• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Gun Control

Ulfwald

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
May 27, 2000
8,646
0
76
A Simple Solution for Simple Minds.

Over twenty-five years of holding forth on talk radio has revealed certain undeniable truths to me. Among those is the fact that modern-day liberals are absolutely incapable of engaging in a logical fact-based discussion of important issues. Logic is to your typical big-government liberal what a clove of garlic is to Dracula. They can't handle it, so they hide from it.
Nowhere is this aversion to logic more evident than in discussions of gun control. Simply stated, the facts are not on the side of those who argue for either registration of our outlawing the private ownership of handguns, let alone so-called assault weapons.
I strongly feel that the people who founded this country absolutely meant for the people to have the right to own firearms. . If you will listen to some of the anti-gun types out there you will hear them make reference to a particular type of gun as a gun &quot;not suitable for hunting or target shooting.&quot; The premise here is that hunting and sport shooting are the only legitimate reasons for gun ownership. Contrary to what some liberal commentators might have you believe, our founding fathers wanted us to have the right to bear arms so that we could protect our lives, our property and our freedoms. Not so we could target shoot or hunt deer.
You've seen the old (and somewhat tired) bumper sticker &quot;If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.&quot; The beauty of this bumper sticker is that it is absolutely correct! There are no bona-fide gun control proposals out there that would get the guns out of the hands of criminals or that would prevent predators from buying guns. All of the proposals only restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens to obtain and own firearms. I propose another bumper sticker ... one even more terrifying:
If Guns Are Outlawed, Only the Government Will Have Guns.
Last year Georgia made it easier for a citizen to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The liberals in this State were absolutely enraged! Cynthia Tucker, the Editorial Page Editor of The Atlanta Constitution, wrote that it would be &quot;open season&quot; on police officers, and that police officers would die in large numbers if it were easier for private citizens to obtain permits to carry concealed weapons. This is a good example of the aversion to facts that most lefties have on this issue. The fact is that there has never been one documented incident anywhere in this country where a police officer was shot in the line of duty by a private citizen carrying a concealed handgun for which he had a permit! Just where did she get this &quot;police will die in the streets&quot; nonsense? Straight out of her illogical mind, that's where. (Actually, Cynthia is really a nice person. She just can't think all that well.)
Oddly enough, the statistics --- the FACTS ---- show that violent crime rates go down when it becomes easier for private law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. The reason is simple, and logical. Criminals don't like the idea that their victim may be armed!
An interesting thing happened in Florida in recent years when the law was changed to make it easier for people to get carry permits. The violent crime rate, including murders and armed robberies, went down. The predators were afraid! Finally they figured out where they could find some victims who would most likely have some cash, and who most likely would not have guns! Get them coming off the airplanes at Miami International Airport! These people are coming to Florida for a vacation, so they have cash. They have just been through airport security, so they don't have guns. Now that's the type of victim the predators want! Unarmed ones!
One more thought before you go back to my home page. This is a fact that draws a blank stare from the gun control crowd. They have no idea in the world how to handle it. Out of all the privately owned handguns, legal and illegal, in the United States, guess what percentage of them are not used in a murder in any given year? Guess what percentage of them are not used in a crime of any type?
99.998% of all privately owned handguns in the U.S. are not used in a murder in any given year.
99.96% of all privately owned handguns in the U.S. are not used in any crime in a given year.
Now that really screams for gun control, doesn't it?
How about some CRIMINAL control?
Addendum:
Someone e-mailed me with this thought. If, in fact, the purpose of the Second Amendment to our Constitution is to enable to GOVERNMENT to arm a GOVERNMENT MILITIA .... then this would be the only one of the 10 Amendments constituting the Bill of Rights that confers a power or right on the government.

 

K6 3

Senior member
Mar 11, 2000
538
0
0
Amen, Ulfwald!!! I agree with you man. --- K6 pulls out flame retardent vest and straps it on --- :)
 

yakko

Lifer
Apr 18, 2000
25,455
2
0
How dare you post something like this. What are you going to do next expect people to take responsibilty for there actions?
 

cxim

Golden Member
Dec 18, 1999
1,442
2
0
This follows from the Marine teaching

&quot;This is your rifle, this is your gun&quot;

Gun control is very important. If you do not have control of your gun, your partner will always be disappointed. You will be disappointed too, as she will leave you for someone who CAN control their gun.

Gun control is not taught in a formal course is any school, although there are usually a few good instructors at most colleges &amp; universities of any size.

Never ask your buddies for advice on gun control. They know as little as you do &amp; many times less. They will say things like he who finishes first is best. This is never true.

She who finishes first is always true &amp; he who finishes last is a gentleman.

You should always examine your gun &amp; make sure it is clean &amp; in good working order. Any defect should be corrected before your gun is put to use.

A dirty gun always leaves a bad impression.

If you have a small gun, you need take special care in learnig how to use it !!! Accuracy is very important with a small gun !

If you have a large gun, special care is also needed. You may cause excessive damage when not intended.

As with other weapons, skill with your gun, requires regular practice.

You should practice the operation of your gun until you know how it works, both backwards &amp; forwards. You should be able to operate it in the dark !! You should be able to operate it blindfolded !!

If you want your gun to serve you for a long time you should learn all about its care, in detail.

Gun control is a good thing... Without gun control... We would be just like the monkeys.
 

Ulfwald

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
May 27, 2000
8,646
0
76
good Post cxim. We all must practice &quot;gun control&quot; :D
 

Bakwetu

Golden Member
Oct 10, 1999
1,681
0
0
I'm glad I don't live in a country where I would feel the need to have a gun to protect myself. That aside, I don't understand why you place so much weight on what your &quot;founding fathers&quot; thought. Their society is not like yours is today.
 

PG

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,426
44
91
It's not about the need, it's about the right. It's also about our government taking away our freedoms. Very few people really need a gun, but we should be able to have one if we want.
 

DABANSHEE

Banned
Dec 8, 1999
2,355
0
0
Well it increased gun ownership rates decrease crime by the same analogy maybe all countries should have nukes, then'd we'd have less wars.

How about that, Cuba should get its missles back then.

I've always wanted a Degtyarev, that'd be the go.

BTW, Ulfwald, you seem to be forgeting that most firearm incidents do not involve recidivous criminals, instead they involve just normal everyday people &amp; are either accidents or impulsive/compulsive acts of drunkenous/jealousy/domestics etc. You just have to hang arround in a coroners court for a few days to see what sort of stupid pathetic incidents occure that involve ordinary people &amp; guns that were purchased legally.

One could call it evolution in action.

Also look at the hundreds of 'no knock' fatalities that have occured, just because someone was paranoid &amp; kept a gun by the bed, like this one in Denver &amp; this one in LA
 

bigvince

Banned
Aug 25, 2000
1,201
0
0
gun control is useing two hands to hold it;)


but seriously gun control legislation dosn't help reduce the incidence of violent crime (those useing a handgun), what it does do is prevent a law abideing citizen from defending themselves from an intruder or someone who would want to harm them phsicaly. moreover how does gun control/legislation prevent criminals from obtaining guns when they get there guns ILLIGALY!





:|:Q;)
 

bigvince

Banned
Aug 25, 2000
1,201
0
0
BAKETEW


what would you do if a terroist country decided to invade sweeden? how wold you defend your self?
 

Bakwetu

Golden Member
Oct 10, 1999
1,681
0
0
Not that I know of any &quot;terrorist countries&quot; that would invade my country, but we have an army for that.

about gun control, I think it is way too late to impose that in the US, you just have too many guns out there. The rest of the world is another story altogether.
 

Bakwetu

Golden Member
Oct 10, 1999
1,681
0
0
Yes, it is well known that Sweden and Switzerland is the same country.
Hell, it's outside your state in the great darkness called the rest of the world -Terra incognita ex-Americana ;)
 

DaBoneHead

Senior member
Sep 1, 2000
489
0
0

Simple minds, simple arguments...

Actually, what constitutes 'gun-control' is a very complex argument that can not rely on subjective statistics or simple assertions. I don't place faith in anyone who quotes statistics, since they can be made to say anything you want. For instance, you quote that because of concealed weapons, crime in Florida went down. Was it simply the presence of individuals carrying concealed weapons that did this, or was it from the policy of incarcerating criminals for longer periods, since most criminals are 'repeat' offenders. If you keep criminals off the street for longer periods of time, of course the crime rate will drop. To simply assert that the lower crime rate is directly tied to a single reason (whatever that may be) is quite myopic. Just like the economy, there is a calculus to crime rates.

Be careful about jumping to conclusions on such trivial data.

And about 99.yadayadayada statistics -- don't think of them in cold numbers. Behind that 1% or .1% or .01% are real people, people who suffer, people who die. Somehow, quoting numbers de-humanizes the whole thing, and people forget that the &quot;%&quot; could someday include them. We all think it only happens to the other guy, but I for one can tell you that it can happen to anyone. Even you.

Let me state that I am a gun owner. I enjoy target practice. At one time, I even enjoyed hunting. But I also support 'reasonable' gun control. I don't believe any law on the books right now violates anyone's rights, and that the real solution is to enforce the existing laws before passing any additional ones. After the current laws on the books are enforced, we should revisit and re-evaluate the need for additional laws.

The title of your article was 'A Simple Solution for Simple Minds'. I believe the author of that article is actually the one culpable of having a simple mind. I am sorry you agree with him. I for one found no real logic in his article.

Finally, I just moved to Texas from Florida, and the official reasons quoted for a lower crime rate (or at least the ones I heard), were 'a better economy', and 'making convicts serve at least %80 of their sentences'. There was no mention of concealed weapons, nor was I aware of the easing of restrictions on carrying concealed weapons.
 

bigvince

Banned
Aug 25, 2000
1,201
0
0
RED

i understand that your previous post is a caracture of what you think gun advocates are but realy gun advocates are just like you and me you know normal people that go to work and have kids etc.... the only diffrence being that they feel the need to defend themselves against criminals and in somecases bad agents of law inforcement. so idon't think you should catagorize people who own guns in that manner
 

Isla

Elite member
Sep 12, 2000
7,749
2
0


<< She who finishes first is always true &amp; he who finishes last is a gentleman. >>



/me wipes tears from eyes...

LOL!

thanks, cxim
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0


<< I'm glad I don't live in a country where I would feel the need to have a gun to protect myself. >>



That's probably what the Germans thought in the 1920-30 timeframe; what the Finns thought around the same time; etc. Feel secure now, and I do here in the States, but we have no way of knowing what will happen one hundred years from now. I won't be here, barring some medical miracles, but my children might be. I would rather not deprive them of the right to defend themselves should something happen.



<< That aside, I don't understand why you place so much weight on what your &quot;founding fathers&quot; thought. Their society is not like yours is today. >>



We give credence to what the Founding Fathers thought because they created the greatest government system that the world has ever known embodied in one of the most fantastic documents ever written. How's that?



<< I don't place faith in anyone who quotes statistics, since they can be made to say anything you want. >>



I think part of the intent in quoting statistics against gun control is to combat the insistent bombardment of statistics from the gun grabbers. X amount of guns are used every day for crime; X amount of people are killed; etc. They go both ways.

That being said, there is an instance where the statistics are tied quite closely to the instance of greater gun availability. Back in the '80s, a town in Michigan passed a law forbidding gun ownership within the city limits. In retaliation, a town here in Georgia, Kennesaw (NE of Atlanta), passed a law MANDATING gun ownership for its residents. It was not enforced, but citizens were supposed to declare on a tax form or something (can't recall how it was done) that they in fact did own a gun. Immediately after that law was passed, there was a marked decrease in home property crimes (burglaries, invasions). Do you see a correlation there? I think a good case can be made that there was.



<< Somehow, quoting numbers de-humanizes the whole thing, and people forget that the &quot;%&quot; could someday include them. >>



By &quot;humanizing&quot; everything, we can come to the conclusion of ridding ourselves of all sorts of useful and/or necessary items simply because someone dear was killed -- automobiles, planes, kitchen knives, plastic bags. The point of the statistics quoted above, whether exactly accurate or not, is that the vast, vast majority of guns in this country are never involved in crime or death. Depriving everyone of the use of guns simply because they were misused, abused, or accidentally caused death or injury is a knee-jerk reaction, especially in light of the Constitutional implications. That does not mean that the reaction of grief or anger is not warranted, but sometimes accidents and criminal actions happen -- blame needs to be placed appropriately, however.



<< the official reasons quoted for a lower crime rate >>



According to whom? Handgun Control, Inc.? A liberal member of the government? An independent study from a proven unbiased source? I'm assuming they based those conclusions on statistics, so can you trust the result? Yes, there are a myriad of factors that go into something like that, but that does not mean that necessarily concealed carry did not have an effect. We always hear in the news when someone is killed or attacked, but we never (or exceedingly rarely) hear about when someone thwarts an attempt with a privately owned weapon. Look online for those declarations, and you'll find a great many.

Interestingly enough, this thread is quite timely. Check this out: Democrats being hurt by gun control.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
I think that it has been proven over the years that its extremely easy for anyone who wants to kill someone to get a gun. Like the best joke is a comic I saw, a kid walks into a store and says he wants Quake3 and a gun, the salesperson says that he cant sell him Quake3 but he can sell him a gun.

Sure crime goes down when everyone has a gun, but crime also gets way more violent when there are so many guns in use. Like under any normal situations a criminal has to have a bigger weapon, in many places in europe the criminal just gets a big knife and then robs somebody, he might cut the poor victim but he will hardly kill him. That is because if you are attacked by someone with a knife you can run away or you can defend yourself and the attacker will not be able to kill you unless he realy means to kill you.

Like in america its different, everyone has at least a revolver and some semi-automatic guns, the criminal must get a bigger gun or he must imobilize the victim by shooting him. So now we have a criminal with a semi-automatic or a autometic weapon. And any idiot can kill someone with a weapon like that, and that is without meaning to do it.

Criminals in america are so much more dangerous than in europe. So if you make it harder for people to get guns, like here in bloody iceland we dont sell any weapon that is concelable. Just rifles, so its rather obvious when someone is walking around with a big hunting rifle and trying to rob someone. If you are going to get a gun here you must have a clean criminal record and be over 25 I think.

Sure it should be everyones right to have firearms, but that will probably not a good idea untill we can stop people from taking someone elses gun and using it. When we have guns that use fingerprints to get active then we have to stop people from owning guns in any amount.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY