|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| May 9th, 2003 07:38 PM | |||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
For example, you yourself just said that the murder rate in America is actually higher, even when excluding the use of guns. Also, According to the U.S. Department of Justice, "Violent crime rates Unlike the record rate of handgun crimes in 1992, the overall rates for violent crimes were well below the 1981 peaks. (Except where noted, this brief excludes homicides, which NCVS does not measure.)" http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt (this was the most recent data the Bureau had available) In other words, while violent crime was down, crime as a result of handgun use was UP, exceeding the national level. But on your point about violence resulting w/o handguns, the Bureau also states that: *A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt This substantiates your claim, which is dated in 1992, most likely working off the same sources I am right now. But what does this mean? With your logic, since handguns aren't the biggest indicator of injury during an assault, shouldn't we then be legislating kitchen knives, or in fact mandating that everyone have guns?? Here's another one: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt *In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed or armed with weapons other than firearms. On average between 1987 and 1992, about 35% (or 22,000 per year) of the violent crime victims defending themselves with a firearm faced an offender who also had a firearm. So, doesn't this dispute the idea that gun legislation will only hurt the "good guys"?? It looks like we need to be legislating OTHER things, right CB...? Here is my point: Like I said, I do happen to agree with the pro-gun side on frequent occassions. However, one should be cautious when using data already provided by those who have essentially filtered it, and phrased it to suit their own purposes. |
||
| May 9th, 2003 12:32 AM | |||
| CaptainBubba |
I meant a superior source supporting an opposing side to my argument Kevin. Pub: I don't believe your notion is correct and I'll put more research into it later, but for now this link will suffice to serve my point. http://www.crpa.org/pressrls101502.html And just a reminder to those citing the high murder rate in the U.S, please note that the murder rate in the U.S excluding gun murders is alone higher than the total murder rates in England, Canada, or Japan.* *Erik Eckholm, "A Basic Issue: Whose Hands Should Guns Be Kept Out of?" The New York Times, 3 April 1992; and Kates, Guns, Murders, and the Constitution, at 42. |
||
| May 8th, 2003 10:17 PM | |||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
They have extensive dats on firem-arm incidents involving self-defense, mainly with hand guns. Don't get me wrong, I'm a bit of a moderate on the gun issue, but I have difficulty believing a site called "gunowners.org," who also cite a George F. Will column that you can't even find anymore. |
||
| May 8th, 2003 09:08 PM | |||
| Pub Lover |
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
| May 8th, 2003 08:52 PM | |||
| CaptainBubba |
Till the very early 1900s people were allowed handguns I believe Pub. Correct me if I'm wrong. Kev: Please present your superior statistics and data. |
||
| May 8th, 2003 08:40 PM | |||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
* GEORGE F. MOTHER F'N WILL!!! Not a government resource, not census data, but from GEORGE F. WILL! Don't get me wrong, I enjoy his columns for a good chuckle, and he's a very bright man, but he certainly doesn't clasify as a solid statistical resource. I tried finding a copy of the Newsweek article they cited from 1993, "Are we a nation of cowards?", but couldn't find it archived anywhere. I'd be interested to see what citations HE used in the article. I'm willing to bet we could pick apart many of the "statistics" presented on this website, if anybody cared or had the time. 
|
||
| May 8th, 2003 08:31 PM | |||
| Pub Lover |
Quote:
|
||
| May 8th, 2003 08:10 PM | |||
| Anonymous |
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
| May 8th, 2003 08:06 PM | |||
| CaptainBubba |
Statistics Kevin, statistics. The facts are right before you. Accidents like the ones you are describing are vastly outnumbered compared to ones simmilar to my example. You are more likely to be murdered in Britain now than you were when guns were legal there. Your deduction is based on faulty logic. "America has less gun restrictions than other countries and more murder, therefore less gun laws= more murder." Truly you can only compare cases where the variables are accounted for. In order to get accurate information it must be the same genral local with and without guns that we compare. |
||
| May 8th, 2003 07:55 PM | |||
| punkgrrrlie10 |
Quote:
and for the love of pete: the 2nd amendment does not apply to states people. |
||
| May 8th, 2003 07:44 PM | |||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
You pull out the M-16 with the grenade launcher and laser scope that's entitled to you in the Bill of Rights, and you blow that S.O.B. to kindom come (while probably taking out the neighbors across the street, but hey, it's their fault for building their house in front of my grenade launcher). I'm obviously being sarcastic, but for a reason. The hypothetical "guy breaking into your house while everyones home and asleep" story does happen, but I think it has been stretched a bit by the pro-gun crowd. How about this hypothetical: It's dark out, and a young boy loses his puppy. He happens to see his puppy roaming in your back yard, and you, being afraid of small children with flash lights, grab your gun and scream "DIE THUG! TAKE YOUR "BLING BLING" ELSEWHERE!" You shoot the kid, the puppy stays lost, and now the guy across the street gets no sleep before work the next day, because the sirens are too loud.
|
||
| May 8th, 2003 07:29 PM | |||
| CaptainBubba |
You aren't very good at searching thorugh my posts apparently. Its the link "go look it up" on the first page. The page you've found most likely got that information from the same source that I did. I am not plagarizing. I cited my source. Give it up. Hypothetical question: Someone breaks into your home and is armed with a pistol. What do you do to defned youself by "non-violent" means? |
||
| May 8th, 2003 06:34 PM | |||
| The_Rorschach |
"Ror: Why did you quote me if you didn't plan at all on bringing it into your little rebuttle?" I'm sorry, I credited you with some intellegence, I see my error now. I expected you to read what I was saying to Doopa as well. Protecting your family does not necessitate ownership of firearms. Your interpretation of the Second Ammendment is selfish, ill concieved and barbaric. Yes, barbaric, for any solution which sees violence as an acceptable answer to any problem can be nothing else. "You are very eager to quote people and insult them and honestly you could've done a much better job." An insult is a demeaning or hurtful reproach which is generally expressed in an extreme view of reality. Like, "you are a cocksucker." What I did was comment on your character based upon the views you expressed. ". . . most certainly not "copying and pasting" my whole argument." I was trying to be nice. In actually, what you did was lie, thieve and decieve by taking someone else's intellectual property and try to represent it as your own original thought. The only reason I even recognized it, was because I'd read those comments by the original author previously and remembered thinking he had never read the original law. Apparantly, neither have you. "The Militia Act refers to the standard military firearms at the time." That is a matter of opinion. "I was indirectly paraphrasing though." Paraphrasing requires that you summarize what you have read, not steal three sentence and post them in their entirety. "If I was directly quoting I would have added a [military style] before the firearms." That would not be a strong enough case to keep you from being charged guilty of copy right infringement were this a court of law and not a message board. "Oh, and I've never been to that site before but its very nice." Extraordinary considering you managed to quote the passage VERBATIM. "I already posted my source. Feel free to check it out in one of my previous posts." Oh really? You: "In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a [military-style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment." http://web4.integraonline.com/~bbroa..._Rebuttal.html : " `In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined `militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a (military-style) firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. . . . " Now I just looked at the post I took your quote from, and I don't see any sources cited. =-=-=-=-=- "ror your responses are often too overly hostile so that they come off as being vacuous comments." Noone here is worth the time it would take to work up a strong sense of frustration, let alone hostility. You have think way too much of yourself. From what I've read of your posts, you are a twit, and I mean that as nicely as possible. You hold simplistic, provincial, self-centered views. Your speciality is pipe-dreaming, not politics, and I understand that so generally I leave you alone. "I don't see how people with handguns are going to take over the government." Thats because you have tunnel vision. Less sophisticated weaponry than what the US citizens currently have access to managed to thwart the Soviet Army twenty years ago. Plus, you are further more assuming that should situations become dire enough that revolution truly occours, that the Armed Services will support the Government. "I easily understand opinions on either side of the argument. What it really comes down to is a matter of what you think is worse." If that is true, than you really don't understand at all. =-=-=-=-=-=- "Uh, so you're saying we should revolt against the government by joining a group that is one of its largest contributors in campaign donations...?" Kev, things have no decaryed so far that working within the system is yet an impossibility. The NRA are only a pressure group, defending the Second Ammendment right, and though they do so badlyy, and offer every reason but the one which accounts for its very existence, they at least try. I'm not a card carrying member, but I do support some of their views. Certainly that the Second Ammendment should not be infringed upon. |
||
| May 8th, 2003 06:06 PM | |||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
|
||
| May 8th, 2003 06:00 PM | |||
| Anonymous |
ror your responses are often too overly hostile so that they come off as being vacuous comments. Yes I am distrustful of the government, but I explained why... regardless of that... i do not support gun ownership. I don't see how people with handguns are going to take over the government. as I see it, the situation is lose/lose. I easily understand opinions on either side of the argument. What it really comes down to is a matter of what you think is worse. Yes it is a possibility the government might seriously turn on us Hopefully we can prevent such a situation by being mindful of who we put into office and what laws are passed. But also... it not only its own citizens, but the world our government is being watched by. Hopefully things will stay in check, yet still, as I said it's a possibility. But, nut jobs walking around out on the streets with guns are shooting people every day. That is a reality. bubba - i'd rather be mugged than dead. |
||
| May 8th, 2003 05:45 PM | |||
| CaptainBubba |
Ror: Why did you quote me if you didn't plan at all on bringing it into your little rebuttle? Why does wishing to defend myself and my family make me an idiot? You are very eager to quote people and insult them and honestly you could've done a much better job. I've quoted twice if I recall correctly, most certainly not "copying and pasting" my whole argument. The Militia Act refers to the standard military firearms at the time. I was indirectly paraphrasing though. If I was directly quoting I would have added a [military style] before the firearms. Oh, and I've never been to that site before but its very nice. I already posted my source. Feel free to check it out in one of my previous posts. Doopa: London has always had a low crime rate. MUCH LOWER back when guns were legal. And please, Ror forgive me, but I find I must cite from my source again. You are twice as likely to be burglarized in Britain that in the U.S. and 1.4 times as likely to be robbed in England and Wales, and also more likely to be mugged. "To have one for 'safety' would not be an issue if guns were banned" Becuase criminals would go "Oh, well if owning this gun is illegal I guess I can't use it for my crimes now. Shit on a shingle... Time to get a job at Mickey Ds." When the catapult is outlawed only the outlaws will have catapults (famous Latin quote). How do you propose disarming all of those criminals? This is a common fallacy of logic that people seem to fall into so I don't really look down on you for it, I just get mad the people don't think further into it. "as burbank has said, if the goverment turned on us in that manner, a gun isn't going to save us anyway" You're right. A gun won't do shit. Several million citizen owned guns will do quite a bit. [/u] |
||
| May 8th, 2003 03:55 PM | |||
| The_Rorschach |
"I don't see whats barbaric about defending myself or my loved ones from an armed assailant. " You are an idiot. "I previously thought guns should be legal. I do suffer from general paranoia and am especially distrustful of the government." And so are you. Bubba, I'm going to get on your back first, because you are cutting and pasting your arguments from elsewhere and have no idea what you are talking about. " `In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined `militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a (military-style) firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. . . . " Sound familiar? It sould, considering it comes from http://web4.integraonline.com/~bbroa..._Rebuttal.html Now lets take a look at that. In the real Militia Act of 1792, passed May 8, 1792, they deem the militia is NOT open to everyone. It was Kennedy who made the term all inclusive, it was written originally in sentence two of part 1 "(t)hat each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States" was to be included. Little different isn't it? Nor does it say ANYWHERE military grade equipment. Point of fact, it says "a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball." Go grab your black powder rifle Bubbe, and retreat back to General Blabber. I'm afraid this topic has become your Little Big Horn. As for you Doopa, if you don't trust the Fed Gov, you should be supporting your local chapter of the NRA, because our Second Ammendment right was written by Madison, and inspired by Jefferson, for the sole reason of supplying the citizens of this country the means by which to impliment the most final check and balance of power- The right to revolution, that any corrupt incarnation of the US might be overthrown with extreme prejudice. |
||
| May 8th, 2003 02:08 PM | |||
| Anonymous |
I previously thought guns should be legal. I do suffer from general paranoia and am especially distrustful of the government. After a discussion we had on here before I started to rethink things. Then I went to London on vacation and that's when I changed my opinion. It was because I felt no fear there. It would take a very long time for america to become a gunless culture like that, even after passing a law banning guns. Even though I have changed my mind now to be in favor of banning guns, I do not feel completely comfortable with it. This is because I have serious problems with demonizing an inanimate object. Though you could say- it is a weapon and therefore by its own definition demonizes itself.. There is really no other reason to own a gun than to hurt or kill. To have one for 'safety' would not be an issue if guns were banned. And as burbank has said, if the goverment turned on us in that manner, a gun isn't going to save us anyway. |
||
| May 8th, 2003 01:26 PM | |||
| mburbank | That's all right. At least it shows what I meant was perfectly clear. | ||
| May 8th, 2003 01:20 PM | |||
| Vibecrewangel |
LOL Vince, I think the "so called" was meant to be you. EDIT: Dang it Max......your post went before mine. Ah well. |
||
| May 8th, 2003 01:15 PM | |||
| mburbank |
You're such an idiot. When I said 'so called' liberatarians I was talking about YOU and your statements strongly in favor of this administration, plus your statements that you found Janet Reno far more threatening than Ashcroft. I was saying that Captain Bubba (and I have no idea at all if he's Liberatarain or not) strikes more conistently Liberatarin notes than you. I was pointing out that even in a field you cherish, you don't know shit from shinola. The Patriot act should be any serious Liberatarians foremost concern right now. if it's even of interest to you, I've missed that fact here and on your site. And you took my post to mean the exact opposite. Why? Because your communication disorder gives you as much difficulty with decoding English as it does Encrypting it. |
||
| May 8th, 2003 12:17 PM | |||
| VinceZeb |
Max, tell me what Libertarians think that the Patriot Act is no big deal?!? My God, libertarian basic thought goes 100% against this act. It IS an act that should not be done. If we get off our PC high horse, we wouldn't need the freakin Patriot Act. I guess it's not ok to make minorities feel "uncomfortable" but its ok to trash our Consitiution. |
||
| May 8th, 2003 12:05 PM | |||
| mburbank |
People shooting stinger missiles at things to make them blow up? Each other, neigbors houses, rival gangs, churches you disagree with, your estranged wifes new boyfriends trailor, any old thing you could point it at? I mean, I know, that's not precisely what they were designed for, but people sure do like to make things blow up. I mean, if you're right, why the hell is it illegal for me to get my damn garage full of stingers? Just to piss me off? |
||
| May 8th, 2003 12:00 PM | |||
| CaptainBubba |
The only people who need to fear the genral public owning stinger missles are those in the government. Name one crime committed in the U.S by a citizen with a stinger missle. Do you think that number would change if citizens were allowed to own stinger missles in their home? What do you honestly envision the result of legalizing stinger missle in-home ownership would do? edit: Wow, I sound crazy. Just thought I'd confirm to everyone I'm aware how insane I sound. |
||
| May 8th, 2003 11:27 AM | |||
| mburbank |
I do think you're looney, but your response is at least logical and your fear of the Patriot act is a legitimate, consistant stance, espcially as compared to some so called Liberatarians who seem to think it's no big deal. I truly do believe that the constitution supports my right to own shoulder firing anti aircraft missiles. My take is that's a problem and it points to the parger point; how do we as a society determine the drawing of lines in situations the constitution did not forsee? That's why I favor debate and contest within the adversarial system of law. |
||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |||
