Stand up for your rights





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Stand up for your rights
By Vancat (Vancat) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 07:42 pm: Edit

How many CCers are pro-2nd amendment? I happen to be a very strong supporter and the thing I hate most are gun-grabbers who skew facts, misunderstand fundamentals, and rely on unfounded emotional arguments to take American's guns away.

Oh and I don't want any flames, this thread is for PRO-second amenment people only.

Sound off now.

Hopefully I'm not the only pro-2nd CCer here ;)

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 07:54 pm: Edit

I'm pro- Second Amendment! But you have to remember, the constitution doesn't just say "the right to bear arms" like the NRA tells people. It's more specific: "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."

And Vancat, I saw your other posts, and you rock!

By Averagemathgeek (Averagemathgeek) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 07:58 pm: Edit

I am pro-second Amendment.

By the way, why limit this thread to people who believe similar things? Diversity is a good thing.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 08:22 pm: Edit

I'd just like one of you pro people to give one solid, good reason why oridinary civilians should be allowed to own weapons.. (I see no positives, only potential negatives)

By Vancat (Vancat) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 09:02 pm: Edit

Scubasteve...ho ho ho, I have a fire mission directed towards you. In all seriousness though, here are some points to consider.

You seem like one of those "BAN ALL GUNS EXCEPT FOR THE POLICE AND MILITARY" type people, so I'll give you my honest opinion of guns in America.

1. you do realize that an armed person has the ability to defend himself against threats to himself, his family, his home. These threats (could be but not limited to robbers, rapists, gang members, murderers) are PREVALENT in MOST areas of America and are not bound by morals or the fear of the law. Every year, there are countless instances where gunowners successfuly defend their family and their homes against these criminals. These instances FAR surpass cases of accidental shootings by guns (FYI cars, knives, and medical malpractice kill thousands more)

2. When encountered by these criminals, the police CANNOT be trusted to provide either a rapid nor effective response. When robbers and murderers can accomplish their goals within minutes, police (especially city cops) average a much higher response time. People are relegated to hiding in closets, begging 911 operators to hurry, and essentially remaining helpless until the police finally arrive.

3. HAtred and fear is bred by ignorance. People who are rabidly anti-gun ignore the recreational benefits of shooting and never even give guns a chance. Hunting, skeet and target shooting, and competition shooting are firmly embedded into American history and society. And they are fun to watch and participate in.

4. The media, which is almost always anti-gun, overplays the negatives while underscores the positives. Whenever an accidental shooting or the like occur, they are ALWAYS all over it. WHenever defensive shootings occur (and they occur MUCH more often), the media rarely, if ever, mentions it.

5. HOllywood is the MOST to blame for the anti-gun crowd's fear. Too many war movies and too many numbnut celebrity "activists" have led people to believe in the unbelievable capabilities of guns (almost all of which is hyped up or downright false).

6. A common example (but not the only one) of point #5 is the issue of "flash-hiders" and the Assault Weapons Ban. This Ban, which seeks to ban weapons based on certain "characteristics", is supported by most ignorant lefty-celebs. The AWB says that "flash-hiders" allow shooters to remain unseen while blazing away at their human targets and therefore seeks to ban ALL guns with this attachment. HOWEVER, even the most fundamental understanding will tell you that flash hiders DO NOT eliminate flash. Their only purpose is to deflect the flash foward so the firer's eyes and hands are not burned if it is a short-barreled weapon. And honestly, a gout of flame 2ft. long at night is PERFECTLY visible. AWB is simply nonsense.

7. Another example of the idiocy of the anti-gun crowd. They say "ONLY POLICE AND MILITARY SHOULD HAVE GUNS" Well ladies and gentlemen, that is a DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC OF A POLICE STATE. Unarmed and servile sheep controlled by an armed and powerful government. Don't think "Oh-America is so noble and fair, That can't possibaly happen." That's just ignorant.

8. Stronger Gun Control DOES NOT EQUAL less crime. Switzerland has some of the highest gun ownership rates in the world (40-50%) and have much fewer restrictions on the types of weapons they can get. They also happen to have lower per capita crime rates than countries that ban handguns and such (like britain, whos violent crime rate is increasing at a steady rate).

9. Cities and states with Concealed Carry licenses and weapons have LESS per capita crime than cities with the toughest and most stringent gun laws (Baltimore, Detroit, Washington DC). In fact, these cities that ban handguns have the highest violent crime rates. WHY?? Precisely because people are unable to defend themselves. The people are vulnerable, and the Criminals simply do not fear the police.

10. Anti-gunners say that the 2nd amendment calls for "miliia" ONLY and that the National Guard is the "militia". WRONG WRONG WRONG. The national Guard is a federally funded force with Federally funded weapons and federally funded training under federal jurisdiction. They provide the state with defense and disaster recovery, but the FEDERAL government retains control (ex. such as sending them to Iraq). In actuality, the PEOPLE are the ones who shall have the right to own guns and thats what the constitution said. Remember, the USA is a republic that is governed by the wishes of the people. If somehow America spirals to the point of chaos and madness, the people are the ones with the power to institute a new government. And they can't do that if they are defenseless and ignorant.


***Just my two cents***

Feel free to comment

By Macramequeen (Macramequeen) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 09:30 pm: Edit

I totally agree with you SCUBASTEVE.

The second amendment was more reasonable hundreds of years ago, but not today. NOW, our society is insane. I strongly believe guns do more harm than saftey, which is why we NEED much much better gun control.

I think that people should have a license to possess a gun. Just like people obtain a license to drive-- same idea. That way there is a tighter restriction from the crazy, dangerous people and those who feel they really need a weapon for protection must prove their responsibility. Yes, I said it--RESPONSIBILITY.

Or at the very least, sanity.

By Averagemathgeek (Averagemathgeek) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 09:51 pm: Edit

To add to the list of Vancat's points, whom do the gun laws prevent from getting guns? They prevent law-abiding citizens from getting a weapon. The criminals do not follow the law and have a vast black market to acquire any firearm they want. Gun laws give criminals an advantage over Americans trying to protect themselves or their families.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 09:55 pm: Edit

The stricter the gun control, the harder it is for law abiding citizens to have arms which would defend themselves against criminals who are not affected by laws.

Case in point: Brazil has the strictest gun control of any major nation, and has the most gun related deaths.

In Israel (very loose gun laws) and Switzerland (every able male must have a gun and ammo), the gun related deaths are some of the lowest in the civilized world.

By Crypto86 (Crypto86) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 10:02 pm: Edit

Even though a lot of people hate Michael Moore, everyone needs to see Bowling for Columbine. It doesn't bash gun owners necessarily, just Americna culture. Canada has more guns than people, and yet there are almost no gun deaths in Canada. Japan is 1/3 of our population and yet there were only two (yes two) firearm deaths in Japan in 2000. Clearly we need to do something in our nation...

By Vancat (Vancat) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 10:05 pm: Edit

Gun responsibility starts at a young age, the mystery and allure of guns must be taken away from kids. Kids need to be educated about gun safety and be taught to respect them. (thank you Boy Scouts and NRA Eddy Eagle Program). It is entirely the fault of irresponsible parents and Hollywood when kids pick up guns on the floor thinking they are so "cool" and shoot themselves.

HOwever, the solution is not to BAN guns, which only puts you MORE at a risk against violent crime.

Education is the answer. Teach people and they will be more responsible. Background checks and safety courses are valuable to preserving the current society of responsible gun owners. In fact, to be issued a concealed carry weapon and license is VERY difficult (THere are MANY background checks, registration, etc...).

That being said, 99% of gun owners are responsible and use their guns as recreation or for defense.

And Macramequeen, Stop getting your beliefs from hollywood who portray all gun owners as criminals and thugs. You do realize people killed by guns in crimes is FAR LESS Than the number of people using guns to defend themselves from rape, murder, robbery. And history and current events have shown that stronger gun control DOES NOT translate to less crime and a "more sane society." Go see for yourself. The way to reduce crime is the give people the ABILITY TO FIGHT BACK. Criminals fear armed citizens who know how to use guns to protect themselves.

like you said, RESPONSIBILITY is a crucial part of being armed. I agree with that completely. So why do you agree with Scubasteve, who said that citizens should NOT own guns??

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 10:17 pm: Edit

This doesn't have much to do with the argument, but I really have a problem with people who use guns for recreation ...

By Macramequeen (Macramequeen) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 10:19 pm: Edit

I don't think it is necessary for citizens to own guns. Honestly. But since people want to feel protected, the government should make it so they have to prove that they are responsible enough to own one.
How do you know stronger gun control does not translate to less crime?
Our society is screwed... if a person is angry at their ex-wife, they shoot them. Less gun control may not make us more sane, but at least less people will die, which you know, is always a good thing.
This is going in another direction but nonetheless, the number of kids in America who say they could have access to a gun to is ridiculous. I think that in itself, is a huge problem. Vancat-- are you saying your completely satisfied with our (lack of) gun control?

By Vancat (Vancat) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 10:22 pm: Edit

Concerning Japan, that country has extremely strict gun laws (almost all guns are outlawed). However, the fire-arms related death statistics *seem* low, but are somewhat misleading.

Japan, for instance, has about 3 times the suicide rate compared to America. In Japan, crimes involving air guns and blunt and bladed weapons are plenty.

Also, differences in society and culture make comparing American and Japanese gun laws difficult at best.

Quoting: "The first social influence upon the Japanese gun violence rates is Japan's police status. In Japanese society, police are held in high regard and often are obeyed without question. Gun control laws are effective in Japan because the Japanese people and the large majority of criminals voluntarily obey the gun control laws.

Japanese gun control laws are characteristic of the larger Japanese legal system. In Japan there is no right to bear arms, suspects can be detained without bail for up to 28 days before a prosecutor brings the suspect before a judge, criminal defense lawyers are the only people allowed to visit a suspect in custody (and even those are strictly limited), and inmates in prisons often attest to mistreatment by guards.

Most importantly, the Japanese criminal system is based on the Government possessing the inherent authority to do whatever it wishes. In a society where almost everyone accepts nearly limitless, unchecked Government power, people do not wish to own guns to resist oppression or to protect themselves in case the criminal justice system fails"

***My $0.02*** yet again

By Vancat (Vancat) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 10:22 pm: Edit

*dupe*

By Vancat (Vancat) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 10:34 pm: Edit

CraigK10...You have a problem with people using guns for recreation?? You disapprove of target, trap,skeet, and clay shooting?? You think our ancestors are all murderous thugs and psychotic mass killers?? Have you even tried shooting? I'd think you'd enjoy it in all honesty, you just have to open up your mind a little.

Macramequeen...that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. A simple look at the facts and stats show that countries and cities with less gun control and more armed citizens really do have less violent crime than America. Oh and if we really do BAN all guns, do you really think violent deaths will decrease?? Criminals, who have access to weapons via black market (which NOBODY CAN POSSIBLY CONTROL), will easily wreak havoc.

And the government ALREADY does make sure gun owners are responsible. Registeration, safety courses, background chekcs, and more safety courses, and MORE background chekcs are all done already.

"If a person is angry at their ex-wife they shoot her. More gun control...less people will die"-Macramequeen.
That is ridiculous. if all guns were banned, the angry guy can EASILY kill off the ex-wife with a bat, a knife, etc. Do you realize that assault with non-firearms handidly outnumbers firearm assaults?? And a unarmed ex-wife...well what do you feel about her? Would you let her stand their helplessly waiting for the police while her husband brutally stabs her to death? Or would you prefer to see that woman armed and able to save herself and her family from sure death?????????

Please know the facts and read the previous posts.

By Macramequeen (Macramequeen) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 10:35 pm: Edit

I re-read your post Vancat. What I mean is that America is not like other countries. As Crypto86 said, Canada has more guns than people, and yet there are almost no gun deaths in Canada. But if in America, less criminals have guns, I do see a corelation to less crime.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 10:44 pm: Edit

Macramequeen-You fail to understand the breadth and complexity of the black market. Groups who what to restrict guns actually focus on responsible gun owners and seek to prevent THEM from getting those guns. They are simply ineffective against criminals, who have access to weapons via the black market.

Oh and gun control has no chance in Hell in taking down the black market. the black market arms trade is the largest and most lucrative international business and bringing it down is simply impossible.

Another point, criminals don't LEGALLY BUY weapons. They get them illegally from the black market. if you want to fight them, don't seek to ban guns that people legally buy. Give the citizens something to fight with.

Oh and you just proved me right...you said that Canada has more guns than people and their is much less violent crime and gun crime in Canada. Further proof that even more stringent gun control is not the answer.

By Macramequeen (Macramequeen) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 10:46 pm: Edit

Vancat I don't how your making all these sweeping statments which by the way I don't find convincing. Also we're arguing over different circumstances. Beating, stabbing and such takes more effort, and a person has a better chance of surviving than if there were suddenly shot. Shooting is a quick fix. It's an easy alternative for Americans who don't have the patience to think. If the guy who clearly cannot think straight didn't have the gun in the first place the wife wouldnt need a gun to protect herself. Agreed? Or do you think the it would by ideal for everyone in America to own a gun?

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 10:48 pm: Edit

I just don't get it. I'm not angry or anything nor am I making any judgements like you just did, I just don't get it. If that is the only reason someone has a gun, I don't think it is appropriate especially if children have access to it. I don't think the government should be involved, but I think it's pretty irresponsible for a suburban parent to have a gun around just for their personal enjoyment.

By Macramequeen (Macramequeen) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 10:55 pm: Edit

Yes I know I supported your point regarding Canada. Ok sorry I didn't sound like I was making sense at all. America isn't like Canada. I think that if criminals in America have more access to guns, there will be more crime. I'm not sure of this, but I'm pretty sure the difference lies in the gun control laws. Even if I'm wrong, America just needs better gun control--that's my point.

By Aim78 (Aim78) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 11:03 pm: Edit

I have no respect for hunters. I don't have a problem with hunting if you actually catch the animal with your bare hands. It's too easy to just aim and shoot. It's pussyish.

I saw a woman in Big 5 asking about gun licenses. One look at her and I knew that she was the definition of white trash. Bah!

There was an incident in the Bay Area a few days ago where a 16 year-old teenager jumped someone's fence looking for his girlfriend's cellphone, and was immediately shot and killed by a man in the second floor. It's not worth it to give guns to these psychos just because of the possibility that a good person will buy a gun and it will save their life. If an intruder comes into my house, I'm going to be ready with a baseball bat like a man. Or I'll just buy a deadbolt in the first place. Haven't seen Bowling for Columbine, but I might.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 11:06 pm: Edit

"I don't have a problem with hunting if you actually catch the animal with your bare hands. It's too easy to just aim and shoot. It's pussyish."

"If an intruder comes into my house, I'm going to be ready with a baseball bat like a man."

Exactly.

By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 11:14 pm: Edit

I don't even think the most important point in this discussion has been brought up:

America's future military strength.

If you think that America and western ideals will be strong and united well into the future, for generations and generations to come, then guns can be banned with minimal negative reprecussions on society. There may be an overall benefit to banning guns, even, although that is debated.

How naive.

All empires fall. All nations wane. Babylon was overrun, Rome was sacked, London was bombed, Napoleon was shipped off to St. Helena.

And when that happens, I don't want to be left in a county of a bunch of socialists with baseball bats.

By Socalnick (Socalnick) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 11:22 pm: Edit

Macramequeen a gun is not a quick fix. If a Husband wanted to shoot his wife or vice versa, he/she would have to get the gun, load it, aim, and shoot it before his wife would have a hole in her. If you are angry you will most likely grab something around you like a knife or a bottle.


Craiqk it would only be irresponsible if they didnt put a lock on the gun. Also it may not be a bad idea to put the gun in a place where a child cant get it. Its called logic

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 11:24 pm: Edit

If everyone acted logically, this wouldn't be an issue.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 11:36 pm: Edit

Well unless you know something I don't, I don't suspect you will live through the downfall of America..

but anyway:

"1. you do realize that an armed person has the ability to defend himself against threats to himself, his family, his home. These threats (could be but not limited to robbers, rapists, gang members, murderers) are PREVALENT in MOST areas of America and are not bound by morals or the fear of the law"

Vancant, your points fail to recognize one critical fact...what gives one the ability to rob, rape, murder, etc?....99% of the time it is a gun

According to your logic, law obiding citizens should carry guns only to counter attack (defend)against non law obiding citizens with guns?

Why not just remove the common demoninator, and strip EVERYONE of guns...

..ok ok so I know what you are thinking,Averagemathgeek already said it:

"The criminals do not follow the law and have a vast black market to acquire any firearm they want. Gun laws give criminals an advantage over Americans trying to protect themselves or their families. "

But let me ask you this...How is the black market for guns created ?(excluding already illegal automatics)

Most of the guns on the black market pass through the legal way at one time or another...buy it legal, scratch off the seriel #, redistribute illegally

Again bar the common denominator here..the first step; buying it legal


Your next line of defense is probably the fact that some of the black market is created from guns bought in other countries

...simple solution here...crack down harder, the govt needs to take a more effective stance against the import of black market guns

the logic used buy many of the pro-supporters is nothing short of illogical

Your solution to black market guns is basically to fight guns with guns, make them legal in our homes.... you fail to recognize that only creates MORE guns and even MORE blackmarket guns

Again, ban the weapons, take a stricter stance against the black market (which i believe we have the capability and technology to do) and the results are quite clear...less guns, less violence

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 11:47 pm: Edit

And I feel it is wrong to bring other pro-gun country statistics into the mix..

It fails to recognize that each country is different..different cultures, different mindsets, different environment.

America tends to have a far greater number of self interest violence....and I think that comes as a direct result of us being the world's superpower (less large scale problems to divert attention, fairly stable gov't, no need for civil extremeists..etc. .

...quite simply we are bored ...and those with the mentality to kill are not doing it for some political or social cause (which is the case in many of the other countries)...but rather because they are unjustifably sick people...so how will putting a gun in my hand help me defend myself agaisnt him? The intimidation factor doesn't exist, (most of those guilty of violent crimes have no regard for human life as it is)

..so basically what you are suggesting is a shoot out...where at least one death is inevitable

By Macramequeen (Macramequeen) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 11:51 pm: Edit

Guns are a quick fix because it would take so many more times more the effort when using a knife or a bottle. The victim can't do much once someone has a gun in their hands. Loading won't take that long, aiming isn't that hard, and then you shoot. The time it takes maybe a few seconds more than throwing a bottle, but it surely isn't enough time for an angry person to try to think straight. Bottles and knives can only do so much and aren't guarenteed to get a certain result; guns are instant and one can be pretty comfortable with the fact that they can indeed kill someone with a gun--their problem solved.

By Macramequeen (Macramequeen) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 11:54 pm: Edit

Scubasteve you write much more clearer and make much more sense than I have been in my posts. Right on. Thank you for expressing the same views I have only so much better.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:05 am: Edit

Sigh, ScubaSteve you don't seem to understand the extent of the international black market trade. Guns are produced by the millions in most every country in the world (often illegaly) and they WILL get into the country. It is ludicrous to believe that the US government can stop all gun manufacturing, trade, and business considering it is SO large and SO Lucrative on an international scale. Do you understand the complexity of the US cracking down the importation of guns? Do you realize the political ramifications of us putting a damper on THEIR business. We DO NOT have the capability, budget, technology to Eradicate the black market trade. it's as simple as that.

Oh and by the way, most violent crime in America is NOT used with guns. You need to stop believing Hollywood, where every criminal robbs, beats, murders, rapes, and attacks while armed with guns. Get into the real world. your "99% of the time a gun is used" is complete BS and completely ignorant.

****FACT: Between 1976 and 1991, Washington DC enacted a nearly complete ban on handguns. As a result, homicide rates increased 200%.

Also, do you truly beleive that we can COMPLETELY ELIMINATE the "common denominator" of guns? (remember Prohibition) Think about it. Criminals will ALWAYS be able to get their hands on guns illegaly. If they cannot, they WILL use other methods to fuel their desire to break laws. They will commit violent crimes, and it is only right for the people to be able to defend themselves.

***SCUBASTEVE Give me an honest answer: If you were attacked or your family threatened what would you do? Call the police and hope they get here before the criminal robs you, kills you, beats you??? Or use a gun to either get him to quit or if he continues to attack, kill him??


Oh and a message to AIM78: "You'll be ready with a baseball bat like a man"

Sure...when you're being attacked and your life threatened I am sooo sure that you will fight "like a man." Stop letting your ego and "masculinity" get in the way of rational thinking. If you are being attacked and your family threatened, you will want to STOP the attacker. I HIGHLY doubt you will have the nerve to "fight the atacker like a man." That is arrogant talk at best.

Also, it's "pussyish" to hunt other than using your bare hands??? So essentially, you are calling all of your ancestors and millions of people around this world pussies because they hunted for food with a gun? Do you realize that many people in this world DONT have access to supermarkets and refridgerators like you do? DO you realize that Many people hunt for their livelihood?? Obviously you didn't.

Oh and you need to stop saying that gun owners are "white trash." That is just ridiculous and ignorant. You do realize that a National Concealed Carry Law was passed that granted all Law Enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons? You do realize that many private gun owners are doctors, lawyers, businessmen, and soldiers?? Get a clue.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:11 am: Edit

I'm pretty sure that people in the United States don't have to hunt to eat. You really like hyperbole don't you. What's with referring to ancestors all the time by the way? No one is questioning people who need to hunt to feed themselves; we're questioning those who claim standing a hundred yards away and pulling a trigger that blows away some deer away is a sport and necessary.

My question for you is that do you support the legalization of all drugs because the black market argument is exactly the same.

It's funny how your statements are actually pushing me the other way Vancat.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:21 am: Edit

FACT: In the 31 states which grant citizens to carry concealed weapons between 1972 and 1992, rape , aggravated assault, and murder all declined.

FACT: Florida as a specific example, Between 1987 and 1996 with their Concealed Carry Right, homicide rate FELL 36% and handgun homicide rate FELL 41%

FACT: In the United States during 1997, people committed about 7,927,000 violent crimes. The perpetrators used a firearm in about 691,000 of these instances. *Of course, if guns were all banned, the 691,000 could be done with other methods.*

FACT: Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals about 760,000 times a year


***Of course, I NEVER SAID ALL PEOPLE SHOULD OWN GUNS. I DON"T KNOW WHERE PEOPLE ARE GETTING THAT IDEA. What I am talking about is that with responsible and reasonable controls such as background checks, registration, safety courses, training, people HAVE THE RIGHT to own guns. Of course, that right is completely voluntary and is the decision of the gunowner to accept responsibility for being armed and to safely use the gun for recreation or protection.

The entire reason why I started this thread was to discuss the RABIDLY anti-gun people who want to ban ALL GUNS. Which is completely foolish.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:24 am: Edit

craig you took the words right out of my mouth with the drug comment

Vancant,
"****FACT: Between 1976 and 1991, Washington DC enacted a nearly complete ban on handguns. As a result, homicide rates increased 200%. "

Homicide rates as a whole have increased dramatically from 1976-1991, across the nation.. so your facts are slightly misleading
Also, DC became a much "tougher" and gang infested urban envirnmonet from 76-91...huge huge transition that was probably responsible for the huge hike in homocide rates

And you are again ignoring the most critical point, DC is so small it is not even a state...so what if they cracked down, guns were still legal at the time in Maryland, Virginia, Delaware...etc.


..you really arent understanding my point here. I know it is impossible to completely irradicate the whole black market on guns...however with a little work you can do significant damage to it.


banning guns altogether = less guns bought legally and then redistributed on the black market

less guns on the black market= less potential for murders

And to answer your proposed question...well actually i won't because you make the question more simple then the situation as a whole is.

But this is the best I can do, I would like to have no gun at all, because if they are made illegal to civilans, there would be less on the black market, which would make the occurance of the situation you described a MUCH LOWER PROBABILITY of occurance
...now is that not a better solution than an Old West rendition of a shoot out?

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:29 am: Edit

CraigK10, you think everybody goes to supermarkets and eats processed foods? You realize that lots of people hunt deer and duck and whatnot to EAT it??

Btw, I think that people who kill animals in a sadistic way and just for the thrill of the kill are Asshats. It is however, tradition that dates back years and years and probably won't leave.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with hunting for food.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:32 am: Edit

**FACT** Close to 40,000 Americans die each year from gunfire. Nearly half of these deaths are
homicides committed with cheap, easily obtainable, American-made handguns. In a recent year, handguns were used in nearly one million violent crimes.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:33 am: Edit

Scubasteve, way to bring up another Hollywood myth of the Wild West Shootout. Many people had guns back then and knew how to use them. Unlike Hollywoods depictions, violent crime was LOW compared to the big cities.

Oh and Washington DC, I'm referring to PER CAPITA crime. So excessive gun control really does increase violent crime.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:37 am: Edit

ScubaSteve I'm laughing my arse off.
You need to take a good look at your data. Advice, stop gettting data from Anti-gun sites.

check out http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm
for a NOn-biased analysis. Then feel free to make your decisions. IMO, some of the stats simply supports the need for people to be able to defend themselves.

Only around 10,000 murders with firearms took place in a year. Many of these could be prevented if the victim was able to defend his self.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:39 am: Edit

I can understand how gun control can cause violent crime to stay the same, but increase it? Come on. Give me a logical explanation and maybe I'll buy it. Don't use statistics without an explanation (I'm tired of your facts without anything to back it up).

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:42 am: Edit

Oh, and that site -- look at the sources it uses and ask yourself if it is truly unbiased (the NRA is one of them). Let's not claim something is not true.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:44 am: Edit

You still have not responded to the drug question ...

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:48 am: Edit

This article was Farking FUN as Hell. An excellent conclusion to my summer vacation I must add.

I hope to continue the arguments at a later time, but I'll be spending most of my time now at the "What are My Chances" and getting essay ideas. In accordance to my Asian parents wishes, I need to start focusing on Columbia Cornell, DUke, and CalTech for now. Once my college apps are done, I'll continue to wreak havoc on this thread ;)

*btw if you guys think I'm chickening out, I've got plenty more ammo for this thread. A 10-round magazine of .50caliber Raufoss Mk211 MOD 0 MP ammo to be specific. gerrrrrrrrrr....

Have a nice vacation. See you around.
{Schwarzenegger[]Schwarzenegger}

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:51 am: Edit

That's frightening.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:52 am: Edit

SIGH, Last reply.

CraigK10, look at the site again. Look at the references, MANY anti-gun bills, gun control agencies, and anti-gun programs are cited. I think you just read the first reference and assumed it was all biased.

And do you seriously need explanation to understand that excessive gun control leads to more violent deaths. Criminals + defensless people= Think about it. The FACTs stay the same and prove my point.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:52 am: Edit

see ya around (just don't shoot me :) )

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:53 am: Edit

Haha...see you around...

I'm out. Lightenup. Start prepping for college. See you back here in a while.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:57 am: Edit

That doesn't make sense ... a person still gets shot if someone is defending themselves. It doesn't reduce any violence, it just changes the situation. Something is still going to happen.

By Aim78 (Aim78) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 01:17 am: Edit

I think guns are very cool when they're in the hands of cops and soldiers, NOT rednecks and ordinary people who barely know how to fire. That's how accidents happen. I have no problem with shooting ranges, though. At one point in my life I'm definitely going to go to one and try hitting some targets. THAT would be fun.

I'd feel more safe at home without a gun than with one. People usually don't break into your house if they know you're there. If they happen to run into you, the last thing they want to do is kill you and then get sentenced to life. Some ordinary people with nervous trigger fingers don't realize this, and that's how tragedies happen.

Anyway, get back to your essays college boy.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:17 pm: Edit

I re-read your post Vancat. What I mean is that America is not like other countries. As Crypto86 said, Canada has more guns than people, and yet there are almost no gun deaths in Canada.

Canada is only 3% black and Hispanic.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:19 pm: Edit

And that comment isn't "racist"; it's a fact that blacks and Hispanics commit TONS of crime, so without them, it's obvious there wouldn't be nearly as much.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:33 pm: Edit

"That doesn't make sense ... a person still gets shot if someone is defending themselves. It doesn't reduce any violence, it just changes the situation. Something is still going to happen."

If a criminal knows that the person working at the liquor store on the corner or at the home he wants to rob could have a gun, he would think twice. It would be a paradise for criminals if they knew no law abiding citizen would be able to have a fire arm, only the police which take time to arrive.

Goodchocolate, they do not committ crimes because of their race, but the racial diversity in america does lead to a lot of gang (previously mob) violence, something which makes up a huge number of gun crimes and something Canada does not have to deal with nearly as much.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:40 pm: Edit

How about this one ...
Looking at the gun violence figures for each country and what Goodchocolate said, wouldn't the lack of wealth equality explain it as well. Canada's wealth distribution is more equal compared to the United States as is Switzerland's. Also, Brazil is as unequal as it gets thus a high amount of gun violence. Now Goodchocolate's racist remarks (yes they were) might be partially correct in that African-Americans and Hispanics have greater numbers at the bottom in terms of wealth (this is to say that violence is higher not because of their race but because the situation a large amount of their race has been placed in and race doesn't matter at all). I'm just thinking out loud here.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:46 pm: Edit

Now Goodchocolate's racist remarks (yes they were) might be partially correct in that African-Americans and Hispanics have greater numbers at the bottom in terms of wealth (this is to say that violence is higher not because of their race but because the situation a large amount of their race has been placed in and race doesn't matter at all).

But what I said was a fact; if non-racism is actually the right belief, facts wouldn't prove non-racism wrong, would they?

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:49 pm: Edit

You have the facts but the wrong explanation for them. You implied that crimes were committed because of their race, and that is not why at all.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:50 pm: Edit

And Craigk10, I agree with the rest of your post -- some of the main reason for Canada's "lots of guns but not a lot of crime" are probably:

-Little diversity, so few conflicts
-Less poverty

By Mac87 (Mac87) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 03:45 pm: Edit

the problem isn't that people own guns, it's that there are bad people who use guns to kill other people; a gun can even the playing field for a person who is being attacked by someone who is twice his or her own size

criminals already use the black market to acquire guns and other weapons, restrictions on owning a gun would not effect them at all

unlike driving (which requires a license) you have a RIGHT to own a gun, whereas driving is a privilege

the biggest argument for gun control to me is kids playing with them, then accidentally shooting someone, how is this different from a kid playing with matches or an electrical wire

someone said something about eliminating all guns in the US, well besides the problem of rounding up all the guns already in the possession of the public the main problem is that it would be impossible; we've done the same thing with drugs, but people still have them here, why would it work with guns

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 04:23 pm: Edit

so then you support the legalization of all drugs in America?

I mean an effort to eliminate guns may very well fail, but action is better than inaction

I got to say though, a lot of you pro supporters have much better arguments for guns than the current genius in the White House

In the words of President Bush:

"Guns don't kill people; guns are designed and manufactured for the purpose of enabling people to use the guns to kill people"

By Mac87 (Mac87) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 04:27 pm: Edit

yes i think everyone should go out and get high at least 5 times a day

that's exactly what i said in my post isn't it

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 05:00 pm: Edit

well you said the war on drugs has failed... and said the war on guns would fail identically..therefore there is no point in trying with guns

so according to that logic if there is no point in trying with guns then why still try with drugs?

that is why i asked you that question

By Mac87 (Mac87) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 11:05 am: Edit

but you have a right to own a gun, you don't have a right to do drugs

i don't think guns should be banned, i was just pointing out that it wouldn't work if they were banned


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page