Gun Control

[Guest]

quote:

---

I'd have to disagree that they are in order of importance, since getting rid of racism was probably more critical than some, but I find em all important really.

---

They are indeed in order of importance, I am talking about the "Bill of Rights" The first 10 amendments.

Racism per se, was NOT an issue in 1782, had it been, it might have been the 11th or 12th, as it is, it is the 13th. The Amendments ar ein order of importance.

1st amendment, you are free to criticize the government and make your grievances known to the government. The 2nd, to back up the first, because if the government does not listen, you have the means to defend yourself from such government.

Also, the constitution did NOT give the government the resposnibility to protect you PERSONALLY, with the 2nd amendment, it takes the government OFF the hook, because they give that responsibility to the individual citizen. It is YOUR responsibility to protect your security, NOT the governments.

quote:

---

You'd have Jhon Who fanatics carying twin Beretta 92s, Macho men and old grannies carrying Desert Eagles, war vets with their colt 1911s, Dirty Hary wannabes and other old grannies with mid/long barrel 45 revolvers. The "techies" with Sigs or Glocks with scopes, laser sites, suppresors and extended clips. As well as the rest with just a stuby revolver or a 22 pistol.

---

Ah yes, the anarchy scenario. The scenario the gun control socialists love to spout.

Guess what, Colorado has an open carry law, you can carry your weapon openly wherever you go. I was in Denver, saw a whole convoy of harley davidsons, long beards streaming behind them, tattooed up the ying yang, and 45's desert eagles etc hangin off their hips.

The media followed these guys into a park, they started drinking and having a good time, and lo and behold, EVERY gun disapeared. They were gone.

With Freedom comes responsibility, and gun ownership is the same way. It is amazing how strapping on a gun will change a normally irresponsible goofball into a concerned and responsible citizen. It is an amazing change.

Wherever they discuss a concealed carry law in a state that does not have one, the antigun socialists freak out about how blood will flow in the streets. NEVER happens, instead, the crime rate falls. What a concept.

A criminal fears an armed victim above all else, the chances are MUCH higher in a concealed carry state that he will run into an armed victim, therefore he is deterred from doing the crime in the first place. Interesting that.

Survival is the first thing on a criminals mind, and not getting caught of course. Those 2 things become much less attainable when you have armed citizens everywhere.

There are 80 million gun owners in the US, and over 250 million guns, and maybe 1000 accidental deaths a year. Look at that percentage. and that 1000 is giving the anti-gunners a LOT, because a lot of "gun accident" involve driveby shootings by CRIMINALS!!! but becaus they involve children below the age of 19, they count them as accidental deaths of children.

More kids drown in pools, about 8 times, and more children are killed on trampolines, about 7 times. AND MORE KIDS ARE KILLED IN CAR ACCIDENTS, about 1000 times.

What's more dangerous?

[Guest $iLk]

No amount of logic and reason is going to help convince those who are inherently afraid of what others might do.

I submit this article from September 24, 2001.

quote:

---

Inside the mind of the antigun male:

Psycho-sexual insecurities

by Julia Gorin

Editor's Note: This article ran in the "Insight on the News" section of The Washington Times on Page 46, dated September 24, 2001. We have been unable to find it online or we'd have linked to it as we link to MANY WashingtonTimes.com articles. We highly respect the Times and do not wish to ruffle any feathers by posting their material, but this is just too good to let slide, and we've been unable to find an online version anywhere after looking at great length. Thank you to The Washington Times for ongoing exceptional reporting on the side of Liberty. We also ask that those who read this page click over to The Washington Times from this page and check them out today. You're sure to find something of value, because they print good stuff every single day without exception.

Let's be honest. He's scared of the thing. That's understandable, so am I. But I'm a girl and have the luxury of being able to admit it. I don't have to masquerade squeamishness as grand principle -- in the interest of mankind, no less.

A man does. He has to say things such as "One Taniqua Hall is one too many," as a New York radio talk-show host did in referring to the 9-year-old New York girl who accidentally was shot earlier this year by her 12-year-old cousin while playing with his uncle's gun. But the truth is he desperately needs Taniqua Hall, just like he needs as many Columbines and Santees as can be mustered, until they spell an end to the Second Amendment -- and not for the benefit of the masses, but for the benefit of his self-esteem.

He often accuses men with guns of "compensating for something." The truth is quite the reverse. After all, how is he supposed to feel knowing there are men out there who aren't intimidated by the big bad inanimate villain? How is he to feel in the face of adolescent boys who have used a family gun effectively in defending the family from an armed intruder? So if he doesn't want to touch a gun, he doesn't want other men to either. And to achieve his ends, he'll use the only weapon he knows how to manipulate: the law.

This is not to say that sexual and psychological insecurities are the sole motivations driving the antigun male, or that they explain all men against guns. Certainly there must be some whose motives are pure, who perhaps do care so much as to look tirelessly for policy solutions to teen-age aggression and domestic negligence where none exist. But for a potentially large underlying contributor, it's gone unexplored and unacknowledged.

People are suspicious of what they do not know -- and not only does this man not know how to use a gun, he doesn't know the men who do or the number of people who have successfully used one to defend themselves from injury or death. But he is better left in the dark; his life is hard enough knowing there are men out there who don't sit cross-legged. That they're able to handle a firearm instead of being handled by it would be too much to bear.

Such a man also is best kept huddled in big cities, where he feels safer than he might if thrown out on his own into a rural setting, in an isolated house on a quiet street where he would feel naked and helpless. Lacking the confidence that would permit him to be sequestered in sparseness, and lacking a gun, he finds comfort in the cloister of the crowd.

The very ownership of a gun for defense of home and family implies some assertiveness and a certain self reliance. But if our man kept a gun in the house and an intruder broke in and started attacking his wife in front of him, he wouldn't be able later to say, "He had a knife -- there was nothing I could do!" Passively watching in horror while already trying to make peace with the violent act, scheduling a therapy session and forgiving the perpetrator before the attack is even finished wouldn't be the option it otherwise is.

No. Better to emasculate all men.

Because, let's face it: He's a lover, not a fighter. And he doesn't want to get shot in case he has an affair with your wife.

Of course, it wouldn't be completely honest not to admit that owning a firearm carries with it some risk to unintended targets. That's the trade-off with a gun: The right to defend one's life and way of life isn't without peril to oneself. And the last thing this man wants to do is risk his life -- if even to save it. For he is guided by a dread-fear for his life and has more confidence in almost anyone else's ability to protect him than his own, preferring to place himself at the mercy of the villain or in the competence of authorities (his line of defense consisting of locks, alarm systems, reasoning with the attacker, calling the police or, should fighting back occur to him, thrashing a heavy vase).

In short, he is a man begging for subjugation. He longs for its promise of equality in helplessness. After all, only when that strange, independent alpha breed of male is helpless along with him will he feel adequate. Indeed, his freedom lies in this other man's containment.

Julia Gorin writes satire and political commentary for JewishWorldReview.com and does stand-up comedy from New York City.

---

[Raven]

ThatÔÇÖs too rich!

[Wolferz]

There is a small town in the great state of Tennessee where all of its citizens carry weapons. Both concealed and open.

Guess what the crime rate is in this burg...

That's correct. ZERO-ZILCH-NADA-NONE

And there have been no reports that I know of where any of them have shot one another either by accident or in anger. Probably because they know if they do, one of the neighbors is going to plug 'em post haste.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

A gun is no different than any other inanimate object. It has to be motivated by an outside force to work.

Governments throughout history have always been interested in controlling the general populace. I guess it was just a matter of time before ours decided to try their hand at it. Two hundred plus years isn't a bad track record, but I was hoping that it would be much much longer.

So, if the U.S. government wants to take my weapons, they can come and pry them from my cold dead fingers.

As for any criminal who wishes to deprive me of my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness....

Survivors WILL be prosecuted IF there are any.

[Guest Grayfox]

well put, however not everyone will agree to what is sensible. people cry and complain about residential intruders being shot and killed...

im sorry, but if someone breaks into my house, im not going to stop and ask him if he is armed... i am also not going to wound the idiot and still give him the chance to neutralize me... if he bolts when he sees me pointing "el porquito muerte" at him, than thats fine, i wont shoot him in the back or anything, ill let him run off, but if he so much as makes a move foward, or even seems to be reaching for a weapon, he'll have 2 .40 cal slugs in his ass...

now, if he is incapacitated, i.e. he is alive but cannot do anything, then i will subdue him and call the police... that is if he survives... and i am well within my rights... i have no idea what this meatheads intentions are when he enters my house, wether it be robbery, murder, both, whatever and im not going to ask him... ill make the first move by showing him he entered the wrong house... if he decides that hes made a mistake and wants to leave then i will let him... if he decides to grow a set of groolies, then ill make him wish he hadnt...

and i really dont care if anyone thinks this is wrong... i have a child to worry about, and his safety is paramount. im not going to remotely take a chance of some meat head hurting him...

[Charles Lindsey]

I just hope we can get to the state where they will be unnecessary. Maybe in a few hundred more years. Humanity is not that advanced yet.

However, tempers and anger will ALWAYS be part of the human construct so my wish is an almost hopeless one.

edit in:

quote:

---

now, if he is incapacitated, i.e. he is alive but cannot do anything, then i will subdue him and call the police..

---

JAg is right. Just kill him. Provided you have met all the rules for inescapable danger. Dunno if I read that or just heard it. I believe one of the rules of self defense is no other means of escape. I will gladly be educated on this.

[ 09-26-2002, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: Charles Lindsey ]

[Raven]

quote:

---

I just hope we can get to the state where they will be unnecessary. Maybe in a few hundred more years. Humanity is not that advanced yet.

However, tempers and anger will ALWAYS be part of the human construct so my wish is an almost hopeless one.

---

DonÔÇÖt worry darling, at the rate things are going in a few generations we will be advanced enough. Advanced enough to use genetic engineering and mind control to turn the masses into cattle that is.

[AWells]

quote:

---

JAg is right. Just kill him. Provided you have met all the rules for inescapable danger. Dunno if I read that or just heard it. I believe one of the rules of self defense is no other means of escape. I will gladly be educated on this.

---

The guidelines covering the legal use of deadly force varies from to state. Generally, though, it requires an immediate threat with the capability to inflict severe bodily harm or death and the motivation to inflict that harm. In most cases when the threat is unarmed it usually requires showing that attacker was considerably more powerful, either through greater physical size or through superior numbers. It's also worth noting that justifiable lethal force is heavily based on the what the person had knowledge of at the time they pulled the trigger. It's perfectly possible to shoot an armed attacked and still get charged with murder if there was no way you could've known the attacker was armed at the time.

quote:

---

DonÔÇÖt worry darling, at the rate things are going in a few generations we will be advanced enough. Advanced enough to use genetic engineering and mind control to turn the masses into cattle that is.

---

Genetic engineering and mind control? Who needs that when they already have TV?

[Lotharr]

Here...just for fun....

Using survey data on 12,000 robbery victims found that 55% of the commercial robberies involved guns

Cook (1980)

A teenager in the United States today is more likely to die of a gunshot wound than from all the "natural" causes of death combined.

Fingerhut, 1993.

Firearms are readily available on the illegal gun market, and those who are most likely to possess guns are drug sellers and gang members -- overwhelmingly young and male.

S.H. Decker, S. Pennel, and A. Caldwell, Illegal Firearms: Access and Use by Arrestees, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, 1997.

Approximately 37,500 gun sales, including 17,800 handgun sales, are completed every day in the United States. The increasing number of gun owners has elevated the danger of guns being acquired illegally through robberies and burglaries. In 1994, more than a quarter-million households experienced the theft of one or more firearms; nearly 600,000 guns were stolen during these burglaries.

Cook and Ludwig, 1997.

[ 09-27-2002, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

[Guest]

quote:

---

Gun Control: Myths and Realities

by David Lampo

David Lampo is the publications director at the Cato Institute.

The number of well-publicized public shootings during the past few years, especially the tragedy at Columbine High School, has re-energized the gun control movement. As a show of strength, a coalition of gun control groups has organized a "Million Mom March" to be held in Washington, D.C. on Mother's Day, an event designed to stir up emotions rather than promote rational thought. And when one looks at the facts about gun control, it's easy to see why the anti-gun lobby relies on emotion rather than logic to make its case.

Think you know the facts about gun control? If your only source of information is the mainstream media, what you think you know may not be correct. Take the quiz below and test your knowledge.

1. Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents.

False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn't know it from listening to the mainstream media. In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642. More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings. The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes "children" up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence.

2. Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals.

False. Contrary to President Clinton's claims, there is no "gun show loophole." All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people exempt from them are the small number of non-commercial sellers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks.

3. The tragedy at Columbine High School a year ago illustrates the deficiencies of current gun control laws.

False. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons (not to mention the law against murder), so it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented this tragedy. The two shotguns and rifle used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who would have passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used by them was already illegal.

4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don't.

True. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.

5. Waiting periods lower crime rates.

False. Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill was passed in 1993. Those studies consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck analyzed data from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect. Even University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that "waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides."

6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.

False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.

The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason. Let's hope more people are catching on.

---

quote:

---

Cato's Mission

The Cato Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace. Toward that goal, the Institute strives to achieve greater involvement of the intelligent, concerned lay public in questions of policy and the proper role of government.

---

Second amendment sisters website

Believe it or not, I am a founding member of this organization.

Jews for the preservation of firearms ownership

Last one

Handgun bans A History of Failure

[AWells]

quote:

---

A teenager in the United States today is more likely to die of a gunshot wound than from all the "natural" causes of death combined.

---

Yes, I imagine it's rare to see a teenager die from heart disease, cancer, or any other of the "natural" causes of death. The question is, how do gunshot wounds stack up against other unnatural causes of death, such as drowning, car accidents, drug overdose, etc...

quote:

---

Approximately 37,500 gun sales, including 17,800 handgun sales, are completed every day in the United States. The increasing number of gun owners has elevated the danger of guns being acquired illegally through robberies and burglaries. In 1994, more than a quarter-million households experienced the theft of one or more firearms; nearly 600,000 guns were stolen during these burglaries.

---

In 1997 an FBI van was stolen and along with a variety of weapons intended for crisis response, including M-16 rifles and grenade launchers.

Does this mean we should take the guns away from the military and law enforcement since criminals seem to steal from them, too? I mean, after all, I doubt many criminals were able to score grenade launchers from robbing the average American home.

[Lotharr]

I dunno....with things going the way they are I might prefer a shootout I know I'm going to lose to an America that destroys freedom for war.....

But the above are just facts I pulled up....

I watched on TV in DC how these guards in full riot gear were hitting young girls that were demonstrating against big money....

I hope they never expect me to hit young women...

[Raven]

quote:

---

The guidelines covering the legal use of deadly force varies from to state. Generally, though, it requires an immediate threat with the capability to inflict severe bodily harm or death and the motivation to inflict that harm. In most cases when the threat is unarmed it usually requires showing that attacker was considerably more powerful, either through greater physical size or through superior numbers.

---

Oh dear, let me see if I understand you correctly. If IÔÇÖm attacked by an unarmed man who is smaller then me (and being that IÔÇÖm a tad of 6ft tall, most men are smaller then me) then it would be illegal to shoot him? ThatÔÇÖs kind of scary when you think about it.

quote:

---

Genetic engineering and mind control? Who needs that when they already have TV?

---

And that, darling, is why I donÔÇÖt have a TV (okay, the real reason I donÔÇÖt have a TV is because there is never anything good on, but that doesnÔÇÖt sound as good ).

Oh, and once more, I agree entirely with Jaguar. Is it just me or is he always right?

[Guest]

quote:

---

Oh, and once more, I agree entirely with Jaguar. Is it just me or is he always right?

---

LOL, Thank you darling, and don't I wish!!

[AWells]

quote:

---

Oh dear, let me see if I understand you correctly. If IÔÇÖm attacked by an unarmed man who is smaller then me (and being that IÔÇÖm a tad of 6ft tall, most men are smaller then me) then it would be illegal to shoot him? ThatÔÇÖs kind of scary when you think about it.

---

It can become an issue... really it depends alot on the prosecutor, since they make the determination on whether to pursue criminal charges. Generally, though, where gender differences are involved there's a good chance it will biased in the female's favor regardless of differences in physical size. Basically even if somebody does everything perfectly by the book they can still end up having charges pressed against them, a case more likely in a place like California, NYC, or Taxachusettes (especially Boston). Which brings up another good point, if you do have to shoot somebody don't say anything beyond "I thought he/she was going to kill me... I was so scared" to the police until you have an attorney present. Since even if you were perfectly justified a simple mistake in the choice of words you use could lead to criminal charges and those words being used against you in court.

[Raven]

quote:

---

Generally, though, where gender differences are involved there's a good chance it will biased in the female's favor regardless of differences in physical size.

---

Very sexist not that youll hear me complain

quote:

---

Which brings up another good point, if you do have to shoot somebody don't say anything beyond "I thought he/she was going to kill me... I was so scared" to the police until you have an attorney present.

---

Now thatÔÇÖs damn good bit of advice, I can see that making a big difference.

[AWells]

quote:

---

Very sexist not that youll hear me complain

---

What can I say... the world is a very sexist place. Though there is some truth to that one since on average a male has greater upper body strength than a female of the comparative size. Then again I knew a girl not even 5'6" that fractured a woman's skull in three seperate places (granted she used a pair of steel toed Doc Martens to do it).

[Guest]

In Washington State, there is the undeniable right to self defense.

If an intruder is in your house, if a person tries to carjack you, rob you in an alleyway, etc. and you shoot them dead. The police will look at the scene. and if it was indeed in self defense, then you are let go without even a warning. If it is IN your house, they will ask NO questions whatsoever. Intruder in your house, you killed them in defense of yourself and property, the intruder goes to the morgue, the police shake your hand, the taxpayers thank you, and you get on with life.

You have an unhindered right to self defense in Washington, now if we can keep it, that will be the next fight.

[echo]

Wait am I getting this?

I am 5 ft. I live a bit outside of Boston. I can get me a gun and go on a spree, and because I am a short chick I could probobly pull it off because I felt threatened.

Or are you saying I can't do that because I am in Massachusetts?

[Guest]

Come on Echo, you know better!! LOL

Fact is that Kennedy is your senator, your gun laws are probably very strict. I would have to do further research, but since one of the chief socialist gun grabbers is your senator, I doubt you are allowed to defend yourself at all.

[Epsilon 5]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Come on Echo, you know better!! LOL

Fact is that Kennedy is your senator, your gun laws are probably very strict. I would have to do further research, but since one of the chief socialist gun grabbers is your senator, I doubt you are allowed to defend yourself at all.

---

I'd be suprised. Even here if for some reason you kill your aggressor, you might get sentenced for it, but you will get very little. That is, if you get sentenced at all.

Illegal possession of weapons doesn't end up with prison time, only a fine.

[AWells]

quote:

---

I am 5 ft. I live a bit outside of Boston. I can get me a gun and go on a spree, and because I am a short chick I could probobly pull it off because I felt threatened.

Or are you saying I can't do that because I am in Massachusetts?

---

You'd be hard pressed trying to prove a killing spree is self defense no matter where you live. Living near Boston you'd be hard pressed to even get a gun in the first place. You need a permit to purchase one from the Commonwealth of Massachusettes before you even have to worry about going to a gun shop. Are there even gun shops in that area anyways? I've seen package stores everywhere I've looked but I've never seen a gun shop... of course it makes sense, since not only is Ted Kennedy against guns but he doesn't have a problem with killing people drinking and driving.

[Guest]

quote:

---

I'd be suprised. Even here if for some reason you kill your aggressor, you might get sentenced for it, but you will get very little. That is, if you get sentenced at all.

Illegal possession of weapons doesn't end up with prison time, only a fine.

---

In Canada, that may be true, but possession of an illegal firearm, which means that A: it's stolen or B: You are a felon and not allowed to own firearms, you are going to jail.

In Canada, if you are caught with a firearm, you are going to jail. Handguns are illegal, unless you are a competitor of some sort or have a special permit from the government, in other words you had better be Police or you're gonna go away for a while. Rifles, you need a hunting permit and while carrying the weapon you have to follow VERY strict guidelines.

In Canada, you are NOT allowed self defense, if you kill someone with a firearm in self defense, just as in Britain, you are going to jail for murder.

In Canada, you are a subject, not a citizen. Just like Australia, Britain and a few other countries I could name.

[ 09-28-2002, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[AWells]

Oh well, about time to pose another question...

Concealed carry permits... good or evil?

Many otherwise legal gun owners carry illegally because there's either no provision for legal concealed carry in thier state or concealed carry is regulated, allowing government officials to pick and choose who gets to carry at a whim. Many more carry without a permit because they simply feel the permit is unconstitutional since it makes the right to carry into a priviledge and actually charges people for it. Could you picture being charged money for a permit to speak freely, or a annual fee to ensure that the police wouldn't search your home on a whim without just cause?

[echo]

Ok, ummm what if I have PMS. hahaha just kidding.

No really I was just playing. I don't own a gun. Not too sure I would want one. Though I believe if I did, I should be able to protect myself and my family. I shouldn't just have to open the door and let anyone have their way with us. I must admit though, I am pretty good with a bat or lamp or any other item lying around.

However, I don't think I should be able to get a lighter sentence because I am a short chick or have PMS either. That reference is truly what made me post here anyway.

Mass seems to have some pretty tight gun laws. I think whether you have one legally or not, if you snap you snap.

I don't think I have seen any gun shops around here either. I remeber a sports shop years ago that had them but it's gone.

I am just glad we no longer have to cross the border for tattoos.

[ 09-28-2002, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: echo ]