stored with the express purpose of being accessible for self defense purposes.

Heck..I was reading a story about a guy in Texas who bought a pistol specifically for stashing under the seat of his car. He'd bought a cheap gun, a saturday night special, figuring he's minimise his financial loss when, inevitably, his car would be broken into and the gun stolen.

Oh yay...
 
Hi

Is it just me, or has Gaggle not answered my question?


Ok - which quesiton is that?

Part 1: Needless deaths.

You say: That gun deaths exist, and the status quo is not an option unless i find needless deaths acceptable.

I answer: Which needless deaths? I mentioned that in GB, the homicide rate has not dropped since the last gun ban, and asked why, if the homicide rate hadn't gone down, you were looking so closely at gun homicides. I went on to demonstrate that accidental deaths are quite low, and homicides are quite high, and outlined what I knew about homicides in Indiana. My sources:
Accidental - A COMPARISON OF RISK: Accidental Deaths - United States - 1999-2003, US Dept. of Transportation in which accidental gun deaths occurred an average of 779 times in a population of between 60 and 91 million persons, placing it 10th in risk of accidental death.
Type | 5 Yr. Average | General Population |Risk Based on Exposure
| | Risk Per Year | or Other Measures
Motor Vehicle | 36,676 | 1 out of 7,700 | 1.3 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles
Poisoning | 15,206 | 1 out of 18,700 |
Work Related | 5,800 | 1 out of 49,000 | 4.3 deaths per 100,000 workers
Large Trucks | 5,150 | 1 out of 55,000 | 2.5 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles
Pedestrian | 4,846 | 1 out of 58,000 |
Drowning | 3,409 | 1 out of 83,500 |
Fires |9 3,312 1 out of 86,000
Motorcycles |3,112 |1 out of 91,500 | 31.3 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles
Railroads | 931 | 1 out of 306,000 |1.3 deaths per million train miles
Firearms | 779 | 1 out of 366,000 |
Homicide - The Social Ecology of Murder In Indiana
Ninety-two percent of offenders in each sentence type group had a criminal history prior to the committing the instant offense. Most (84% or more) had been arrested at least once as an adult. More than half had been arrested as a juvenile.
Twenty-four percent of all offenders were out on bail, released on their own recognizance, or had promised to appear for another offense when they committed the crime of murder.
....
Nineteen percent of offenders were on probation for another offense and nearly 7% were on parole when the instant offense occurred.
Table 7-1: The top five reasons for murders committed by offenders in this study were: To facilitate the commission of another crime (i.e., ‘felony murder,’ 43% of all offenders); to acquire money or property (non-drug-related; 34% of all offenders); over an intimate or familial situation
(24% of all offenders); to silence someone who witnessed the defendant or a codefendant during the commission of a crime (21% of all offenders); and hatred, retaliation, animosity, or revenge (16% of all offenders).
The only non-overlapping motives in the top 5 were felony homicide and silencing a witness, which account for some 64% of all the convictions.

Second point: The inapplicability of gun deaths to other kinds of deaths

You said: The comparison was unfair because people take a lot of steps to limit the other kinds of deaths.

I answered: POINT FOR POINT that law-abiding gun owners take identical steps.

Third point: The Ol' Switcheroo

You said: Other countries have limited gun deaths by limiting guns, and asked what the answer is for America.

I mentioned that most of the gun deaths in the USA are performed by criminals, with criminal intent, who will not give the first packrat's rumpsteak for a ban on firearms. I went on to mention that a review of the major source of criminal activity, the US illegal drug laws, might yield a significant reduciton in gun deaths.

I would like to take the opportunity to remind you that, in England and Wales at least, and due to your most recent foray into gun control, the number of deaths due to homicides has not dropped:
Home Office crime statistics for England and Wales, Long Term Trends

Our death rate for accidental deaths, the only ones that could be effected by a gun ban because the criminals aren't going to hand in their guns, is about 800 in a population of... lets split the difference and say 75 million... 75 million gun owning persons (criminal and law-abiding both), gives us a rate per 100,000 of about ONE. 1.066 or there abouts.

According to the UK National statistics online, Alcohol Deaths chart
In 2006 the male death rate (18.3 deaths per 100,000 population) was more than twice the rate for females (8.8 deaths per 100,000)
it appears that more of you guys seem to be drinking yourselves to death than a complete gun ban in the US would stop. I can't help but wonder about all those unnecessary deaths, when all you have to do is ban alcoholic beverage.

...or do you NEED booze like you need a car?

Perhaps what you meant is that I didn't provide a solution that you liked?
 
How is it dumb?

Because it is stupid to equate gun control, which is perfectly reasonable and agreed upon by pretty much every single person to one degree or another, and fascism, which is a ultra-nationalist right-wing authoritarian form of government. Plus, it doesn't match reality on any level. The level of gun regulation doesn't equate to the level of authoritarianism in a government.
 
How exactly is it supposed to do that?

How are we supposed to rise up if they start getting too big for their pants? What if they force us to have personal monitoring devises? If they have all the guns, what are we supposed to do? Is the right to free speech, free thought, free expression and privacy not important?
 
I mentioned that in GB, the homicide rate has not dropped since the last gun ban, and asked why, if the homicide rate hadn't gone down, you were looking so closely at gun homicides.


This is becoming blatantly dishonest. Please refer to my above post on this ludicrous statement.

Rolfe.
 
Jonathon said:
How are we supposed to rise up if they start getting too big for their pants? What if they force us to have personal monitoring devises? If they have all the guns, what are we supposed to do? Is the right to free speech, free thought, free expression and privacy not important?


I refer you to my previous reply. How is your wee handgun to square up to the army, who you might remember have real weapons?

Likewise, can you name any modern western democracy where the scenario you outline has occurred?
 
Last edited:
Hi.........
I went on to demonstrate that accidental deaths are quite low, .....
Firearms | 779 | 1 out of 366,000 |
I demonstrated that the deliberate gun deaths in the UK is quite low. The chances of been murdered with a gun in the UK in a year is 1 in 1,215,524. It follows that guns are 3.3 times more likely kill accidentally than deliberately. How would you suggest we do a cost benefit analysis on these figures ?
 
Last edited:
If you really want a society where everyone is either carrying a gun or is hoarding guns at home in case the government sets the armed forces on its citizens, I despair for you. Your government is the people you elect, and your armed forces are your neighbours who have chosen to enlist. What sort of paranoia does it take to imagine your scenario?

Yeah, Rolf. The Soldiers of the Nazi's certainly objected to Hitler's orders. Same with the commies. Yeah, you're right Rolf. The soldiers would NEVER do anything like that.

I refer you to my previous reply. How is your wee handgun to square up to the army, who you might remember have real weapons?

Likewise, can you name any modern western democracy where the scenario you outline has occurred?

Well, I'm talking more about guns in General. Also, just because it hasn't happened in the west doesn't mean it ever will.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, Rolf. The Soldiers of the Nazi's certainly objected to Hitler's orders. Same with the commies. Yeah, you're right Rolf. The soldiers would NEVER do anything like that.

Jonathan

Again: name me a single modern Western democracy where this has happened? And explain to me how these small arms are going to repulse a modern, well-equipped army?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, Rolf. The Soldiers of the Nazi's certainly objected to Hitler's orders. Same with the commies. Yeah, you're right Rolf. The soldiers would NEVER do anything like that.

... and the poor bloody civilians equipped with small arms certainly did a great job of repulsing them.
 
Last edited:
How are we supposed to rise up if they start getting too big for their pants? What if they force us to have personal monitoring devises? If they have all the guns, what are we supposed to do? Is the right to free speech, free thought, free expression and privacy not important?

Who is this "they"? From the posts of some USA Members I get the impression that they think there is a separate group of people that govern the rest. In the UK that is not the case, our government is us, indeed I know we have several "them" who post on this very Forum.

People in this country who attempt to undemocratically or violently overthrow society are usually labelled with words such as "terrorists" and really I do want to make it any easier for such terrorists to get hold of weapons!
 
Yeah, Rolf. The Soldiers of the Nazi's certainly objected to Hitler's orders. Same with the commies. Yeah, you're right Rolf. The soldiers would NEVER do anything like that.



Well, I'm talking more about guns in General. Also, just because it hasn't happened in the west doesn't mean it ever will.

Yes, that's the same.....

Good lord man, I have paranoia issues andI think you're raving.
 
Hi

... snip ...
You can't just go around looking for correlations, you actually have to explain how it supports your point. You would expect tighter gun laws to result in less gun crime - and indeed that is what happened. I can see no conceivable way in which tighter gun laws would result in less violent crime overall, so your point seems a bit moot.
... snip ...

So: How is a gun crime worse than any other similar crime? Again, if we ban blue cars, and the accident rate for blue cars drops top ZERO, are you any safer than you were if the total accident rate doesn't go down?

What exactly did you pay your... ummm... $A500,000,000 for?

Australian homicide rates:

Edited by Darat: 
Breach of Rule 4 removed.
http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/stats/homicideRate.png

Edited by Darat: 
Breach of Rule 4 removed.
http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/homicideRate2.png


No change in downward trend before or after '98, and a sudden rise after, which has only been addressed since 2004.

Assault

Edited by Darat: 
Breach of Rule 4 removed.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2007/fig018.png


Firearms deaths
Edited by Darat: 
Breach of Rule 4 removed.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi066.gif


No significant change after 1988. Shouldn't you see SOMETHING here, at least?? Too bad, too, because you all had a really nice down-trend going on until the buyback.

Robbery

Edited by Darat: 
Breach of Rule 4 removed.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2007/fig023.png

A small decrease in armed robbery, folowed by a spike, then a decline, again. Overall, 600 armed robberies a month instead of 800. Good on you! But it didn't START declining until 2001 or 2002. If guns were a factor, shouldn't you have seen an immediate drop?

So: 500 million Aussiebucks to achieve a decrease of 2400 robberies a year.

What are the other places where you're ACTUALLY saver for giving up your guns?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Who is this "they"? From the posts of some USA Members I get the impression that they think there is a separate group of people that govern the rest. In the UK that is not the case, our government is us, indeed I know we have several "them" who post on this very Forum.

People in this country who attempt to undemocratically or violently overthrow society are usually labelled with words such as "terrorists" and really I do want to make it any easier for such terrorists to get hold of weapons!

Have you ever heard of "Problem, Reaction, Solution"? The government creates a problem in order to get a public reaction, and the solution is to take away an essential liberty which was the plan before the "problem" arose. So, with loss of privacy, the citizens would DEMAND their privacy to be taken away. This infringes on my right to pursue happiness, and part of my happiness is being secret and hard to figure out. If I can be predicted, I'm just a close like everybody else. I've lost my identity.
 
Hi

Because it is stupid to equate gun control, which is perfectly reasonable and agreed upon by pretty much every single person to one degree or another, and fascism, which is a ultra-nationalist right-wing authoritarian form of government. Plus, it doesn't match reality on any level. The level of gun regulation doesn't equate to the level of authoritarianism in a government.


He's right, you know. Gun control doesn't lead to fascist government!

The communists were very fond of it too.
 

Back
Top Bottom