Jinn

I presume, roach, that you are familiar with Pascal's Wager.

Which would you regret more? Being unarmed and unsupported by the police, miles away, in a life-and-death situation, or begrudging yourself to have a self-defense weapon within reach?

The risk of not possessing a defensive weapon far outweighs the risk of possessing one, in my opinion.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Baraka_Guru

This is a what-if situation. I would make the same mistake if I countered with my own:

Which would you be more thankful for? Being unarmed and getting home safely, or accidentally shooting yourself in the gut while reaching into your pocket for a stick of gum?

Let's keep this rooted in realism. In my case, in the city of Toronto, even in a record year with a spike in gun-related homicides (2005), there were under 100 homicides (71, I think). In a city 2.5 million, what were my odds of being such a victim?

Comparatively, Chicago had 450 murders in 2004 for a population of 2.8 million. Now, Chicago is often referred to as the murder capitol of America. If all things were equal, my odds of being murdered in this city is around 6 times greater than it is in Toronto. The gun-control differences between Toronto and Chicago are astounding, I'm sure. Nevertheless, does 1 murder out of 6,200 people make you that worried where you would need to carry a gun? If you moved to a town of 60,000 people and you had heard that 10 people were murdered the previous year (not all gun-related deaths, mind you), would you rush out to buy a gun just in case bullets fly in your small-town grocery store? You would want to be prepared to return fire, right?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

you ARE aware of what the gun laws are in Chicago, are you not?

__________________
"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."

Baraka_Guru

Actually, no. But I'm hoping they are as strict as you're implying with your all-caps tone. I'm guessing, however, that Chicago's gun problems don't exist in a vacuum within city limits. What are your thoughts on Chicago?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

MexicanOnABike

bah, I like Canada's gun control. it's simple and works for me.

__________________

- Movie Reviews - Ratings-

dksuddeth

Chicago has implemented a near total ban on all guns within the city limits. The ONLY guns allowed have been those that were registered before the ban in 1986 and most of those have been confiscated. Now HOW does a city, with a near total ban on all guns, become murder capital of the world?

__________________
"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."

Plan9

Discretion is the better part of valor.

Only a fool trusts his life to a weapon.

Better a gun in the hand than a cop on the phone.

If you don't agree... this is the land of the free.

...

Idiots blame the implements... the era of a weapon is such a short period.

I bet people like Roachboy blame swords for the crimes of the Crusades.

The RIGHT (not act) of self-defense is the pinnacle of true democracy.

BTW: I live outside D.C., wear a tie to work, and don't live in some shack in the woods. Stereotypes are for dumb crackers. (drum crash)

(/pontification)

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Baraka_Guru

This is what we need to be discussing. The answer is: gangs, drugs, guns. You can ban guns all you want, but gangs aren't exactly law-abiding citizens. (Consider that hardcore drugs are banned, too.) You might wonder where these thugs get guns if not in Chicago. Well, the drugs come from much further. Gun control cannot be that effective if it is a city-wide initiative alone. It needs to be conducted from the federal level. Toronto's own spike in gun-related deaths has led mayor David Miller to call out for a ban on all hand guns. This won't have much of an effect unless the prime minister takes initiative and makes it so across Canada.

This brings up another issue; namely, the problem with what is likely to be the source of most of the illegal guns in Canada: the U.S. Ultimately, for Canadians, this is not just a municipal policing issue... it goes as far as being an international issue. But as far as Chicago is concerned, if it wants to avoid such a title as being the murder capital (as it has in the recent past), it will need to pressure the rest of the country into developing a gun-control strategy that will act as a dose of sanity.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

jorgelito

Baraka, I think that's it. At least I think so.

dksuddeth

It seems that we do indeed will not learn from history. total bans have been attempted for things in the past and they simply do not work. Never have, never will.

so what you're really advocating is a worldwide ban on firearms except for those in the hands of law enforcement and the military, right? Again, it seems we don't learn from history.

__________________
"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."

Baraka_Guru

Incorrect. I didn't refer to the whole world, and I didn't suggest a ban on all firearms. So, no, I'm not advocating more than what I wrote in my previous post anymore than you are advocating reductionist absolutism in yours.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

these two are totally opposite of each other. the only thing gun control does is create more victims for the criminals who won't obey the gun laws 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."

Baraka_Guru

A good proportion of gun-related deaths are suicides. Not having access to a firearm can often reduce the chances of a suicidal person from taking their life. A large proportion of suicides are conducted with firearms.

The only thing gun control does is create more victims?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

coming to you live from the muder capital of the world:

jinnkai: the trick with pascal's wager is simple enough: it is told as a dialogue between two voices. one of them tries to convince the other that there is no way to avoid the wager. you must choose, he says. well, that's just dandy in the context of the pensees, which are (among other things) a curious kind of evangelical tract....but the wager is not binding in outside that context.
one is not forced to choose.
one can simply walk away.
that's the option i choose.

on the other conversation: to say that gun controls do not work because they have not prevented all gun related crime so therefore there should be no gun control is like saying that drunk driving laws do not prevent all people from getting wrecked and then driving so there shouldn't be any drunk driving laws.

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

flstf

I don't think we should ban alcohol consumption or gun ownership. However there should probably be laws against driving or shooting while impaired.

Banning guns to prevent gun crime seems too much like banning automobiles or alcohol to prevent drunk driving.

Plan9

Note: The FBI has a task force that specifically studies crimes committed with baseball bats.

Guns are a phase. Justice is a constant.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

dksuddeth

when a law makes a person a defenseless victim, that law should be abolished. gun control laws make people in to defenseless victims. drunk driving laws do not prevent people from defending themselves.

__________________
"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

This is not actually the reality. Most gun control is directed at high power assault weapons, or at instant access to a weapon without some level of check on the individual before issuing a firearm permit. I doubt very much you, or anyone else would carry an assault rifle around as a weapon of self defense, and sincerely hope you would want to prevent an unstable person from getting a legal weapon for personal use.
I understand you are adamant about your right to bear Arms, and that is fine. It is important for you to equally understand that limitation MUST be placed on these weapons at some point for the stability of our society. Very few expect you to surrender your Guns, and limit your ability to protect yourself. But most people have a problem with allowing complete freedom when it comes to deadly weapons in the hands of everyone.
I doubt you would feel comfortable knowing the neighbor you just pissed off, who has a history of beating his wife has an M-14 in his closet.

dksuddeth

This shows that you don't have very much knowledge on the gun control laws that have been passed and they keep trying to pass on a yearly basis.

I wouldn't carry an M16 or MP5 around, but I would keep it in my home, ready and able for use. As far as unstable people go, if they are unstable enough to not be trusted to not hurt people, they shouldn't be on the streets period.

and yet america was founded with the express right for everyone to own a firearm that was equal to the standing military, so here after 200 years, there are enough people out there who are in 180 degree different ideology of the founding fathers that we have several states full of people that have lost one of their rights in the bill of rights due to political ideology and mistrust of their fellow citizen.

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

__________________
"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

Though a truly beautiful sentiment, the world of 1836 should not be compared to today in this regard, and I hope you well understand this (though I am beginning to doubt it).

Cynthetiq

Interesting that the same eye numbing vitrol rhetoric is being pushed about and quite possibly removing any interest from the OP or any other person who steps in to get "educated" on gun control.

for me possession of a firearm is to allow me to protect myself from random aggressors and tyrannical government.

It is summarized easily during the 1993 congressianal hearing with Suzanne Hupp who lost her parents in the deadliest killing pre-VT at Luby's Cafeteria in TX. The gunman killed 23 people and wounded 20 then turned the gun on himself.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

The Faba

Sane?

Also, I think the NRA said it best...

'An armed society is a polite society.'

djtestudo

As someone who doesn't pay a whole lot of attention to this specific issue, who doesn't own a gun, and probably will never do so (I subscribe to the Ron White School of Hunting; it's too early in the morning, too cold outside, and I don't want to f***ing go), there seems to me that there is a major difference between gun CONTROL and a gun BAN.

Gun control, to me, is a lot like the present rules involving distribution of alcohol, and maybe even automobiles (although not in the combined way mentioned earlier with driving under the influence).

There are limits to buying both guns and cars, through licenses, registration, insurance (for cars), etc. There are also ways of preventing certain people from buying each.

A gun ban is more like Prohibition, or illegal drugs. Law-abiding citizens would obey, but if someone wants the banned item, they can find it relatively easily. Plus, there is an increase of crime, especially violent crime, due to the people wanting the banned item.

I can get behind certain amounts of gun control, but a gun ban would be insane to me.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

Plan9

My brain is a high powered assault weapon.

Control that.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Baraka_Guru

The Adman is already doing a great job of it, I'm sure.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Cynthetiq

yes, check this thread for more information...

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=911

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

dksuddeth

to this day, there is only one single proven incident of a legal automatic weapon used in a crime and that one was used by a police officer.

and it's my responsibility to ensure your families peace of mind? how is that?



doubt it you should, for if you can consider any one single right held by you to be determined by the times of the day, then you certainly aren't free nor should you be.

__________________
"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."

Cynthetiq

can you eleborate on that one single proen incident for both criminal and police?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

dksuddeth

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.
---
Thanks to the staff of the Columbus, Ohio Public Library for the details of the Waller case.

Source: talk.politics.guns FAQ, part 2.

The other homicide, possibly involving a legally owned machine gun, occurred on September 14, 1992, also in Ohio

As far as criminal actions, I only know of a few, most notably the L.A. bank robbery shootout.

It should also be noted that In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF. With only one confirmed and one POSSIBLE crime related to registered machine guns, it should be obvious to anyone with intelligence that law abiding citizens who go through the arduous process proscribed to obtain one is not going to commit a crime with 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."

Willravel

JUST FYI, dksuddeth is anti-gun control.

I just wanted to clear that up. In case anyone was unclear.

The_Jazz

Will also asked me to point out that the sky is up, Miami is south of New York City and that Herbert Hoover is dead.

Just kidding, will, but that did seem a little self-evident.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Willravel

Heheheh...yeah. That was the idea. It would be like saying Host has a lot to say or Charlatan kinda has a lot of posts. Or that I have a passing interest in 9/11.

dc_dux

The Violence Prevention Center published a report in 2001, "Where Did They Get Their Guns" that describes`the firearms used in high-profile shootings from 1963 (starting with the Kennedy assassination) to 2001 and if the firearms were legally purchased.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/wguncont.htm

Legally purchased AK47s were used on several occasions, most notably the shooting at the CIA headquarters in 1993, among others:
More, including full report: http://www.vpc.org/press/0104wher.htm

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

DC, you're my new hero. I've been looking for those statistics for a long time.

dksuddeth

irrelevant, unless you wish to paint handguns in a negative light, which the VPC has always tried to do.

again, irrelevant because it shows that weapons were acquired EITHER WAY, but this is the VPC's effort at showing that most crime guns were obtained via legal owners, therefore legal ownership should be abolished.


and in 10 or 10 shootings, all were done in a gun free school zone. wonder how that happened? that a gun free school zone was the place of a shooting. boggles the mind.

__________________
"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."

Willravel

I've read this a few times, and I'm trying to wrap my head around the response. It would be irrelevant, unless the intent is to show how handguns acquired legally are used more often. Well, that was the idea. This is proof that in our system more crimes are committed with legally purchased weapons. That's rather telling, especially speaking as someone who was shot in the calf with a legally owned gun.
Looking puirely at the statistics, it's clear that more often people are able to get weapons legally to commit crime. It's harder to get a gun illegally. This would suggest, though not conclusively, that if gun ownership were abolished, gun crime could fall off.
Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was abolished because it was ruled unconstitutional in 1995. It was an attempt to deter by making punishments of offenders in these zones worse. Those assholes who opened fire in a gun free school system were punished more because of that program.

(I'm trying to keep this about education on gun control, instead of this turning into a debate)

dksuddeth

Fine, gun control doesn't work, hasn't worked, will never work. gun control was started in 1934 and crime has grown exponentially since then. so much for gun control.

__________________
"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."

Willravel

You're welcome to your opinion, of course.

I am of a different opinion, personally. I believe that, based on crime in places where guns are banned, like the UK, we may be better off without making unnecessary weapons so readily available to everyone. I, myself, was shot in the leg by a gun that was legally purchased. As the statistics above make clear, guns may not kill people, but they sure as heck make it easier. People will always be violent, and many will be irresponsible. It's unfortunate, but considering the high rate of gun crime in the US, we may be better off simply making sure that only law enforcement officers are armed with weapons as deadly as guns. As for hunting, I'm not bad using the bow and arrow, and I would think there would be more sport in use of such a projectile weapon, anyway (considering that hunting is a sport, now).

Speaking to the Bill of Rights, specifically the Second Amendment:
Some people prefer to interpret this as meaning that everyone in the US has the right to own a gun. I don't. I see this as a clear indication as to how the founding fathers say the US needs a militia force, like the National Guard, that can be well armed and trained for times of need. I agree that the military should be armed, and that taking those arms is a clear indication that something is wrong, so they should be Constitutionally protected.

The right to bear arms (btw, 'arms' is a very open term that can be open to interpretation) for all people makes little sense, especially considering how that very interpretation puts guns into the hands of the people that pro-gun people buy guns to defend their family from. What a horrible irony that is, and it seems to be a matter of escalation that can be avoided.

Just my two cents. Shani, you obviously have a lot of stuff in here. I hope it's been helpful.

Cynthetiq

Well you'd want to think that people would be, but the above proves that people will do stupid things, and this happened to be 2 things, one in my neighborhood, and second someone I actually know.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

Bow and arrow control?