Charlatan

Glad to see that's working so well.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

JustJess

Gun control laws - and let's continue to be clear that we mean handguns and not long barrelled guns - should be part of an overall initiative.

I never meant to imply that no handguns = no crime. Not at all. What I am saying is that it should be a vital piece of the safer society pie. I doubt we'll ever get rid of crime altogether - there will always be someone who has more, and someone else who wants it. But we CAN reduce the numbers and make the crimes that do occur less likely to be fatal to the victims AND the perpetrators.

Here's my next question to our fine folks: if we get rid of handguns altogether - no civilian ownership, none being sold, stiff penalties for owning/making them, don't we make it more difficult to obtain them illegally as well? It's a lot harder to smuggle guns than drugs, really... so much harder to disquise them etc. If the gov't wanted to, they could cut down on the black marketing of them pretty well. (I personally feel they aren't doing all they can on drugs - it's just too easy, something's off. /end threadjack)

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

dksuddeth

are you saying that all handgun crime is committed by licensed and legal handgun owners/carriers?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

kutulu

Can we just end the gun control threads or perhaps endulge ourselves with a gun control sticky thread where everyone can repeat themselves over and over again and occasionally mix in some examples to completely unrelated items?

dksuddeth

two things.....how is a knife, baseball bat, tire iron less fatal (especially to elderly individuals), and why should I have any sympathy or desire to be less fatal to a perpetrator intending to harm another person to commit a crime?

IF the government truly intended to implement a handgun ban on its citizens, they would absolutely have to triple the border patrol, put national guard on the borders (north and south), triple or quadruple the size of the coast guard to prevent illegal imports from east or west, and the ATF would have to have gestapo like powers (like they don't already) to be able to search any machine shop. You might also have to start registering all metal milling machines and monitor them on a regular basis to make sure that they aren't being used to produce handguns illegally.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

I might just do that. Until someone can show me undeniable proof that a gun control law stops criminals from getting guns or a gun ban will stop crime, nothing/nobody is going to be able to convince me that I need to give up my guns/handguns. If the government can guarantee my safety from all crime, I could consider it.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Charlatan

Are you suggesting that death by cars is done by drivers that don't have licenses?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Charlatan

A a knife, baseball bat, tire iron all have other (primary) uses besides killing poeple. A gun has only one purpose. Killing.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

dksuddeth

I never said such a thing, but it seems like you're trying to equate traffic accidents with intentional shootings. Now, if you want to equate intentional motor vehicle deaths with intentional shootings, maybe that would work.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

I could get ridiculous and say that you can use a handgun as a hammer, paperweight, etc. but that would be pointless, wouldn't it.

It shouldn't matter whether a knife, bat, or tire iron have other primary purposes. If it's used to kill someone, its a weapon at that point. It still killed someone. Someone that probably couldn't defend themselves from it.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Charlatan

I was following the discussion:

Ustwo suggested that cars kill people, ban cars (a purposely ridiculous statement)
I pointed out that cars are highly regulated and licensed
You pointed out that so are legal guns and asked if the majority of deaths were done by licensed, trained gun users.
I point out the falicy of that question by asking you my question.

Licensing hasn't really done anything to solve the deaths by car and it doesn't do anything to solve the deaths by guns.

It's a draw.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Charlatan

This is a straw man argument and not really worth addressing:

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

dksuddeth

Ok, I follow what you're saying, except that I disagree on the solving deaths by guns, because licensed carriers aren't out there shooting innocent people, criminals are, therefore, they aren't going to get a license anyway.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

not worth addressing? If someone were to say 'I played baseball with a shotgun', you'd be right. thats a strawman. But people die from stab wounds, whether its a knife or a screwdriver, and people die from being beat with baseball bats and tire irons. How is that a strawman?

sorry, I forgot you said that it wasn't worth addressing.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

On the subject of cars killing people, therefore ban cars.

I think that we need to vehemently protest the cops using the excuse of someone trying to run them over with a car, thats attempted murder, so they can shoot them.

THATS a strawman.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

The_Dunedan

All the nicities aside, the Victim Disarmament debate must, in the end, be reduced to this:

850,000 dead bodies.
MINIMUM.

That's the number of people, at the very least, that you anti-Rights people are going to have to pile up in order to make even a handgun ban a reality. There are 85,000,000 known, legal gunowners in this country; if even 1% decide to resist you, you will have to kill nearly a million people. You'll also have to bury an unknown ( but probably at least an equal ) number of your Jackboots. You'll be right up there with Pol Pot, aren't you proud?

10% resistance ( a more likely figure, IMO ) puts the body-count you'll need to rack up at 8.5 MILLION. You're getting into Hitler Country now, man...really moving up in the world.

Try to disarm us, and we will SHOOT YOU. You will have to kill us, in significant numbers, to make us stop SHOOTING YOU. You will have to exterminate whole families; women and children and babes-in-arms. You will have to commit a genocide which will write your names in blood and infamy for all of history. You will have to destroy a distinct culture with its' own language and way of life. You will have to become monsters.

If you're fine with that, go ahead. But don't cringe from me and say "That's not what we're going to do! We're just trying to help you! Yes, it IS what you're trying to do. You are intentionally ( and in many cases gleefully ) pushing towards a situation which will precipitate genocide, mass murder, the death of a civilization. You are slouching towards Armageddon, my friends; continue and join the ranks of the Damned. Just don't say nobody warned you.

Poppinjay

The Dunedan, welcome to the thread, and please answer me this.

If we knock on your door and say, "you have rifles and shotguns? Great! Keep them. But we want the handguns, and you'll be compensated for them. In fact, use the money to go buy another rifle."

Would you still be in a shooting frame of mind? It's worked fairly well in England.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

The_Dunedan

Yup. You can no more be "half free" or "half disarmed" than you can be "half pregnant." Either you're free and armed, or enslaved and disarmed.

As for England's much-vaunted gun-grab: check out their swiftly rising rates of all violent crimes, across-the-board, for the last decade or so. Check out their 100%-plus increase in "hot" burgalaries and home-invasions. Check out the assault rate in Scotland, which is now the highest in the developed world, according to the UN. Then get back to me.

Poppinjay

So, if you have a 12 guage shotgun, you're unarmed. The pregnancy analogy makes no sense to me. Have a rifle, you're armed. Don't have a rifle, you're unarmed.

as for Scotland, much of the violence has to do with factional differences.

As for England, crime rate=much lower than ours.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

Charlatan

...and The_Dunedan underscores just why a handgun ban would never work in the US.

Not only would the expense be huge but the negative political points earned would be too substantial. The cost in lives lost by handgun deaths every year is a much lower price to pay.

Sadly, the handgun free possibility of America sailed with the founding fathers.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

The_Dunedan

In raw numbers, yes. In certain percentages ( notably rape ) yes. But the overall rate of violent crime passed that in the US about two years ago, and the UK's overall rate for assaults ( all types ) burgalary ( all types ) and home-invasions passed the US rates about six months after that, if I'm not mistaken. It also hasn't stopped the illegal market in guns; my boss is from Manchester by way of Oldham, and he's repeatedly told me that it is easier to procure a firearm ( even a machinegun ) illegally in the UK than legally in the US. Cheaper, too.

As for having a shotgun and not being disarmed; in my State it is illegal for me to carry a long-gun openly inside any city limit, within 1,000 feet of any school or other Gov't building, or in any manner which an asshat cop decides is "brandishing." Therefore, absent a sidearm, I -am- disarmed.

Lastly, this debate is not fundamentally a practical one; it i a debate of principal. Anti-Rights activists and gun-banners believe that I ( and everyone else ) lack the intelligence, morality, cognence, or common sense to govern and protect ourselves. I and those like me believe that the vast, vast majority of people are more than capable of taking care of themselves. Anti-Rights activists believe that they should be in control of Situation X ( guns, drugs, free speech, etc ) because only -they- are smart/competant/wise enough to handle it. I believe that this naked lust for power proves them totally unworthy of my trust, my money, or my obediance. I don't go in for grovelling to Massa and asking permission to live like a free human being.

dksuddeth

next, take a look at switzerlands crime rate and the fact that firearm ownership is practically a mandate. keyword, practically.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

The gun banners also lose points because they lump the law abiding handgun owners with the criminal element simply because they own a handgun. Thats like comparing all pro-choice people with the nazis because they promote infanticide. not a fair comparison at all.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Charlatan

Thank you for welcoming Godwin to the thread.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

dksuddeth

I wasn't actually comparing them to nazi's. I said it was 'LIKE' comparing them to nazi's. Thats not invoking godwin. it's drawn to show how invalid the lumping of law abiding handgun owners in with criminals.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

tecoyah

Reality Check:

People die violent deaths every day
Guns are used in some
Violent people will be violent whether they have a Gun or Not
Banning a gun might slow down a few murders
Banning Abortion might slow down a few Abortions

Neither is a viable answer to a problem

I dont care if you own a Gun, it is unlikely to affect me in any way
I dont care if you get an Abortion, it is unlikely to affect me in ant way

I draw this link between the two because they both involve the same concept....ie:

This is a free country, and as long as actions do not pose a threat to others, they are none of your business.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

dksuddeth

well said.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

Concealed carry has benefits

When the Texas Concealed Handgun Law took effect in 1996, pundits and naysayers predicted anarchy. Any minute, there would surely be mass violence as armed Texas citizens began roving the streets settling arguments with gunfire. Certainly, several proclaimed, within a year there would be blood in the streets as Texas returned to the days of the Wild West.

Ten years later the facts paint a different picture. Texas under the Concealed Handgun Law isn't the Wild West, but the Mild West. No recurrent shootouts at four-way stops, no blood in the streets. Quite the contrary, Texans are safer than before.

But why are we safer? Why did the fears of the naysayers fail to materialize?

One of the reasons I authored Senate Bill 60, the Concealed Handgun Law, was because I trust my fellow Texans. Contrary to opinions expressed on almost every editorial page across the state, I knew that when law-abiding Texans' constitutional right to keep and bear arms was restored with the passage of S.B. 60, they would exercise good judgment and behave responsibly.

Ten years later, and the statistics continue to prove the point.

Since the passage of the Concealed Handgun Law, the FBI Uniform Crime Report shows an 18% drop in handgun murders, down from 838 in 1995 to 688 in 2004. And a 13% drop in handgun murders per 100,000 population, down from 4.5 murders per 100,000 Texans in 1995 to 3.95 per 100,000 in 2004.

In 2000, on the fifth anniversary of the Concealed Handgun Law, the National Center for Policy Analysis issued a report that indicated Texans with concealed carry permits are far less likely to commit a serious crime than the average citizen.

According to the report, the more than 200,000 Texans licensed to carry a concealed firearm are much more law-abiding than the average person.

The report illustrated that Texans who exercise their right to carry firearms are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for a violent offense. They are 14 times less likely to be arrested for a non-violent offense. And they are 1.4 times less likely to be arrested for murder.

H. Sterling Burnett, a senior policy analyst at the NCPA and the author of the report, concluded:

"Many predicted that minor incidents would escalate into bloody shootouts if Texas passed a concealed-carry law. That prediction was dead wrong," Burnett said.

With 247,345 concealed handgun licenses active in Texas as of December 2005, the number of law-abiding licensees has had a positive effect on the crime rate.

Texas Department of Public Safety Uniform Crime Report indicates the overall crime rate in Texas has continued to drop over the past 10 years. In 1997, DPS reported 5,478 crimes per 100,000 Texans, based on a population of 19,355,427 Texans. In 2004, with almost 3 million more Texans, the crime rate is 5,032 per 100,000.

The effect of the Concealed Handgun Law has been so positive, it has converted some of its most outspoken initial critics.

John Holmes, former Harris County district attorney, wrote to me several years after the passage of the law.

"As you know, I was very outspoken in my opposition to the passage of the Concealed Handgun Act. I did not feel that such legislation was in the public interest and presented a clear and present danger to law abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets," Holmes wrote. "Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed state-wide, has proven my initial fears absolutely groundless."

Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association, shared this view. "I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't happened," White told the Dallas Morning News. "All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. No bogeyman. I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert."

To the supporters of individual liberty and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, this outcome is no surprise. However, the Concealed Handgun Law isn't just about personal safety. Perhaps even deeper than its roots in constitutional freedom, the Concealed Handgun Law is about trust.

And after ten years, the Concealed Handgun Law is a shining example of what happens when elected officials have faith in their fellow Texans.

The legacy of Senate Bill 60 is grounded in the concept that our government should place its trust in us, not the other way around.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

highthief

Wow... just, wow.

Is this satire?

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

dksuddeth

why would you think thats satire? Actually, that would be a conservative estimate

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

ubertuber

Can you guys help me out? I've been looking for corroboration on this, but all I've found is evidence of about that many known, legal GUNS, and I'm assuming many legal owners have more than one. 85 million would suggest about one gun owner for every 3.5 citizens. I know this is just anecdotal, but my personal experience doesn't come close to confirming that. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you could point me in the direction of a good source on that.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

tecoyah

as requested.....

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

ubertuber

Thanks Tecoyah - that's amazing.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

highthief

Such casual disregard for the deaths of millions of fellow citizens, even in a hypothetical scenario - there's no point to continuing the conversation if this is "real" to the poster. I thought it might have been done tongue in cheek. It'd be like talking to a Martian, I doubt there is any common frame of reference.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

dksuddeth

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-fa...4-0-Screen.pdf

There are over 228 million guns in the US. Yes, it would be safe to assume that the 85 million gun owners, most of them own more than one.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

It's not casual, by any means. You're talking about something that ALOT of people feel is, not only a constitutional right, but a god given right. If ANY group/government attempts to remove that right, they will fight.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

The_Dunedan

Just to clarify, who are these" millions of fellow citizens" you're talking about here?

A Cop, and Fed, or a Dogface who tries to disarm me, my family, or my country is no "fellow" ANYTHING of mine. He/she is a jackbooted Statist thug, a robber and murderer and tyrant dressed up in fancy clothes and carrying a gun that I paid for, and is fit for nothing more than a hangman's noose.

If you're talking about the million-plus gunowners ( at least! ) that such a ban would necessitate the murder of, then I suggest that it is the anti-Rights gungrabbers who have a casual attitude towards millions of deaths, since they persist in their agenda, knowing the endgame, after having been warned about the outcome for the past THIRTY YEARS.

dksuddeth

Well said, again, Dunedan. Well said.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

JustJess

Well, at least one thing is clear.
It's even harder to discuss this rationally than it is to discuss abortion or partisan politics.

I must note that I feel that The_Dunedan's arguments are a bit excessive, and go away from the questions we were posing and discussing. Clearly, no one actually wants or suggested that we kill off all the gun owners, and there is not general support for complete gun bans. We know the laws need revision, and that's what we're trying to figure out - what ways can we improve the situation?

Rhetoric like this only breaks down further communication possibilities, IMO.

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

roachboy

wow--this is quite a thread.

i looked through it because, while i am relcutant to participate in these debates, i am interested nonetheless--my positions about gun control had shifted as a function of some more measured debates on this that have happened in politics---but this particular thread seems to have veered off into some curious militia group haze.

so let me get this straight...

over the last page or so, this is effectively what i saw:
try to take "our guns" and the result will be worse than civil war---anarchy, the war of all against all resulting in lives that are nasty brutish and short....

nice, folks.

the assumption behind the emphasis on law abiding gun owners in rural contexts primarily in arguments against any form of gun control works when the assumption that these folk are sane also works. and in general, there is no reason to think otherwise.

but in this thread, there is reason to think otherwise: the arguments against gun control that depart from a threat of wholesale, indiscriminate killing as a response are sociopathic.

they make the worst possible case for your position because they allow for a pathologizing of gun ownership---which i assume is a point that you who advance these positions are trying to counter. so i do not see what you imagine yourselves to be accomplishing by heading down this path.

i do not personally like guns.
i do not accept the argument that they make you free or anything else--any more than owning a gas grille makes you a physicist.
i live in a city and have lived in cities for many years--i fully support the right of localities to control guns in principle and would actively support gun control in urban spaces.
the shift in my position is in that--i have come to understand that what guns signify in an urban environment is particular. so any controls should be enacted at the local level.

but i have to say that had i come to this thread wondering about how to modify my position on the matter, it would have hardened the other way.
i hope these represent a very small minority view.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite