DelayedReaction

http://www.wam.umd.edu/~keving/gunfacts.pdf

The document is about 80 pages long, so I won't be quoting it entirely, but it contains some pretty damning factual evidence (all of which is referenced) against gun control. In particular was the declaration that guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes each year.

How can people still support gun control in light of all the things going against it?

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

Moonduck

Support for gun-control is actually tapering a bit, and has been since 9/11. Heck, the AWB may actually sunset, and if that is not a sure sign of the tepidity of gun control in the national debate, I dunno what is. Another sure sign is the total lack of discourse on gun control in the Presidential race.

Now, I'm not saying we should let our guard down, just saying that the Democrat party has realized that Gun control is a loser-issue for them, and have backed off in large part. I find it sad that it was done simply because of polls and not because of deference to the Bill of Rights, but whatever. So long as they keep hands offa the Rights, I don't care.

Lebell

This belongs in "Politics".

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

seretogis

Did anyone see the soundbite of Sarah Brady claiming that if the AWB sunsets there will be "uzis and ak47s on our streets?" It was incredibly pathetic, and I couldn't believe what I was hearing. What do people like Sarah Brady have to gain by disarming law-abiding citizens? Surely she doesn't really believe that nonsense?

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Willravel

Hmmmm. AWB doesn't mean Average White Band any more does it...

djtestudo

Apparently she doesn't realize that there are already Uzis and AK-47 on our streets. They are in the possesion of...survey says...the CRIMINALS!

__________________
"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

rukkyg

You're more likely to shoot a family member or yourself or anyone-but-the-criminal who enters your home. Since this is generally the only way that people who don't commit crimes use guns in relation to crime, saying anything about crime and guns in an effort to say that there should be less or no control does not make sense.

Journeyman

The problem with most democrats (or anyone pro-gun control) is that they see too much of the crime/murder factor and too little of the It's-A-Fucking-Constitutional-Right factor. Guns are indeed a very devastating problem for certain communities, but it's not the guns themselves that are the root of the problem.

phyzix525

So true. but God forbid we teach anything good in schools and instill morals into our children so they don't grow up to be imoralists.

__________________
It's hard to remember we're alive for the first time
It's hard to remember we're alive for the last time
It's hard to remember to live before you die
It's hard to remember that our lives are such a short time
It's hard to remember when it takes such a long time

student

I am not for gun control, but I understand why people are. Guns don't kill people, people kill people right? Guns make it too easy to kill someone though. Maybe you get mad and point a gun at someone, it's so easy to pull the trigger. You don't even have to be close to the person. Now a stabbing is much more intimate. But it is our right to bare arms, and to wear tank tops.

nottwood

I am against any kind of government 'control'. Guns are a difficult subject. At some point in civilized society you must decide when a 'weapon' becomes too large, or the effects of it anyway. The line eventually gets drawn at some point. Right now the point is hovering around the assault weapon.

hammer4all

I got this e-mail from MoveOn if anyone feels like taking action, but you'd better be quick...

seretogis

What utter tripe. Oh no, someone can buy a semi-automatic AK47! They will still be illegal to carry around in the open in most states, and the fully-automatic version will still require succumbing to background checks, and a heap of paperwork by the FBI. The AWB serves no purpose, which is why it is being allowed to expire. The outcry from people about this is similar to the outcry of CCW law being passed in Minnesota which was equally nonsensical.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Kostya

I live in Australia, we have gun control, less people get shot here, I like it...

seretogis

Yeah, now you just need sword-control, I hear?

Don't make the mistake of equating gun-control with any success at lowering the murder rate.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

MSD

It's ironic that the people who are most widely opposed to the PATRIOT Act (Democrats and young liberals) and are afraid of a tyrannical government are the ones who fight hardest against the only defense we have against a tyrannical government.

In the end, gun control is just another type of control. People want to keep what they fear out of sight. In most cases, they fear is because they don't know much about it. We need less control for freedom, not more.

MageB420666

I hate gun control for fully automatic weapons, it defeats the entire point of the 2nd Amendment, which is there so that America can have a well armed militia. Right now there may not be much in the way of an invasion threat from other countries, but that can change very fast. You can't have an effecient militia if all they have to fight with is .22 caliber rifles and hand-guns to fight against a well armed army. What we need is better gun education, not gun control, gun laws only take guns out of the hands of those who obey the laws. I personally think there would be much less in the way of school shootings if we actually put the effort into helping kids deal with their problems that we put into trying to keep guns "under-control".

__________________
Apathy: The best outlook this side of I don't give a damn.

DelayedReaction

Read pages 14-19 of the PDF in relation to children and accidental discharges. In particular...
Read page 47, which specifically focuses on Australia. In particular...
Pretty hardcore evidence there.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

OpieCunningham

I'm no proponent of gun control ... but this argument that access to guns is required to prevent the tyranny of gov't is soooooo 19th century.

You'd need free access to tanks, fighter jets, bunker bombs and more if you think an armed revolt is something that needs to be achievable and therefore requires access to guns.

And just to play devil's advocate here - outside of a symbolic measure of "freedom to guns", why do we really need access assault weapons? Is it impossible to hunt without assault weapons? Is it impossible to protect your home without assault weapons? Maybe we should all have access to RPGs?

DelayedReaction

Dictatorships start by taking away the people's ability to defend themselves. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all did it. Genocides also occured shortly after gun control was established in Turkey, Guatemala, and Uganda. All of this occured in the 20th century.

Hitler said it best...
The goal here is not to ensure that the people can replace the military. The goal is to ensure that the people are capable of armed resistance against tyranny in any format. Just look at how effective the resistance in Iraq has been against our nation; small arms and improvised explosive devices have taken a horrendous toll against our military. Tanks, fighter jets, and bunker bombs are useless against a resistance hidden amongst a population.

I'm curious as to what you mean by an "assault weapon." It's a junk term that's used to describe semi-automatic weapons that look nasty, meaning they have two of the following features: a flash suppressor, bayonet mount, pistol grip, or grenade launcher. If you mean fully automatic weapon, then consider that the National Firearms Act of 1934 already prohibits the civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons and other military hardware without a Class III license. Those are not easy to get.

Here's a better question: Why should people be denied the freedom to defend themselves? Why should I be restricted from bearing arms? We shouldn't have to justify a freedom; we should have to justify taking it away!

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

OpieCunningham

There are more democracies in the 20th + 21st century world than not who have much more stringent gun control laws than the U.S. and have had no need for the populace to defend themselves against the tyranny of the government.

You point to Nazi Germany (which is a disingenous example given that regardless of gun ownership, most Germans supported Hitler) and I point to the U.K., Australia, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Canada, Japan, etc.

Your example of Iraq actually demonstrates my point - they've been very effective in defending themselves against our nation, but they were not allowed to own guns before we invaded. (Technically, I believe they are still not allowed to own guns.)

I'm not questioning your bigger question/point - I fully support access to guns - I'm pointing out that the claim that we need them to defend ourselves from our government is based on 18th + 19th century concepts of defense and warfare. It no longer applies. To promote your cause of access to guns, you'd be better off if you dropped the rationalizations that are meaningless.


Back to the devil's advocate: Why do you draw the line at assault weapons and not fully automatic weapons? And why not draw the line at bombs? Or nuclear weapons? What's wrong with some shotguns and rifles for hunting and some handguns for personal defense?

Strange Famous

That someone writes an article claiming this or that is not proof of anything in either direction.

America will continue to have as many gun deaths as it can tolerate... if you have 10,000 people a year getting shot to death, and you have widespread gun ownership amongst the population - you have to draw your own conclusions.

The gun lobby is very powerful and is big money - they would argue no doubt that if guns were prohibited, all those deaths and more would still occur but the victims would be knifed or clubbed to death instead.

A gun is a tool designed to kill what it is aimed at, that is its purpose and design... I for one favour a society where such things are not available - the same arguments will just go on and on, some people seem to be in love with guns and see the second amendment as a basic human right and freedom. For myself, living in Britain, I suppose it is very difficult to understand how people would feel this way.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Strange Famous

[QUOTE=OpieCunningham]

You point to Nazi Germany (which is a disingenous example given that regardless of gun ownership, most Germans supported Hitler) and I point to the U.K., Australia, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Canada, Japan, etc.

QUOTE]

I disagree with this statement. Are you sure that it is true? Did Hitler ever win a popular vote, a referendum, is there any real evidence that he ever had the majority of people's support?

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

OpieCunningham

The fact is, Hitler was not able to rule Germany simply because the populace did not have access to guns. There is no sign of any significant popular resistance which would have been willing to sacrifice their lives for the removal of Hitler from power. There is a much stronger argument that Hitler was able to rule Germany because he controlled the media.

Anyone claiming to be concerned with the threat of tyranny from the government would be of better service in focusing their efforts on the affects of <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=67690" target=_blank>media consolidation</a> and not the 2nd Amendment.

The Phenomenon

I am all for the right to bare arms, hell I have more than one firearm, but why in the hell do you need Assualt Rifles? Especially fully automatic assualt rifles? Hunting? No. Self-defense???? PLEASE.

Journeyman

I don't need an assault rifle as much as I need the term "Assault rifle" to be re-examined.

And in terms of weapons as a defense against tyranny being an obsolete argument: Where the fuck have you been for the past four years? Furthermore, where the fuck will we be in the next four years? I really can't cite black history worth a damn, nor do I know the accuracy of civil rights movies, but I messed the front of my pants when I saw a flick that had a black panther with a shotgun standing tall to a white cop who tried to step out of line. How will you respond in 20 or 25 years if the government decides to take away your right to vote, your right to speech, your right to basic citizenship when you strip yourself of your right to bare arms?

Also, just a comment on crime: Fully automatic weapons are illegal, that's been addressed. This does not mean that they've disappeared. The bank robbery in LA, executed by two individuals with fully automatic AK-47's and modified body armor (full suit, essentially) were damn near unstoppable, moreso when the police had to seek out a gun shop for more powerful weapons. My point is not that legalizing automatics is going to help the law (which I don't think it will), just that criminalizing what's already legal is only going to help criminals.

OpieCunningham

An "assault" weapon is not going to be any more effective against a suicide bomber than a handgun, shotgun or hunting rifle. So I don't see how excessively arming (in terms of weapon capability) the populace is in any way beneficial in the "war on terror". (Personally, I've never met a suicide bomber, nor has anyone I know - so the necessity of weapons in that regard seems very minimal.)

As for the concern over the gov't taking away the rights that define a democracy - well, as I mentioned, if you are slowly convinced it is necessary by virtue of filtered and manipulated information from the media, you're unlikely to object. Tyrants have learned a lot in the past 229 years. They're not going to get in your face and order you to obey, they're going to convince you that you need to support them.

There is a classification for weapons that sits between fully automatic and hunting/personal protection in terms of capability, and whether you want to label them as assault weapons or Really Dangerous Weapons That Aren't Quite As Dangerous As Fully Automatic Weapons&trade; - the question remains, is it realistically valuable or necessary for hunting or personal protection?

Journeyman

To your first paragraph: I'm sorry, I was unclear. By the past four years, I didn't mean terrorists, I meant Ashcroft and Bush. Your second paragraph responds to the same, regardless. Yes, tyrants have learned a lot in the past 229 years; that is WHY the founders gave us the gift of the second amendment.

To say that guns are irrelevant to the cause of liberty because the people will be manipulated into accepting tyranny consentually rather than coerced into it is very pessimistic and ignores three bits: 1) I am 20, 2) I and others like me have a lifespan that will average out to 80 more years or so on this planet, and 3) Some of them feel the same way I do (that suffrage and speech are not priveledges, and will not forget that anytime soon).

As to the classifications, I do not agree that a pistol grip rifle with a clip capacity of 12 rounds is more dangerous than a pistol grip rifle with a clip capacity of 10 rounds, but the assault weapon classification scheme would have me believe just that. It's not the labeling of the items that I care about, it's the defining factors.

hammer4all

You mean the Guatemalan genocide we fully supported?

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../04/07/0357208
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...line=guatemala

Diamond

I thought this was a very well done study, all the information has always been there, but the media does a nice job of twisting it and making it go away.

The Assault Weapons ban will not be passed again, especially in an election year. Even proponents of the ban wont touch this hot potato.

SecretMethod70

My opinion: if you haven't read the entire 80 page document, you have no right to post an argument in this thread. (just my opinion.)

I used to be very much for gun control (as in, things such as the AWB), and then I did a little research and saw the statistics - many of which are also in this document.

Now, the only form of "gun control" I support is longer waiting periods and background checks and perhaps stricter licensing. Make people wait 6 months to receive their gun (most people aren't in hurries, and if there's a good reason to be then a court can overturn the waiting period). Make people be required to pass - and re-pass every year or so - marksmanship testing to obtain and maintain their license. But do not take away anyone's right to own a gun.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

OpieCunningham

I'm sure you and your friends will stand up for what you believe in to the day you die. But the size of a revolution that would be required to defeat the U.S. Military is going to need to include very many of the same type of people that support the last 4 years of the destruction of our rights. It only takes just enough fear for someone to be willing to give up another right. It's not going to happen overnight, but if/when it does happen, there won't be enough willing people to mount a successful revolution. It's math. It's why media control/consolidation is the real threat and, in this aspect, gun ownership limitations are not.

I'm not going to pretend to know the in's and out's of the technicalities of where in the chart of weapon classification any particular gun might fall. But assuredly there will be cut off points. Maybe 12 bullets is a better cut off point than 10 bullets. But what about 14 bullets? Or 24? In order to classify, a line must be drawn somewhere. Should it be just below fully automatic? My impression is that there are weapons that approach the danger level of fully automatic without reaching it - and I have to question their usefulness for hunting, sport or personal defense.

Fire

I like my assault rifle- and I am responsible with it- why does anyone need an SUV- or a house larger than they need to live in- or a boat they use once every three years- or anything- because they can afford it, and havent directly hurt anyone- are any of you saying that I am irresponsible with my guns? have I done anything illegal- do I even have any parking tickets to my name- NO - then perhaps the anti gun people should be more concerned with the culture we have built here that turns the gun into something more than an inanimate object and grants it some mystical power to kill- everything requires responsibility, and I resent the idea that I do not possess the restraint or intellegence to be trusted with such things- which is just what the anti gun lobby is saying..........

__________________
Thought the harder, Heart the bolder,
Mood the more as our might lessens

DelayedReaction

I never drew a line, and fully support law-abiding citizens bearing arms for whatever legal purpose they wish. If someone wants to own a fully-automatic weapon, then let them apply for the permit and get it.

If you don't know the classifications, then why are you trying to argue with us about what should and should not be legal? You should know the difference between an assault weapon and an assault rifle before you try to decide which should be legal.

There should be no limit on what a person can legally own. The NFA of 1934 already limits ownership of fully-automatic devices (Class III) to those who get licensing approval. That's pretty much all we need.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

OpieCunningham

Then why can't I own an RPG? Or a nuke? I promise I'll be a law abiding citizen. I'll even sign a document that says I'll be a law abiding citizen.

I don't need to understand all the details of the classifications because there has to be lines drawn somewhere. I know the difference between a nuke and a handgun. If your argument really comes down to "if it's not going to be used illegally, it should be legal", well, we can apply that to everything and anything - not just the guns involved in the AWB.

SecretMethod70

Interestingly enough, I learned last night that it's legal to own an anti-aircraft gun in New Mexico, but you have to be a certain distance from any airport/air base and you have to sign an agreement that you will allow the government to use it if and when they need it.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

honestchipmunk

Maybe we should restrict the right to bear arms to the types of "arms" that were available to the Founders when they signed that into law. Hmm...

Picture of a musket

I'm just wondering here, if the Founders could have even fathomed the breadth weapons we were to develop in the 200+ years since their founding of this country. And so long as we're championing "power to the people," explain the electoral college, the division of church and state. The Founders may have wanted to form a democracy, but they didn't "trust" the people. There are checks on "the people" just as there were on the three branches of government. I view this as just another check.

Additionally, I'd like to point out that Thomas Jefferson thought that, for the health of a nation, revolutions should overthrow the government every so often. And I very much agree with what has been said in this thread and elsewhere: the obstacle to having a revolution wouldn't be an under-armed populance, it would be rallying people to fight in the first place. The consolidated media is the threat now.

And one more thing, what would Dr. King say about a means to throw off an oppressor? How successful was the Black Panther Movement compared to the broader PEACEFUL Civil Rights Movement? How well has Palistine done violently attacking their enemies? How did Gandhi get the English out of India? If you ask me, the future of revolutions is not in violent fighting, farmers and what, middle management, versus an oppressive US military. The future of revolutions is about information and the media. Its about informing people about a cause and showing its injustice. That is the lesson to be taken for the successful leaders of recent revolutions, one that current revolutions should note.

__________________
I'm only a ghost, the breeze on your face when you first smell the coast.

Lebell

Maybe we should restrict freedom of speech to the types of speech that was available in 18th century America. I'm sure the Founders could not have envisioned computers, radio and television.

Picture of Ben Franklin's printing press

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

The_Dunedan

If we're going to restrict firearms to the technology of the 18th Century, let's be consistant.
The 1st Amendment must only be exercised through quill pens, manual printing presses, and the spoken word. No fountain, ballpoint, or felt-tip pens. No typewriters, mechanical printing presses of any type, printers of any type, computers, radio, television, or telegraph.
Travel must only be conducted on horseback or on foot. No bycicles, automobiles, airplanes, motorcycles, trolly-cars, trains, or ships driven by anything other than sail-power.
All men must wear breeches and stockings, and the truly fashionable may opt for a powedered wig or lace cravat.
All women must wear corsets with whalebone stays, button-up shoes, and hoop-skirts.
Women, Blacks, Native Americans, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Swarthy Immigrants, persons not holding more than 300 acres of land, and lawyers are now forbidden to vote.
Women are the property of their husbands, and may be beaten by their husbands, provided that no weapon larger in diameter than the husbands thumb is used. Marital Rape is now legal. No woman may marry without her father's consent, and divorced women and widows may, in some states, be required to obtain the permission of their Justice Of Peace to remarry.
Homosexuals and adulterers may be hanged by the neck until dead.
Adulterous women may be branded with an "A" upon the cheek or forehead, and lecherous men may be likewise branded with an "L".

Do you see how rediculous that is?

The_Dunedan

PS: peaceful revolutions are always preferable. However, they only work so long as the Powers That Be give 2/3ds of a shit. Once the PTB choose to ignore Public Opinion ( at home and abroad ) such protests become useless, and usually turn into massacres.
If, for example, Bush had ordered the NY Nat'l Gaurd to shoot into the protesting crowds in NYC, caring not a whit what anyone thought of him, do you REALLY think that banging on drums and chanting would change his mind? No; he'd simply order more shootings. When a dictator chooses to ignore Public Opinion, he can do whatever he likes until he is removed BY FORCE.