Gun Control

[dezrtfish]

@Yanny:

There should be three kinds of guns in this country.

1. Guns designed for hunting
2. Guns designed for policemen
3. Guns designed for the military

I challenge you to name for me one reason why you need a gun other than the three above mentioned reasons, if no one else has a gun.

Well Yanny I Challenge you to name one good reason why I shouldn’t have a gun.

As for your challenge, I like to shoot them and I want to. Come out here some time and I will take you shooting I would be willing to bet you would change your mind.

That offer goes for any of you by the way especialy you anti’s. :)

And as for your story about the kids, I have a 4 year old son and a 3 year old daughter. The problem in that story is that anyone who leaves kids at home alone that young needs to be kicked in the rear. The same thing could have and has happened with cleaning solutions.

[Janus1]

CC: we seem to agree on a couple of points at least. I have no problem with making guns registered and traceable, because of course, there is a potential for problem.

These criminals are not criminals “for fun”, but as an occupation. Thus, they want to earn money with it. Outlawing guns makes forces them into the black market, raising the prices significantly.

Falk, personally, i find this argument ridiculous. the last thing most people (i assume) think of in crime prevention is making the equipment cost more for the criminal. yes, i am talking about regular criminals. but that includes: drug dealers, drug suppliers, gangmembers, robbers, etc. with the size of the drug market alone, theres that many people who would use guns, and i would be willing to bet that almost ALL of them have guns.are they going to stop getting guns if they are outlawed? VERY DOUBTFUL. 1) the guns they have now are probably not owned/obtained legally. 2) even if they are, I doubt they would see that guns are more expensive, and go “gee, i guess i cant have a gun anymore” thats absurd

i find this argument ridiculous, and absurd. i respect the anti-gun point of view, i used to share it, but i have no respect for this argument.

you mentioned buying “cheaper, weaker guns” such as a .22. the caliber in these cases is usually negligible. it has most to do with stopping power, and in the case of the criminals, the simple presence of a gun is usually enough for them to get their way. even if they need to use it, a .22 will kill someone the same as any other caliber, it will really only make a difference if they are wearing body armor, or charging you down, which are both unlikely.

[Guest]

@sherman28:

… My point was a person who is law abiding IMHO, has the right to own an assault weapon if he wants to.

What if the laws fodbid owning these guns… would you follow the laws, or take what you think is your right?

… Well, Those items are against the Law to begin with, so my neighbor wouldn’t be so law abiding, would he.

@dezrtfish:

I have several firearms that have absolutely nothing in common with WMDs. And none of the firearms I have has ever been used for the same purpose as a wmd, at least not while I owned it.

What kind of firearms are that, that they have not been designed for killing? Do you think you will use one of your firearms for killing one day? If not, why do you have them then?

@Janus:

… you mentioned buying “cheaper, weaker guns” such as a .22. the caliber in these cases is usually negligible. it has most to do with stopping power, and in the case of the criminals, the simple presence of a gun is usually enough for them to get their way. even if they need to use it, a .22 will kill someone the same as any other caliber,…

exactly, i mention weaker guns. Why do you have to commit more than half of your post to things i didn’t say before you come down to my point?

For the calibre…. first, there is a difference in stopping power in more than you mentioned. Here probably CC or one of our army men can give more information, exp. for killing a .22 is really a bad gun (though better than a knife probably). So, a .22 is way less suited for massive bloodshed and massacres compared to shotguns and automatic rifles.
If the presence of a .22 usually is enough for criminals to get them their way … well, it sounds like they would do so then even if the “others” have handguns of their own.

[TG Moses VI]

What kind of firearms are that, that they have not been designed for killing? Do you think you will use one of your firearms for killing one day? If not, why do you have them then?

Statisically speaking, no, I would never use a firearm for killing or be confronted with the chance to use one on a criminal. However, I have them for what they were made for, a deterent. Why do many houses have alarms? Not because in case their house is robbed, the thieves has 5+ minutes to get away before the cops arrive, but because it serves as a psychological deterent.

[Guerrilla Guy]

the idea is that if guns were removed then our criminals would have fun… there is no way to dodge it…

[Guest]

I really wonder why they would have… they must have so much fun in the UK, France, Italy, Germany, Sweden etc. etc. then.
It is really strange that these countries don’t have this explosion in the ratio of people feeling threatened, endangered, victimized by criminals.

Your argument seems so invalid, because your “prophecies” of how it would be without guns are not happening in so many countries.

[dezrtfish]

@F_alk:

@dezrtfish:

I have several firearms that have absolutely nothing in common with WMDs. And none of the firearms I have has ever been used for the same purpose as a wmd, at least not while I owned it.

What kind of firearms are that, that they have not been designed for killing? Do you think you will use one of your firearms for killing one day? If not, why do you have them then?

As a mater of fact I have a target rifle that when you look through the sights has a field of view of about 3 inches at 100 feet. It is designed spacificaly for target shooting, and wouldn’t be very good for any thing else.

I also have a .410 shotgun that is loaded with very smal shot. I use it for snakes and rodents, and it probably wouldn’t kill a man unless he was very close.

I have an air rifle witch is pretty efective at killing pigons. I have been shot with one that was similar and allthough it hurt alot I survived the wound.

The only things I plan on killing with my firearms are animals. As far as humans are concerned TG is right, intimidation works much better as a defence than force.

[Janus1]

Falk, a .22 will kill a man just as much as any other gun will. the difference again, being the stopping power. id like to see you in a situation threatened by a gun, and think “gee, its only a .22, what am i afraid of?” 1) most people would not concieve that it is only a .22, or even that a .22 is a weaker caliber
2) even if they did, i would bet most people would still be afraid of the man with the gun.

[Guerrilla Guy]

alright chaps… look at this hot off the press…

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc∈=US&cat=Gun_Control_Debate

GG

[Guest]

From the above mentioned article:
"The CDC said the report suggests more study is needed, not that gun laws don’t work. But the agency said it has no plans to spend more money on firearms study.

… In fact, since a 1996 fight in Congress, the CDC has been prohibited from using funds to press for gun control laws. "

[sherman28]

Why would the Center for Disease Control need to study firearms?

Gee I wonder why their funding got cut off!

[cystic crypt]

@sherman28:

Why would the Center for Disease Control need to study firearms?

Gee I wonder why their funding got cut off!

I don’t think it’s at all inappropriate.
We (the medical/scientific community) study diseases in other contexts. Viruses, smoking, cancer, heart disease (as well as ITS antecedents - blood pressure, cholesterol, genetics, DM, homocysteine, etc.) as well as millions of other “determinants of health” and reasons for people to show up in the hospital. Why not study firearms? A gunshot to the abdomen requires an emergency laparotomy. If it doesn’t kill someone, it requires that the patient be in hospital for a minimum of 3 days. Why NOT study the proliferation of firearms, within the context of gun control legislation? Why look at seatbelts in car accidents, the effects of smoking and legislation that way, child health in the context of child abuse, etc.?
If we study these things in the context of health, why not gun control? Unless, of course, there is political pressure driving by powerful pro-killing-devices to NOT study the ramifications on public health by these devices. I mean, of everything in the environment, few things are as effective at determining someone’s health than a gunshot.
The CDC is not just about Lhassa feber, Ebola, HIV, but it is about health and disease control. We need these things looked at. It falls under epidemiology, and pressure to ignore findings concerning the health of a population, pressure to terminate funding based on these findings should be considered by anyone concerned with acheiving health of a population, as being very worrisome.

[cystic crypt]

@sherman28:

F alk and Crypt:

Crypt I find that story about your couisin extremely interesting.
Would you mind (if it isn’t too personal) posting more about it?
Maybe send a private message? I DESPISE intolerance such
as that you are describing and am very interested in what you
can relate -again only if you are comfortable describing the situation.

i’m not ignoring you. I’m awaiting the word on the results of his appeal. (the ironic thing is that he is possibly the most intelligent person i know - he’s 6 years younger than me - as well a very compassionate person with a passion for medicine)

[sherman28]

Ok CC- When you are ready to, thant’s cool-

And yes my feelings were getting hurt! (just kidding! )

Still disagree with you on the CDC- but I see where you are coming from.

[Darrigaaz]

I’m still i high school student, so I wont pretend to be the smartest person in the world. Hunting is big in my family, and it always will be. Stricter gun control will make life harder fo the average joe who doesn’t plan on knocking over a seven eleven. While i agree that Ownership of things like an AK-47 or a Thompson’s sub machine gun SHOULD be more carefully watched. Even semi-auto sidearms need to be more carefully monitored.
However, this will be like the prohibition: people WILL find a way. As an American, i know from experience that we are a hard bunch to lick (i hate that expression). They’re trying to control drugs, arent they? not going to well, if i say so myself.

[Guerrilla Guy]

@Darrigaaz:

I’m still i high school student, so I wont pretend to be the smartest person in the world. Hunting is big in my family, and it always will be. Stricter gun control will make life harder fo the average joe who doesn’t plan on knocking over a seven eleven. While i agree that Ownership of things like an AK-47 or a Thompson’s sub machine gun SHOULD be more carefully watched. Even semi-auto sidearms need to be more carefully monitored.
However, this will be like the prohibition: people WILL find a way. As an American, i know from experience that we are a hard bunch to lick (i hate that expression). They’re trying to control drugs, arent they? not going to well, if i say so myself.

Dargaaz, a Shotgun is potentially more dangerous then a Thompson…

[Darrigaaz]

POTENTIALLY

in the hands hands of a skilled shot a .308 hunting rifle can be very dangerous, but a shotgun- like the hunting rufle- has practical purposes…

[Janus1]

personally, id be more afraid of a lunatic with a thompson than a shotgun. chances are said lunatic would be in a public place, and while the shotgun would could potentially do more damage to each individual target, hes probably more dangerous with a thompson sub-machine gun, since he can lay down a lot more fire a lot faster than with a shotgun.

[Guest]

@Darrigaaz:

…However, this will be like the prohibition: people WILL find a way. As an American, i know from experience that we are a hard bunch to lick (i hate that expression). They’re trying to control drugs, arent they? not going to well, if i say so myself.

I think this argument is flawed.
Drugs harm yourself, weapons harm others. Still you propose to keep weapons free, and pull the “failed” “drug control” as a reason for that. Wouldn’t that imply that you support free drugs for everyone then as well?
For me, it does, even though you probably don’t want that.

[Darrigaaz]

not at all, and i dont see where your aguements coming from.

what i said is just because gun control laws become stricter doesnt mean that they will stay out of the hands of the bad guys. Just like drugs are supposedly a controlled substance, yet we have dozens of durggies in my school alone.

understand me now?