Banning assault weapons again.

Skibum,

Nice to see you calling the stats I referred to before you even know what they are.

Talk about Denying Ignorance.

Since your mind is so clearly made up I will let you go on your way without troubling you with the facts.

Take care on your journey.

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Skibum,

Nice to see you calling the stats I referred to before you even know what they are.

Talk about Denying Ignorance.

Since your mind is so clearly made up I will let you go on your way without troubling you with the facts.

Take care on your journey.

Cheers

BHR

Whatever, Please educate me if you think you have the answer. I would love to see your stats.

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Skibum,

So you agree then that the argument for gun ownership for self-defence is a false one.

At least we agree on that.

Cheers

BHR

You cant realy make this statement, as each gun owner has his or her own true reasons, for owning a gun, Some do own guns for protection, others for sport, others for hunting, others for the historical aspect.

Cole,

I am aware of the many ways gun owners justify said ownership.

I am dealing with each of those in turn. Thanks for your concern though.

Cheers

BHR

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


All the justification they need.




[edit on 15-4-2005 by C0le]

Cole,

And yet some try to come up with something else to appease liberals like me when it is obvious I will not be appeased. I want your guns for no good reason than I hate gun owners and want to punish them in any way possible.

Cheers

BHR

[edit on 15-4-2005 by BillHicksRules]

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Beefotron,

You might want to Googlesearch the stats on gun use in defending the home or person.

I did. Are you sure they disagree with me?

What I searched: "self defense gun use statistics"

You might want to read all that stuff yourself.


[edit on 4/15/2005 by BeefotronX]

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Cole,

And yet some try to come up with something else to appease liberals like me when it is obvious I will not be appeased. I want your guns for no good reason than I hate gun owners and want to punish them in any way possible.

Cheers

BHR

[edit on 15-4-2005 by BillHicksRules]

The second amendment is all he needs to justify it. There is no need to appease you or any other gun hating liberals. It doesn't matter what you or your friends think or what stats you can find the ending arguement in this conversation is the 2nd amendment. Stats don't change it, your opinion won't change it, the only way to change it would be to get 37 of the 50 states to agree to change it.

[edit on 15/4/05 by Skibum]

Skibum,

Do not worry yourself. My friends in the Anti-Gun Owners Coalition of the Willing are on the case.

We will have your guns, in this life or the next.

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by Black Flag
What amazes me is that the select few on the Pro-Gun side of things cant -or wont - acknowledge some basic fundamental truths.

ie; More guns in circulation = more guns in the hands of criminals.

Another irony is that the some of the more fervent pro-gun crowd dont see that they are driven by fear. Driven by fear and under the illusion that a gun will protect them.

Fear is a powerful motivator, on both sides of the line. I simply refuse to live in it.

How is a gun providing me with the “illusion” of protection? The police are 5-8 minutes away, supposing I can get to a phone. They will not prevent a crime, they will merely respond to one after it occurs. It is the sole responsibility of the individual to protect itself, not to place the burden on someone else in hopes that they will do it for them.

As to your "fundamental truths" I will admit that the less guns that are in circulation, the less guns are available to anyone, criminals included. However, I challenge you to concede that making guns illegal will not significantly affect the number of guns available to those who would use them in the furtherance of crimes. Furthermore, can you admit that the legality of gun ownership means nothing to a criminal, who is the only one who will do you harm with one in the first place?

Originally posted by Hajduk
Not all guns, just assault weapons.

The "assault weapons" argument. I'm sorry, but this is laughable. I would be willing to bet that I could provide you with a collection of weapons and that you could not tell me what was and was not an assault weapon with any accuracy. Feinstein and co. championed the AWB and coined the "assault" term based on the looks of a weapon, not its functionality.

Originally posted by Jakko
As I said before, if more guns would make a country safer, than america would have to bt the safest country in the world, which it is surely not.

Do weapons make a country safe? That is kind of an ambiguous question, as nearly every country on the globe derives its security from standing armies, of which weapons are a staple. So, I'm going to assume that you are asking if civilian gun ownership makes a population safe. My answer is yes, having armed citizens is a deterrent for criminals who would commit crimes upon them. Which brings us to the second part of your statement, “then America would have to be the safest country in the world...” When you think of gun crime in the States, what geographical areas come to mind first? LA, New York, DC, etc? These are the states and cities with the harshest gun laws on the books. Furthermore, the since the United States has such a large population, it follows that percentage wise, there will simply be more gun crime as a function thereof. This then trickles down into the news and popular culture which contributes to misrepresentataion and skewed views of the truth.

Maybe what it comes down to is trust. I have never implicitly trusted the anyone else to do what is in my best interest. If you do, then great for you. If you trust the government and police to protect you from harm, then I wish you the best. But understand that I don't, and have no intention of giving up my rights to make you feel safe.



Oh and BTW, thanks for the WATS vote Skibum.

[edit on 4/15/05 by para]

A little something that never gets old.

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA's high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.


40 reasons to ban guns
[edit on 16-4-2005 by C0le]

ed. to shorten long quote

[edit on 16-4-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

I am jumping back into this thread after a long absence... it seems as though there are some new players as which to play with, so let's have a go at it, shall we?

First, to BHR, you seem to have blinders on to what the basic issue truly is with regards to people having guns. Step back for a second and please realize that the ONLY thing that separates us 'modern' humans from the apes is a very thin veneer of technology. Ever since that time, some humans have been seeking ways to increase that technological advantage, while those on the other side have been seeking to negate it. It is often referred to as a balance of power. And it will continue until the end of humanity or time, whichever comes first.

I'm going to tell you a little [true] story regarding why someone should carry a handgun. I just returned from a tactical pistol course where the instructors talked of a student who had gone through their class to obtain a Handgun Carry Permit. He was adamant that he would only carry a handgun when he visited a larger nearby town. The first thing the instructors told him was that if he felt he needed to carry a handgun in the other town, then he probably shouldn't be going there (avoid the possibility, right?). But they subsequently advised him that he should carry his handgun anytime he left the safety of his home, because even in his small hometown violence sometimes does occur and he should be prepared. He ignored their recommendations, and so later on, one day he had gone out with his family boating on a lake close to his home. As he pulled back into shore, a neighbor with a gun confronted him and accused him of shooting his dog. Although the man (who hadn't done it) tried to plead with him that he hadn't killed his dog, the accuser wounded him from a distance and then walked up and shot him again at close range, killing him right in front on his wife and kids. Being unarmed sure didn't help him, and expecting mercy from someone with superior [weapons] capability didn't seem to make any difference either. He is DEAD, and now there is a widow and orphans who have to go on without him - and his love, guidance, and support that the family surely came to need and rely upon. Can you really see the justice in that?

I am sure some of you will now say "if there where no guns, that would not have happened". Do you really believe that garbage? Because if you do, you are living in a fastasy world. Substitute "spear", "arrow", or "throwing knife" [among many other means], and the result would have been the same. A good man and father who had no means to protect himself or his family now lies dead, a victim of being on the low end of the balance of power. I personally do not carry a handgun to present an overwhelming force to an adversary, but to present that balance of power only when the circumstances justify it (I do have other less lethal means at my disposal if needed). Yes, I do feel safer with my handgun than without it, because by our [American] laws I have no right to expect the police to protect me from every possible contingency. It is not a power trip for me to carry a handgun, but a terrifying burden and responsibility. But this is the world today. Why do you people who appear to be so "anti-gun" have such a hard time grasping that concept? I am sorry, but your reasoning simply eludes me.

I have seen several of you post how in your countries, only the military, para-military, and criminals can get guns. Great for them, but how very bad for YOU if you happen to be in wrong place at the wrong time. You can die like a helpless, pleading victim if you choose - that is your individual right. But do NOT expect me to go so easy. I cherish my life and my family, and I will not go down without resistance. An enemy may beat me to death with my own handgun, but only because it is totally empty!

[edit on 16-4-2005 by KillRaven]

[edit on 16-4-2005 by KillRaven]

[edit on 16-4-2005 by KillRaven]

If banning guns to keep them away from criminals is your goal, why don't we get to the real cause and BAN criminals. Obviously, in some people's eyes, if you pass a law to ban something people would have to comply, problem solved. People throw out suicide and murder stats, why don't we just BAN them also, oh wait we already have, that works well. The reason they are criminals is because they ignore the law, why would they abide by any new gun law. The only reason we don't see much illegal gun smuggling in the US is because they are legal to own. It would be like alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, by banning something you create an illegal market for it, increasing criminal activity and availability, not decreasing it. Look at how well drug prohibition has worked out for the US as an example of how much regard criminals have for BANS.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

It is rather unfortunate that the Framers did not specify whether the "well regulated militia" is something that is separate from the state or not.

If I was writing an important document like this, I would not make future projections and assumptions the basis of my arguments. I don't think anyone with a shred of logic would. An intelligent person would look at previous successful models and build off of those. And the Framers were highly intelligent to say the least.

This is why the "well regulated militia" can only logically refer to the minute-men, who were the deciding force in the revolutionary war. They were citizens of the British Imperial Colony, who possessed their own weapons. It was a well-regulated, volunteer organization of citizens, not another branch of the military. (whom they fought against)

It is obvious that many of our fore-fathers were not comfortable with any governmental system, and that they made the constitution to fight the inherent evils that come with such a system. The people that wish to take away our power are doing everything they can to rip apart the system they created, a system created to protect us from their successors.

Why have we thrown away this valuable skepticism and replaced it with dependence?

[edit on 17-4-2005 by benign]

KillRaven,

In your little allegorical tale at what point would the unfortunate victim of the piece have defended himself with his gun?

As far as I can see the outcome was going to be the if he was armed or not. The other guy had the advantage not because he was better armed but because he had decided his course of action previously.

As you say had neither had access to guns then some other weapon would have been used in this killing. Therefore your arguing that a gun is necessary to protect yourself and your family is a fallacy.

If no one had guns yes killings would still take place however it will slow things down a bit. It is very easy to kill 10 or more people with a pistol. It is a lot harder to do the same with a knife.

As for this claim that criminals have guns so I must have one. Where do you think they are getting them? How many criminals have a legally registered weapon? Therefore they have to be stealing them in the main part from those who hold them legally.

I have said this before, reducing the supply will reduce the problem. It will not eliminate it but it will reduce it.

But then again it is your constitutional right to buy a gun so that a criminal can break into your house and either steal it while you are out or shoot you with it and then steal it.

Cheers

BHR

p.s. I do not rely on the police to protect me and those I love. I am however able to do it myself without recourse to a firearm.

[edit on 18-4-2005 by BillHicksRules]

Originally posted by Skibum

They may have been heavily armed but without an organized resistance it would be futile. Saddam did not allow political dissent and anyone suspect was wisked away. They can be as heavily armed as possible, but if there is noone willing to use them then it does not matter.

I'm pretty sure that if anti-government armed militias started forming a "resistance" against the U.S. government, they would be shut down pretty quickly too.

BTW, many Iraqis were willing to use them. There were occasional uprisings in Iraq before, during, and now after Saddam Hussein. The mass graves are there to prove it. I find the situation in which a civilian armed resistance in the U.S. would be able to conquer the U.S. government, to be unfathomable.

I would say that more often than not, the armed civilian militias in other countries that succeed in taking over the country are the ones who become the tyrants. They tend to be the radicals from either wing, not the liberal and conservative moderates. When power is obtained by those means, the only way to keep it is to keep the guns pointed at the people. Guns and armament give huge amounts of power to people, but there is no guarentee that the people have the ability to use that power properly and justly. In fact, I have a hard time trusting anyone who wants power that badly.

[edit on 18-4-2005 by Hajduk]

[edit on 18-4-2005 by Hajduk]

from BillHicksRules
In your little allegorical tale at what point would the unfortunate victim of the piece have defended himself with his gun?

If the victim were armed, the assailant might have thought twice about going through with the murder. It certainly appears that the attacker took the time to do a bit of talking. Especially since the first shot only wounded the victim, if he had a gun he probably could have shot back. Okay, it's not a certainty, but you seem to have waved away any possibility of a different outcome, without thinking through.

As you say had neither had access to guns then some other weapon would have been used in this killing. Therefore your arguing that a gun is necessary to protect yourself and your family is a fallacy.

Incorrect. Guns are the closest thing we have at this time to the perfect personal weapon. Therefore, even if an inferior weapon were more common, it would still be perfectly rational to desire a firearm.

If no one had guns yes killings would still take place however it will slow things down a bit. It is very easy to kill 10 or more people with a pistol. It is a lot harder to do the same with a knife.

That's not quite a good reason to get rid of guns. Knives, being inferior weapons, require some practice and training to become effective with them. Thus, someone who wants to be a killer will go through the practice and training. Someone who has better things to do may not have the time to do that. Thus, those who are practiced in the use of those weapons (criminals, military, police), will have an unfair advantage over anyone else in a fight. Using guns requires some practice, but not nearly so much as other weapons, comparatively speaking. Because guns do not take a long time to learn to use, compared to many other weapons, people who spend most of their time doing peaceful activity can become reasonably competent within a relatively short time. That means guns are much more beneficial to good people than they are to the "bad guys".

Because there are proportionally a lot more law-abiding citizens than criminals, the utility of guns for criminals is largely outweighed by the risks involved in crossing the path of an armed citizen.

As for this claim that criminals have guns so I must have one. Where do you think they are getting them? How many criminals have a legally registered weapon? Therefore they have to be stealing them in the main part from those who hold them legally.

"I'm not getting a gun because they might steal one from me?"

But then again it is your constitutional right to buy a gun so that a criminal can break into your house and either steal it while you are out or shoot you with it and then steal it.

No, it is my inherent human right to buy a gun so that if a criminal breaks into my house, I can shoot him. Any sane gun owner is going to lock up any guns he leaves in the house when he's out, so good luck to any criminal who wants to steal the weapon. If the gun owner is there, then the criminal is either going to die, run away, or surrender. You overestimate the kung fu of the criminal and/or are assuming the gun owner is a retard, if you expect the criminal will just be able to shoot someone with his own gun like nobody's business.

p.s. I do not rely on the police to protect me and those I love. I am however able to do it myself without recourse to a firearm.

I'm sure you can. Therefore, I expect you to get a video of yourself dodging bullets for all of us to see. If possible, could you get it posted somewhere by the end of this month?

BHR,

Are you a master criminal psychologist by any chance? Hmmm... I didn't think so. But you seem to know what it is best for everyone else, based on what is obviously your own self-righteous, narrow-minded opinions and inability to logically weigh the facts in this discussion. It's funny, I thought this board's purpose was to find the truth and deny ignorance, not ignore the facts and wallow in ignorance instead. Pardon me...

Please explain to me why the UK's handgun crime rate has gone up 40% since their handgun ban of 1997... also please explain to me the logical rationale behind the UK's continuing judicial decisions since the 1950's that criminals are entitled to more rights that law-abiding citizens, whereby law-abiding citizens who defend themselves in their homes are sentenced to life (know who Tony Martin is?) while criminals convicted of murder only get 3 to 5 years imprisonment. I'm going to be honest with you, we Americans (at least those who have better sense) may not like having been stuck with Bush and Cheney for the past four years and again for the next four, but the simple truth is that your whole judicial system appears to have thrown away any vestige of common sense and former Common Law in favor of the pursuit of a "civilized society".

Now you talk about how you will defend yourself if need be without the need for a handgun. I have seen many times how big and bad people act when then can sit behind the safety of their computer screen. I personally think you will just wet or soil yourself when you come face to face with the stark reality of a superior-armed person who doesn't give a rat's butt if they take your life or not, and won't hesitate on doing it. But hey, if you make Bruce Lee look like an amateur in reality, good for you!. Go ahead and kung fu the guy who invades your home... you will most likely get a chance to talk at extreme length with Tony Martin because of the UK's idiotic laws.

Please also explain to me why America's violent crime rate has been dropping for a good number of years while the UK's just keeps rising. Considering your view of our "wild-west" culture and our record number of citizens purchasing and owning guns versus the UK's increasing restriction on the same, it would logically appear that the facts should be reversed from what they are. Why do you think that is? It is simply because criminals don't hesitate to take advantage of a free-crime zone when it is given to them, but don't when they know the odds are no longer in their favor. I just Googled and read that in the US, only 13% of robberies occur in homes where the owner(s) is/are present, but in the UK that percentage is in the 80's. If you doubt the veracity of my statements, feel free to Google them if you are truly open to looking at the facts. You will find way too many links to dismiss if you are truly are seeking the truth on this issue. But I forget.. you stated in a previous post you would take everyone's guns by basically any means possible. So I guess in your case, truth be damned. Go into politics my friend - you were obviously born for it!

BHR, you commented that most of the criminals using guns stole them from someone else. Google again and you will find that gun smuggling has become a major problem in the UK since their gun bans. While I have no doubt a few guns may get stolen from their legitimate owners, it is not the predominant reason for criminals having them. And this proves another point - since your police obviously can't stop the illegal flow of guns into the UK, how could you possibly expect them to guarantee your safety from a criminal's endeavors? Blind trust is a fool's elixir, my friend, and you appear to have over-imbibed.

To Beefotronix - I appreciate your responding to BHR's reply to my post; thank you ! I was otherwise occupied or I would have responded myself already. But don't worry, I have no problem dealing with those who can only debate on personal views with no regards for the facts. If BHR can post links to verifiable information proving his assertions, then let him. But that will not be the case, as those facts simply do not exist.

Hmm, banning marijuana, coc aine, and heroin has worked so brilliantly in stopping crime and addiction, I see no reason to oppose banning assualt weapons accomplish similar feats. And besides, who needs a militia? It's not as if some radical faction of foreigners would every trie to damage the intergrity of the USofA by putting any of its citizens or guest in harms way.

It is very easy to kill 10 or more people with a pistol. It is a lot harder to do the same with a knife.

You obviously know as little about knife fighting as you do firearms.
I could kill ten people in a crowded room with a knife before anyone even knew what was happening. Try that with a firearm. There are soooo many ways to kill another human being. Why decide to go after the really loud one that attracts attention? Every stat I have read so far puts sharp or pointy things much higher on the list for violent crime tools.
When are you handing in your kitchen cutlery by the way?

[edit on 20-4-2005 by Fry2]