Knife Control?

[Guest $iLk]

Just my two cents, but in countries like Australia- where gun ownership was outlawed, the crime rate (bank robberies, house burglaries, violent assault) rose 73%. In the UK the same thing I have heard is occuring. Goes with the saying if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Now maybe I'm just a good ol boy from down south, but I grew up around firearms. I shot firearms when I was 10. The only reasons I or my family have used firearms is for

• Hunting
• Self-Defense

Nothing in there about armed assault is there? The key as someone said earlier is not being deathly afraid of firearms, but be educated about them. You hear arguments all the time about little kids blowing the neighborhoods brains out and stuff like that, but that is only an example of bad parenting, not the evils of guns. When you hold, point, and fire a gun, you are taking responsiblility. I myself was educated my whole life not to point it at anything that I wasn't going to kill- I was never to point it at anyone, and while I was under 18 I was not allowed to touch them without supervision. Now me being well-raised and all I actually obeyed my parents and intend to instill the same values in my children. As far as guns go, yes I own them, yes I believe the constitution of the United States supports owning them, and yes I believe that in the wrong hands guns are dangerous, but in the right hands guns can protect the weak. What I don't understand is where those people get-off on telling others what they can and can't do? If I smoke for instance, and you are in the same room- I would not mind you asking me to put it out because of your personal space. However if I smoke and you are across town in some taxi with a cell-phone telling me I cant smoke then go to hell. That is the equivalent of people wanting to ban things that are in no way, shape, fashion, or form are affecting them. They are only scared of being affected. They want a perfect fantasy utopia where everyone comes to rob banks with their bare hands or knives. The person may be bigger than you and you would get your ass whipped fighting. But if you both had guns, at least you were on equal ground. But if only criminals had guns and law abiding citizens had none (which happily is not the case until you people say so and take our guns) then you would be SOL. Hypothetical yes, but very real if you ask someone in Australia. What need is there of guns? As stated it is a tool, the need may be to kill for food, or in self-defense. For criminals it is not a need, but a want- to hurt people. Even though less than 3% of hand guns sold are used in any violent crime, as well as assault rifles being less than that.

At any rate, I know this is not an argument winner because the blind see their own thing. For one final thought, what was the first thing every communist country did in consolidating power? Siezing guns. Because remember that if the government takes your guns, only the government will have guns.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

Did you know that

85%

of all statistics are pulled out of thin air?

---

That one too?

hehe

As for the statistics in my last post - those are based on actual US government statistical analysis over the past three years.

[ 06-09-2001: Message edited by: $iLk ]

[Guest]

My statistics are taken from the NRA ILA website and magazine. Those statistics are put together by the Dept of Justice. I was doing them from memory, and not checking for total accuracy, but they are DAMN close.

[Tyrn]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $iLk:

Did you know that

85%

of all statistics are pulled out of thin air?

That one too?

hehe

---

Yes, that one too

quote:

---

As for the statistics in my last post - those are based on actual US government statistical analysis over the past three years.

[ 06-09-2001: Message edited by: $iLk ]

---

While it's nice that you've informed us, give us a link to the data, be it in the form of the television show you heard it on or the newspaper where you read or a web page.

Something I detest is the need to provide backup proof, but I have learned the need of it. I know that red mites are required for good dung beetle health because the red mites eat a common parasite which otherwise will wipe out all dung beetles in any given area. How do I know this? Well, an Australian Cattle Rancher imported thousands of dung beetles from Africa to try and stop the decimation of his ranch land by all the manure his cattle produced. He figured that the dung beetles, which recycle the vast quantities of dung on the African savanna, could do the same for him. Unfortunately he didn't like the looks of the red mites and killed them off. The dung beetles all died.

While I tend to trust my memory (this is all from a documentary I watched with my father about 20 years ago), should you trust my memory? No.

As I still have no proof of the above other than my own memory, do I ever use this memory as proof of anything? Yes, proof of the need for verifiable sources.

(rambling...I know better than to get started in these types of discussions )

[Tyrn]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

My statistics are taken from the NRA ILA website and magazine. Those statistics are put together by the Dept of Justice. I was doing them from memory, and not checking for total accuracy, but they are DAMN close.

---

For example, the site you mentions points to this WorldNetDaily article which backs your USA not in the top ten statement. Of course, the government there has tried to refute this in the following article. [edit] I found this admission "Although Dr. Adam Graycar, director of the Australian Institute of Criminology, calls the NRA's figures misleading, he admitted in an interview with the Associated Press Tuesday that assaults in his country had indeed climbed since 1998 -- the most recent year statistics are available -- but added that "most attacks did not involve guns." Graycar also said homicides had decreased and rarely involved firearms." to be quite amusing. The NRA never claimed that the increased crime rates would involved increased gun use, just a general increase in crime.

And this page tries to point out the actual Australian stats for 1999 but POOF those stats are now only available to subscribers to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The only criminal stats I could find there, for public viewing, do not list murder and are for 1998 and 1993.

This article is also quite interesting.

[ 06-09-2001: Message edited by: Tyrn ]

[Charles Lindsey]

Historical bases of the right to keep and bear arms But I'm wondering if that shouldn't be basis. Hhhmm.

Records and GrantsThis is an article talking of coats of arms or heraldic arms.

Both articles are one of several from a brittanica search

All interesting stuff.

[Tyrn]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Lindsey:

Historical bases of the right to keep and bear arms

But I'm wondering if that shouldn't be basis. Hhhmm.

---

"All your bases are. . . ."

"SHUT UP, SIT DOWN AND NO ONE GETS HURT."

On a serious note, that article is most informative. I wonder what Noah Webster would say of today's situation?

quote:

---

In a pamphlet hurriedly written to support adoption of the Constitution without the Bill of Rights, Noah Webster argued that the existing universal citizen armament made a standing army of little danger. He claimed that a standing army is oppressive only when it is "superior to any force that exists among the people" since otherwise it "would be annihilated on the first exercise of

acts of oppression."

---

and

quote:

---

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."

---

[ 06-09-2001: Message edited by: Tyrn ]

[aramike]

[Commander ZIX]

quote:

---

The amount of population is negligable compared to the US in places like the UK and Japan.

---

This is the point I was trying to make on more than one occassion

[Commander ZIX]

If you hold up a bank with a weapon, no matter what it is. Be it a gun, a knife, or a water pistol; it is STILL assault with a deadly weapon and armed robbery as long as the victims admit they were scared

[Guest $iLk]

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/dsc/readyref.html

somewhere in here but i don't have the link or time to search

[Tyrn]

quote:

---

Originally posted by aramike:

From Tyrn -

The Second Ammendment has one purpose (which is not to allows us to proctect ourselves from criminals BTW). That one purpose is to ensure that the citizens of the United States have the ability to remain free. Our Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that this nation's children would have the means to fight the Revolution all over again if needed.

Actually, the purpose of the Second Ammendment was to assure that no government (including the US) OR INDIVIDUAL could remove the rights of the citizens.

Just wanted to point that out, Tyrn.

---

Actually, after reading the "HISTORICAL BASES [sic] OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" I've come to revise that view of mine and realize that it has a dual purpose where both you and I are correct Aramike.

For those unfamiliar, Madison wrote the Bill of Rights which was, thankfully as he was notorious for convoluted, edited to the concise Bill we now enjoy. If you haven't taken the time to read the treatise linked by Charles, I would highly recommend it.

quote:

---

Madison in Federalist 46 argued the point at greater length, stressing citizen armament and state governments as bulwarks of freedom:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition ... notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments

are afraid to trust the people with arms.

If those people were armed and formed into militia units by subordinate governments,

Madison asserted, "It may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it." To him citizen armament was not merely a matter of (pg.59) military service or collective defense, but a guarantee of all other freedoms, to be used if necessary, against the government.

---

quote:

---

Did you know that 85% of all statistics are pulled out of thin air? It is not that I do not agree with your hypothesis, for I do agree with you; just that without concrete backing, your numbers appear to be more a tool of the very propoganda that you desire to quash.

Actually, he's right. According the number of guns REGISTERED, less than one hundreth of one percent are used in a crime (according to the ATF).

---

I'll never get away from that one now will I? I know he's right, you know he's right but who are we? Certainly we are not authorities on the subject at hand but there are authorities with concrete information that would allow each of the readers/posters here to rightly judge for themselves what the facts say.

[ 06-09-2001: Message edited by: Tyrn ]

[aramike]

quote:

---

Actually, after reading the "HISTORICAL BASES [sic] OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" I've come to revise that view of mine and realize that it has a dual purpose where both you and I are correct Aramike.

---

Thank you. I appreciate that there is someone here willing to research their opinions.

quote:

---

I'll never get away from that one now will I? I know he's right, you know he's right but who are we? Certainly we are not authorities on the subject at hand but there are authorities with concrete information that would allow each of the readers/posters here to rightly judge for themselves what the facts say.

---

Heh, you were right - 85% of statistics DO come out of thin air. Just not that one. And, you're also right that people should research the topic.

quote:

---

This is the point I was trying to make on more than one occassion

---

So I read. That's why people should rely on per capita statistics, and, more importantly, TRENDS.

[Guest]

Thats ridiculous!

"This man did not have a gun, but he had a knife"

Yeah, if he had a gun he wouldve killed dozens of kids more. You CAN run from a psycho with a knife you know.

"but if someone else had had a gun, they could have stopped this incredibly savage act with one shot!! This is the odyssey of gun control"

Perhaps..but then again, if one of the teachers had had a katana sword or heck, why not, a spear, he couldve also done something about it...right?

The whole point of the thing is, if someone is armed, chances are his victims are not..guns or no guns, knives or no knives. Good point: You can run from a knife, not from a speeding hail of bullets.

I hope that jerk gets fed to the fish. in slow, tiny chunks.

[Tyrn]

quote:

---

Originally posted by aramike:

Actually, after reading the "HISTORICAL BASES [sic] OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" I've come to revise that view of mine and realize that it has a dual purpose where both you and I are correct Aramike.

Thank you. I appreciate that there is someone here willing to research their opinions.

---

The only reason I'm even willing to put forth my thoughts on the subject, because as evidenced by my first post in this novella my patriotism and my religion tend to be rather closely entwined, is that I know people here give me, and all posters who are willing to make the effort, some level of respect and value.

[ 06-09-2001: Message edited by: Tyrn ]

[Steve Schacher]

Bear in mind that the government can legally ban guns, but to do so, they will have to pass an amendment that repeals the Second Amendment.

To do that, they will have to get an amendment passed in Congress and then get 3/4ths of the the States to ratify it. That will not happen.

[Guest $iLk]

Either that or they can pass enough legislation so that it becomes next to impossible for the average citizen to even aquire a weapon.

Or they can accept the UN and since the UN charter would surpass the constitution then the UN could do whatever the hell they wanted.

[Commander ZIX]

In actuallity to pass an amendment 2/3 of the national congress as well as at least 2/3 of the state congess in at least 3/4 of the states must pass it

please correct me if I am wrong

[Guest]

OK first,

quote:

---

Err, Jaguar - the M-60 isn't a 60 caliber machine gun. I believe that it is a 50 cal

gun (someone correct me if I'm wrong). I've never HEARD of a 60 cal. And the

Army moved away from fully auto M-16s during Vietnam because too many rounds

were being wasted and the magazines were being emptied too fast. Now it's just a

three round burst unless modified.

---

Please see this URL this will tell you a little bit about the M-60 Machine gun, very nice, VERY Deadly, it is not truly a 60 caliber, but it is close!! 7.62X51mm, we called it a 60 cal, only because we also used a 50 cal. Made it easier!!

In my Brigade we had the FULLY automatic M-16 Rifles, I was in an Armored battalion, we had M60-A3's when I started and had M1A1's when I finished. Our job was to keep the enemies heads down until our tanks got there to back us up, so picture this, 5 guys in a an APC(Armored personnel Carrier) each with an m-16, and a 50 cal mounted to the top, that is one gun you do not fire unless it is mounted to something!! lol and each of us are carrying a FULLY automatic M-16. My job was to get on the radio and call for help, once that was finished get the back door open and begin firing my weapon on full auto and keep it there, then get back in as another took my place as I reloaded, at the same time the TC(Tank Commander) is firing the 50 cal at anything that pokes their heads up until the tank arrived for support.

On full auto with an assault rifle, you will be lucky to hit anything, it is basically to keep the enemies head down until help arrives. Yes, I said you would be VERY lucky to hit anything on fully automatic!! You could line up 10 people against a wall, and I could fire a weapon on full auto and spray it like a hose, and I would be lucky to hit even one of them!! Anyone who believes different has never fired a fully automatic weapon before, it is uncontrollable unless mounted to something, like the 50 cal. or on legs, like the M-60!!

That is why they switched MOST m-16's over to 3 round burst fire, not because of the waste of ammunition, but because you were MUCH more likely to hit something with a 3 round burst, instead of 30 rounds going downrange uncontrollably!! so you would basically aim for a guys midsection, pull the trigger and the guy gets one in the belly, one in the neck and the last one takes off the top of his head. The barrels kick up, no matter how hard they have tried to make it otherwise, but hey, gets the job done!!

The barrels on the M-60's are really cool too, they used these in the doors of choppers in Vietnam, the gunners would just keep shooting until the barrel literally turned red and began to bend, he would then shove his hand into an asbestos glove, give the barrel a twist and out it came, he'd drop the hot one into the jungle, shove in a new one, and start firing again, some of these gunners could do this in less then 7 seconds!! INCREDIBLE!!]

Anyway, gotten way off point, but wanted to straighten out Aramike on that little detail!!

Also, just to let others know about this little interesting fact. Whenever we were doing infantry type drills, the person or persons with the lowest score on the range were always the men chosen to have their weapons on full auto, their job was to keep the enemies heads down long enough, for us with the better scores, to get a good general idea of where the enemy was, and once the automatic was done, we would snipe to take the enemy out. Always give the least experienced the fully auto, so that the experienced rifleman could go semi and snipe.

I will ALWAYS choose Semiauto over automatic any day, because I can hit a target!! whereas with an auto, as I stated above, you'd be lucky to hit the broadside of a barn!! lol

[ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[aramike]

Jaguar, in what brigade did that have full auto M16s?

Also, when firing an assault rifle full auto, it isn't any more difficult to hit the target than firing bursts - one surely doesn't just hold the trigger and spray (an M16 would expel its ammunition too fast for that).

As for why they changed the '16 to burst, it had nothing to do with hitting the target (the Army still employs OTHER full auto assault rifles). It had to do with the fact that GIs during Vietnam were expending their ammunition WAY too fast (the M16 has a very high rate of fire and a relatively low magazine capacity).

Also, I'd challenge you to show me ONE Army doctrine that uses assault rifles for enemy suppression. That was what the M60 was for (and later, the M249 SAW and FN MAG). Assault rifles are useless for suppression because they do not have the ammunition capacity of a belt fed or box fed machine gun.

As for D-Force requirements, now yer stretching. They don't let guys "try out" for that - Special Operations Detachment Delta is invite-only - as the government still doesn't officially acknowlede them. Their guys all come from other special forces squads such as the Rangers.

[Guest]

All I can say is that I was NEVER a grunt, I was commo in a tank battalion, and then commo in a field artillery unit, my job was to stay alive, They needed me far more then I needed them. My job was to keep the enemies head down, as well as keep mine. suppression fire is what we were taught, so that is what we did. When I was in the Field artillery unit, I had one of those 3 round burst rifles and it didn't feel right, it had the round and ridged hand grips, instead of the flat and oval that I was trained on in basic and had in Kentucky. But I loved the weaponry and therefore qualified on every one that I could get my commanders permission for and my grubby little hands on!! lol

We had further discussion on ICQ, so I have edited the above post, not happily, but if what you say is true, I worked my ass off for pretty much nothing, and am not happy about it. but hey, the truth is the truth, whether I like it or not.

quote:

---

But, see, Jaguar, that's why we have a Bill of Rights in the first place - so that no

one can circumvent our rights. You have a right to bear arms, but the government

has a right and RESPONSIBILITY to assure that your right to bear arms doesn't

violate another's right to safety.

Trust me when I say this - guns will never be banned in the country.

---

Well, I trusted you on the above, but this is a little too important to just trust so to speak, there are WAY too many things that could happen to create a scenario where the 2nd amendment is lawed to death, and it is no longer a factor because local and state authorities have made it Moot.

I see California going the way of Washingtoin DC, New York City etc. I see the states making the 2nd amendment into a neutered pup, instead of the guard dog it was meant to be.

What really angers me about this is the fact that I see 1st amendment screamed all over the place, and I see in some of these Constitutional studies, the fact that the 1st amendment is a guarantee, but the 2nd amendment can be changed and regulated by the states, does this sound fishy to anybody besides me? I will find the book that I saw it in and quote it here for you all to see, it really pissed me of!!!

[ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Gomez]

You know, I hate to say this, but most of you guys provide a powerful arguement for keeping guns on the streets. I say most, because a few of you, either need to keep your cool a bit better, or learn to express things a bit less hostile.

While reading this, I have been on a rollercoaster ride. From "Wow, that makes a heck of a lot of sense to me." to "Gah, what a jerk!"

Here are some of the problems I see with keeping guns on the streets at present. No little situational things, or factoids. All opinion.

There are just plain too many people out there that can't keep their cool enough, to NOT draw their weapon and shoot someone. I have known far too many people that should never own a gun, to think that there aren't a heck of a lot more people just like them, who DO own guns. And that's what scares me. They do say that an armed society is a polite society. But it's also a violent, deadly society, because there are some people who are just too stupid to own something so easy to kill someone with.

Now, how this could potentially be resolved, and thus make you gun enthusiasts happy, as well as people like me happy.

The government makes a law that requires ALL people wanting to aquire a gun, take a 2 year course (once a week for an hour or two, no missing a class) on how to safely use and keep your gun (triple this for concealed). This course would have to be extremely cheap, otherwise it is economically prohibitive. Maybe I'm a little overboard on the 2 (6) years, but you get the idea.

Now, next, they issue a gun license (some places have these for heavier weapons, if I'm not mistaken). This license would have to be required for anyone to buy any gun. It would have to be renewed every, say...5 years, just like a driver's license (every year for concealed).

Now, in addition, manditory background checks for ALL purchasers. Manditory waiting periods of up to 2-3 weeks for ALL weapons (tripled if has concealed license). Felons are prohibited 100%. Any who use a firearm in a crime are felons (this is already in place). Any felon who uses a gun in a new crime, is (as Jaguar put it) put in jail and throw away the key (until technology gets to the point where we can edit their brain in such a way, that they'll never commit another crime with a firearm, pie in the sky). Manditory life sentence, no parole ever, maximum security prison.

If the government would enact this, I, as a rather extremely anti-gun person, would be QUITE content, and none of you would hear another peep out of me about gun-control.

I AM against registering what firearms an individual has. I am well aware of that problem.

I suppose, I should explain what changed my opinion about all this.

The right to keep and bear arms, as expressed by the second amendment to the Constitution, intends for a population to be able to defeat oppression (both internal and external) by keeping themselves armed.

The current adaptation is, that any idiot has the right to bear arms. Idiot and armed should never be together in the same sentence. Being armed, in itself, does not defeat oppression. Using a weapon to defeat a criminal act IS using a gun for the purpose the 2nd amendment intended.

Thus, IF the government requires things such as I stated above, I would be content. Because I would know that MANY less idiots would have firearms. Simply because it is far too complicated to get a firearm. Only those who really want it for the purpose intended, would stick it out for all that time. Of course, during the classes, they would have to stress the real purpose of firearms in our society, as well as how to use it safely.

Basically, with this in mind, I am backing out of this discussion. Unless someone has constructive things they wish to point out in my ideas. (meaning I will check back at some point)

[Charles Lindsey]

Glad you liked it Tyrn.

I found it interesting in that it was almost a small history of some firearms as well because you could see their insertion into the different laws quoted.

What I also found interesting was that in antiquity, when people were little more than warrior clans, everyone (men) had weapons. Issued probably at some great manhood ritual. Then as the feudal system took hold that was withheld for some of the lowest citizens. Several repairs went back and forth through the various monarchies. Then when we move through the article into more modern times it was ever so gently changed to landholders with holdings worth a certain amount. Then in America it went back to everyone could have them. Just so long as we don't go back to the manhood ritual. Whatever that was and I'm scared to ask.

Also interesting is that apprently Britain didn't have a Bill Of Rights until shortly before we did.

Interesting stuff but doesn't do a thing for either argument. Just that bear arms does mean weapons.

[Guest]

Gomez,

I think you're a little over the top, again, 99.99% of all civilian owned guns are NOT used in a crime every year. Now, if a persons pitbull kills a little girl, does that mean we need to destroy ALL pitbulls in the country? If a little boy drowns in a pool, does that mean we need to outlaw all pools to save one life? If a child is killed by a driver who mows down a crowd in his car, does this mean we need to outlaw the owning of cars? None of these is in the least bit different then what you are asking to have done with guns, Most guns have never killed anyone, 99.99+%, but yet, I am supposed to give up my guns because some idiot with a vendetta decided to kill a few of his co-workers?

Well, then I will just have to come after your pool, your car, and of course your dog, after all, all of these things CAN kill as well. IF it saves JUST ONE LIFE!!

Give me one REAL good reason we should outlaw guns and create the stringent standards that you are talking about, because I can't come up with one, and a whole bunch of reasons why we should make guns EASIER for law abiding citizens to get.

[Põdi]

Back again, it' was a while back, but several people questioned my comparing US and UK crime statistics, as the US population is larger. I did actually bear that in mind before I posted. The population of the US is what? 150 million, 200 million? The UK is around 60 million. There has been ONE school shooting in the UK in the last 10 years or so. I can think of 5 or 6 such incidents in the US in the last 2 years alone. Now work out the figures.