The Clinton gun ban has expired!

[TA Pilot]

I'm honestly not trying to make a point with this post, but does anyone have stastics on the number of assault rifle homocides/suicides/accidental deaths that were committed with a legally obtained assault rifle vs. those that were stolen/illegally obtained?  Or even those stats for any type of firearm?  Are those stats even tracked?  

Exactly none.

There have been NO crimes committed by a legally obtained assault rifle.

Zero.

[hunky_artist]

According to that murder page, South Africa is number 2.
Hunky_artist doesn't your country control South Africa?

Doesn't your country also believe strict gun control laws?

Very interesting indeed.

umm.... no?

South Africa has been independant for  a loooong time.

And yes, we have strict gun control laws, and yes, we have less gun murders than you do.

[Floyd10]

Im just thinking about how I started the first political post...

[rchadd]

as a Brit living in the UK - i am glad not to live in the USA

[shmokes]

as a Brit living in the UK - i am glad not to live in the USA

That's impossible!  I learned in school that everybody everywhere wanted nothing more than to live here.

LIAR!!!!  I WON'T BELIEVE IT!!!!

[tep0583]

Tep, I don't even know where to begin with this    Half of my questions you answered were rhetorical, lol.  My point of listing all those exceptions to rights that are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights was not a challenge to see if you could actually come up with the justification for those exceptions, it was simply to illustrate that there ARE exceptions. ... oh for crying out loud, this is retarded.

Well, start anywhere you want. You have your views, I have my views. The difference being that mine are currently supported by the laws of the land, even if that does make me "retarted".

I withdrawl from these sort of things when people start resorting to name-calling.

[tep0583]

ok, there are lots of 'for' arguments here... all saying guns dont kill people, and that if you wanted to kill someone you would.. whatever the weapon...

... so if that's true you shouldn't have any higher a percentage of murders in your country than anywhere else, right?

how come The States then has more murders per year for the population, than most countries out there?

and I'm including countries that have guns,  not just the ones that dont.

It is infinitly easier to shoot someone, than to physically plunge a knife in them, or kill them with your bare hands. The more removed from the victim you can be the easier it is. Especially for silly things like jilted lovers... where usuallly the worst that would happen without a gun is that they might get beat up.

Hmm......Let's see..... Say I want to kill "Joe". Say I don't want to make a lot of noise and draw a lot of attention to myself (and thus draw the attention of potential whitnesses), so I discount the whole "hail or bullets" approach. Instead, I observe "Joe's" routine for a couple of days and decide on a couple of isolated places that he goes to with some regularity. I then decide on the night I will do the "deed" and lay in wait for him.

All I have to do is get close to "Joe". It doesn't really matter how, but for our purposes, say I approach slowly and non-threateningly. I tell him I wanto to talk about our problems and the stun gun I have with me is nowhere in sight. After putting him at ease (or not, really, at this point his ego has already convinced him that I want no "trouble"), I bring the stun gun out and, before he knows what's happening, he's incapacitated and I have 10 minutes to do to him what I will. It wouldn't take much effort at all to slit his throat and I can dispose of the knife and stun gun anywhere, with little chance of them being traced back to me.

That's just one scinario and one that required a minimum of thought. Its execution would require a little more time, effort, and patience then using a gun, but it would yeald more sure results and attract far less attention to myself.

If I didn't want to put that much work into it, I oly have to know where my "target" will be at a general time. It isn't that hard to steal  an old car, although it would increase the chances of being caught.

The "easier" arguement doesn't hold that much water with me. It isn't that much easier. It certainly wouldn't stop it from happening.

[shmokes]

Don't be sensitive.  I didn't call you retarded.  

[DrewKaree]

I once got in a lot of trouble watching TV.  My wife and her sister were with me and a news story came on about a man that stabbed his wife 17 times.

I said "wow, ONLY 17 times? he must have been tired"

At that point I was attacked.
(those of you married can related to that one).

If I were drinking something, it would have shot straight out of my nose!  

So, did you "ban" your wife from watching TV with you?  That would have probably solved the whole problem right there.

[DrewKaree]

Don't be sensitive.  I didn't call you retarded.  

Well then why did you call ME retarded?  

You're not so nice...I'm taking my big red ball and going home....nener nener boo boo  

[tep0583]

Don't be sensitive.  I didn't call you retarded.  

Calling my arguement "retrarted" isn't doing the exact same to the reasoning behind it?

Perhaps I AM getting sensitive.

OK, let's simplify. What EXACTLY can you buy now that you could not buy last week, that makes any rifle more deadly?

What form of gun control is going to significantly reduce gun crime and why do background checks not accomplish this? (well, not satisfactorally enough for those caling for more)

At what point does everybody get to be happy?

At what point do I stop being treated like a criminal?

[tep0583]

as a Brit living in the UK - i am glad not to live in the USA

And I am glad for you.

I am equally glad that you took time out of your busy day to take yet another swipe at the US.

My God, would there be ANY evil left in the world, if the sinister Americans went away?

[Dartful Dodger]

My God, would there be ANY evil left in the world, if the sinister Americans went away?

All forms of Religion would be next. (I use the words 'would be' because America is never going away, unlike the fading empires of Rome, and the UK)

So, in a way the USA isn't just protecting the world's supreme government, but it's protecting the world's supreme being.

God, Guts, and Guns, the three that set us free.

[tep0583]

My God, would there be ANY evil left in the world, if the sinister Americans went away?

All forms of Religion would be next. (I use the words 'would be' because America is never going away, unlike the fading empires of Rome, and the UK)

So, in a way the USA isn't just protecting the world's supreme government, but it's protecting the world's supreme being.

God, Guts, and Guns, the three that set us free.

Maybe, maybe not. I see a lot inmodern America that make me wonder just how long we really have left.

(OH, BTW- nice way to slide the Nuge into the conversation)

[DrewKaree]

And yes, we have strict gun control laws, and yes, we have less gun murders than you do.

Interesting how your country's strict gun control laws haven't managed to stop murder-by-gun...and by the BBC's account, that number is increasing.  Since you haven't addressed it, I'll quote the article here.  Remember, this comes from your own country, not some "made up" American drivel:

<sub>"Sunday, 12 January 2003
 Gun crime has risen by 35% in a year, new Home Office figures show.

There were 9,974 incidents involving firearms in the 12 months to April 2002 - a rise from 7,362 over the previous year.

 That represents an average of 27 offences involving firearms every day in England and Wales, with guns fired in nearly a quarter of cases.

Overall crime in the year to September was up 9.3%, with domestic burglary up 7.9%, drugs offences up 12.3% and sex offences up 18.2%.

Home Office officials insisted, however, that the new system of including all crimes, whether there was supporting evidence or not, was responsible for some of the increases.

When that new recording system was taken into account, overall crime rose by 2%, they said, with burglary up 5%.

Home Office Minister John Denham also pointed to new data from the British Crime Survey - which includes crimes not reported to the police - which he called the most reliable indication of trends.

The survey put all crime down 7% in the year to September.

"The British Crime Survey shows crime has been falling since 1997 and the risk of being a victim is very low - around the same as 1981," he said.

The statistics come after the government this week announced a crackdown on gun crime with a series of plans to tighten firearms law.

And they are released ahead of high level talks with police, customs and community leaders on Friday about how to tackle gun crime, hosted by Home Secretary David Blunkett.

The latest gun crime figures are more than double the 4,903 firearms incidents recorded in 1997 when Labour first took power.

 The biggest increases are in the large metropolitan areas.

Robbery was up 13% on the adjusted figures.

But it did fall by 10% between July and September when the government's new efforts against street crime kicked in, said officials.

Earlier this week the government unveiled plans to introduce a five-year minimum jail sentence for anyone illegally possessing a firearm.

That was followed on Wednesday by plans to ban anyone carrying a replica or air weapon in a public place without a good reason, as well as new age limits.

Opposition parties have accused ministers of mounting a snap response to the New Year shooting in Birmingham in which two teenage girls died.

Conservative shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin dubbed the new recorded crime figures "truly terrible".

Mr Letwin said: "The only word for this is failure.

"The government's response of knee-jerk reactions and initiatives is not working and confused signals on sentences for burglary will not help either."

Mr Denham denied the government had rushed into new plans against gun crime.

He said said rising gun violence was only a small part of overall crime but was "desperately worrying", especially for the worst-affected areas.

Liberal Democrat spokesman Simon Hughes said the gun figures meant tougher targeting of gun-toting gangs was needed.

Mr Hughes added: "The overall crime picture is not a cause for complacency, but it is mercifully not a reason for shock headlines."

Speaking on Radio Five Live, Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith said some inner city areas were almost "lawless" following the growth of a gangs and guns culture.

And he said the rise in gun crime was linked to "the huge increase in the drugs culture that's taking place in the cities that's literally ripping apart the inner cities, breaking this fabric down".

Hundreds of people gathered on Wednesday for a candlelit vigil in Aston in memory of cousins Charlene Ellis, 18, and Letisha Shakespeare, 17, who were gunned down in a hail of bullets nearly a week ago.

Also on Thursday, a coroner opened and adjourned an inquest into the death of Charlene.

Mr Duncan Smith joined calls for people with information about the shootings.

"We do need co-operation with the police because we have got to catch these killers," he said. "They have committed an appalling crime."</sub>

It's reported that crime is falling, yet gun violence is increasing.  

Thank goodness you guys decided to be the guinea pigs for the rest of us so we could see how great it's working out for you

rchadd - as a Brit living in the UK - i am glad not to live in the USA

You're not the only one.  I'm glad you don't live here.  One less vote for your point of view, although we DO love it when you visit...don't hesitate to do so...just change that money with the funny pictures on it to normal U.S. currency.  Bring danny_galaga with you when you visit....he's a hoot!

[Mameotron]

If you have a basic knowledge of how an AR-15 works you can see how simple it is to convert it to full auto.  It could easily be done at home with basic tools, but as you pointed out, that would be illegal.


Thats funny, because I have --intircate-- knowledge of the AR-15 and I KNOW it cant be done as you suggest.

You CAN geta full atuo sear and trigger group, but this requires the lowe receiver to be machined to accept it.   Somethign that you;re not going to do with hand tools.

Well, we're not going to get anywhere with the "yes you can, no you can't" type of argument.  It's really a smaller issue in the whole gun ban argument anyway.

[hunky_artist]

I observe "Joe's" routine for a couple of days and decide on a couple of isolated places that he goes to with some regularity. I then decide on the night I will do the "deed" and lay in wait for him.

All I have to do is get close to "Joe". It doesn't really matter how, but for our purposes, say I approach slowly and non-threateningly. I tell him I wanto to talk about our problems and the stun gun I have with me is nowhere in sight. After putting him at ease (or not, really, at this point his ego has already convinced him that I want no "trouble"), I bring the stun gun out and, before he knows what's happening, he's incapacitated and I have 10 minutes to do to him what I will. It wouldn't take much effort at all to slit his throat and I can dispose of the knife and stun gun anywhere, with little chance of them being traced back to me.
 

Firstly... are you seriously trying to say that's not as easy as pulling a trigger?

But I wasn't talking about how easy it is physically... I'm talking aboutthe mental difficulty... it's easier to kill someone from afar than to hold a knife and push it, breaking their skin and through their insides... with your own hand. This has been well documented.

All forms of Religion would be next.

......one can only hope

because America is never going away, unlike the fading empires of Rome, and the UK

don't be so sure, when we ruled three quarters of the planet we thought the same (and have you seen how many countries are still part of the commonwealth? look for the british flags in other country's flags for just some of them)

So, in a way the USA isn't just protecting the world's supreme government, but it's protecting the world's supreme being.

You're kidding right? Now you think that the US is protecting GOD?

Jesus, you REALLY ARE up your own arses arent you

[danny_galaga]

Well, we're not going to get anywhere with the "yes you can, no you can't" type of argument.  It's really a smaller issue in the whole gun ban argument anyway.

yes you can!!

[shmokes]

So, in a way the USA isn't just protecting the world's supreme government, but it's protecting the world's supreme being.

Don't bring me into this Dartful.  I'm omnipotent.  What in my name makes you think I need or want your protection?

[fredster]

It took a while for me to buy my last shotgun.  It took 3 hours for a background check to clear.

I had a concealed permit in IN.  I could go and get one anytime I wanted and carry it out.  They don't have that here in TN.  It took 6 weeks to get the permit, and I had to be fingerprinted.

I can see where guns can filter down, all a criminal has to do is steal them.  Or buy them from some private party after they have been purchased.  But if we are vigilant, we can keep the balance between our rights and our responsiblities.  When the government starts to believe that individuals can't manage their own lives and rights, then we are on that 'slippery slope'.  

The right to bare arms is a fundamental part of our consitution so we could rise up and fight if we hand to.  It's as fundamental as the freedom of speech.  I don't mind the limits and I don't mind the hassles of having them.  It's all part of it.

If we jump to change it, it could mean a lot of unintend consequences we didn't even imagine.

The Canadians might take up arms and invade.  

[DrewKaree]

drew, watch out! when i next visit the UK hunky artist and i are grabbing our stun guns, and then make our way to the states. then we'll observe your  routine for a couple of days and decide on a couple of isolated places that you go to with some regularity. we will  then decide on the night we will do the "deed" and lay in wait for you.

All we have to do is get close to you. It doesn't really matter how, but for our purposes, say we approach slowly and non-threateningly. I tell you I wanto to talk about our problems and the stun gun I have with me is nowhere in sight. After putting you at ease (or not, really, at this point your ego has already convinced you that I want no "trouble"), hunky artist brings the stun gun out and, before you can say 'move to cuba', you're  incapacitated and we have 10 minutes to do to you what we will. It wouldn't take much effort at all to slit your  throat and I can dispose of the knife and stun gun anywhere, with little chance of them being traced back to us.

aah, sod it. we'll just get some armalites from some shady character in that same alley and we'll gun you down in a drive-by  

lock your women up too, i'm bringing my cupholders  

Dude, you're so dang funny sometimes, I WISHED you lived in the States so we could hang out, but then I wouldn't be able to tell you to move to Austra....Cuba    For what it's worth, I'd enjoy you coming over for a visit, but I don't think it'll be with Hunky Artist anytime soon.  He won't even answer the point I bring up about his country's foolish gun laws, so I doubt he'll be wanting to see me anytime soon, even if he DID have a stun gun.  

Don't bring me into this Dartful.  I'm omnipotent.  What in my name makes you think I need or want your protection?

now, I may be a nut by all the standards you have for me, but I'd have to be TRULY insane to worship YOU on Sunday...unless you stood on a pedestal so that as I kneel at your feet I could look up your kilt.  If your girlfriend caught me, would she beat me about the head and shoulders?

The Canadians might take up arms and invade.  

Your generalizations are SOOO frustrating, fredster.  You honestly think the FRENCH Canadians would do such a thing?  Jeez, man, tone it down  

[Buddabing]

I respectfully disagree. Guns do kill people

Of course - thats what they're designed for.
If they could not be used to kill people, they'd be useless, and there;d be no amendment protecting our right to own and use them.

For every story about someone defending him/herself with a gun, there are probably twenty stories about four-year-old girls accidentally killing themselves with guns,

Indeed not.  There are fewer than 1000 accidental gun deaths per year; there are somewhere in the neighborhood og 1.5 million defensive gun uses per year.

According to the CDC statistics, 29523 people died by firearms in 2001. You are correct that less than 1000 died accidentally, there were 802 that year. However there were only 323 defensive gun uses resulting in death. Although this can't be quantified, many of the 11348 homicides by gun and the 16869 suicides by gun would not have happened if guns were more tightly regulated.

Guns kill people. And yes, cars kill people too. There were 43,987 traffic accident deaths in 2001. That's not too many more than guns. Don't you think that guns, killing roughly the same number of people as cars, should be regulated roughly equally? How about mandatory gun education just like driver's ed, strict licensing requirements just like a DMV, mandatory gun liability insurance just like car liability insurance? How about mandatory ballistics "fingerprinting"?

I am not advocating the banning of guns. I am advocating the regulation of a dangerous item that doesn't belong in the hands of children or the ignorant.

And please don't mix quotes from me with quotes from someone else.

EDIT: Tobacco and alcohol kill people too, in far larger numbers than guns and cars. Minors aren't allowed to use tobacco products for a very good reason. Perhaps by the time they turn 18 they will have enough sense not to get hooked on cigarettes. The drinking age is 21 (at least here in Texas) because kids that age are stupid and don't know how to drive, drunk or sober. But, cigarettes and alcohol should not be outlawed, just regulated.

My quote about a 20 to 1 ratio of accidental deaths versus lawful defensive gun use was about news stories rather than actual statistics. The ratio of actual deaths is less than three to one accidents to defenses. I'll try to find statistics about news stories.

Guns kill people. Cars kill people. Tobacco kills people. Alcohol kills people. And so do a lot of other things.

[shmokes]

What is the CDC doing with statistics about gun deaths?  Shouldn't that be ATF or something?  I suppose you could think of someone who wanted to buy an assault weapon as having some sort of mental disease  

[Buddabing]

What is the CDC doing with statistics about gun deaths?  Shouldn't that be ATF or something?  I suppose you could think of someone who wanted to buy an assault weapon as having some sort of mental disease  

Heh I guess they classify death as "the ultimate disease".

[TA Pilot]

However there were only 323 defensive gun uses resulting in death.

And how many that didn't?  Its been estimate dby the USDOJ that in 97% of defensive gun uses, the weapon isnt fired.  If 1 in 20 firings results in a death (and thats AWFULLY high), thats over 200,000 DGUs/year.



Although this can't be quantified, many of the 11348 homicides by gun and the 16869 suicides by gun would not have happened if guns were more tightly regulated.

Tell me:
What 'tight regulation' would have stopped them?
And you admit your claim can't be quantified - of what use is it?



Don't you think that guns, killing roughly the same number of people as cars, should be regulated roughly equally?

I agree.   Treat guns just like cars:

-You dont need a license to buy a car.
-You dont need a license to own a car.
-You dont need a license to operate a car on private property.
-You dont need a license to transport a car on public property
-You dont need to register a car to own it.
-You dont need to register a car that is operated on private property.
-You dont need to register a can to transport it on public property.
-If you ARE licensed to drive on public property, that license is good in all 50 states on all (applicable) public property
-If your car IS registered for use on public property, the registration is good in all 50 states on all (applicable) public property.
-You only need to insure a car that you use (not transport) on public property.


How about mandatory ballistics "fingerprinting"?

Useless.   You fingerprint my gun, I'm changing the barrel.

[fredster]

By comparison, the flu kills 36,000 Americans a year.

Should the flu shot be manditory?

[TA Pilot]

According to the FBI, in 2002:
14054 total murder
9369 by firearm (66%)
480 by rifles (3% total, 5% of guns)

Assuming that EVERY murder w/ a rifle was committed with an "assault weapon", you were:
368% more likely to be murdered w/ a bladed weapon (1767 v 480)
139% more likely to be murdered w/ a blunt object (666 v 480)
194% more likely to be murdered w/ personal weapons - body parts (933 v 480)


Seems to me there are lots of OTHER things we need to worry about before we talk about banning 'assault weapons" again.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl2-10.xls

[hunky_artist]

umm, cars do need to be registered.. and in order to own and use a car you DO need a license.

stop trying to get around it by saying 'on private property'

[TA Pilot]

umm, cars do need to be registered.. and in order to own and use a car you DO need a license.

I dont have to register a car that I own.  I only need to register it if I want to drive in on the roads.  If I dont use the car on the roads, it never, ever needs to be registered.

I dont have to have a driver's license to own a car.  I only need a driver's license if I want to drive it on the roads.  if I dont drive the car on the road, I dont ever have to have a license.



stop trying to get around it by saying 'on private property'

Why?
If you're going to treat firearms like cars, then the restrictions will only apply when you use (not transport) a firearm on public property - just like for cars.

[Buddabing]

However there were only 323 defensive gun uses resulting in death.

And how many that didn't?  Its been estimate dby the USDOJ that in 97% of defensive gun uses, the weapon isnt fired.  If 1 in 20 firings results in a death (and thats AWFULLY high), thats over 200,000 DGUs/year.

Wrong.

Debunking of your 97/98% figure

Although this can't be quantified, many of the 11348 homicides by gun and the 16869 suicides by gun would not have happened if guns were more tightly regulated.

Tell me:
What 'tight regulation' would have stopped them?
And you admit your claim can't be quantified - of what use is it?

"Tight regulation" is of the use that some unknown number of people would not have died.

It's true that someone hell-bent on killing themselves or someone else will succeed. It's also true that guns are a convenient and easy way of doing so.

Don't you think that guns, killing roughly the same number of people as cars, should be regulated roughly equally?

I agree.   Treat guns just like cars:

-You dont need a license to buy a car.
-You dont need a license to own a car.
-You dont need a license to operate a car on private property.
-You dont need a license to transport a car on public property
-You dont need to register a car to own it.
-You dont need to register a car that is operated on private property.
-You dont need to register a can to transport it on public property.
-If you ARE licensed to drive on public property, that license is good in all 50 states on all (applicable) public property
-If your car IS registered for use on public property, the registration is good in all 50 states on all (applicable) public property.
-You only need to insure a car that you use (not transport) on public property.

That's pretty funny!

How about mandatory ballistics "fingerprinting"?

Useless.   You fingerprint my gun, I'm changing the barrel.

Not useless.

Most gun owners don't have your expertise. The average gun owner loads his gun and keeps it in a drawer somewhere and never takes it out for target practice or even to clean it.

[TA Pilot]

Wrong.

Debunking of your 97/98% figure

Psst...
Lott wasnt my source.
US DOJ: NSPOF 1996

And in any event, arguing that more people were killed accidentally than in self-defense doesnt create an argument against the efficacy of gun in self-defense --  because the standard of a successful defensive gun use isnt a dead criminal, but a halted crime.  In halting the crime, you need not fire the gun.



"Tight regulation" is of the use that some unknown number of people would not have died.

Ah.   The old "if it saves one life" argument.

What if that "tight regulation" keeps someone from getting a gun - and then that person dies because he could not defend himself?  If "tight regulation" gets credit for saving a life, does that "tight regulation" get the blame for taking one?

If so, where does that leave your argument?



It's true that someone hell-bent on killing themselves or someone else will succeed. It's also true that guns are a convenient and easy way of doing so.

And so, as I asked:  what "tight regulation" will stop them?



That's pretty funny!

You thinking it to be funny doesnt in any way affect the validity of the position.

Treat guns like cars?   I agree.



[Ballistic fingerprinting is...] Not useless.

Most gun owners don't have your expertise. The average gun owner loads his gun and keeps it in a drawer somewhere and never takes it out for target practice or even to clean it.

Criminals arent average gun owners.

All it takes to alter the ballistic fingerprint of a gun is a few passes of steel wool through the chamber and down the barrel.  Suddenly, that fingerprint is useless.

Now, tell me a criminal wont do that.

[Buddabing]

Wrong.

Debunking of your 97/98% figure

Psst...
Lott wasnt my source.
US DOJ: NSPOF 1996

And in any event, arguing that more people were killed accidentally than in self-defense doesnt create an argument against the efficacy of gun in self-defense --  because the standard of a successful defensive gun use isnt a dead criminal, but a halted crime.  In halting the crime, you need not fire the gun.

Lott quoted 97/98%. He is wrong. You quoted 97/98%. You are wrong as well, unless you can provide a link to something more concrete.

"Tight regulation" is of the use that some unknown number of people would not have died.

Ah.   The old "if it saves one life" argument.

What if that "tight regulation" keeps someone from getting a gun - and then that person dies because he could not defend himself?  If "tight regulation" gets credit for saving a life, does that "tight regulation" get the blame for taking one?

If so, where does that leave your argument?



It's true that someone hell-bent on killing themselves or someone else will succeed. It's also true that guns are a convenient and easy way of doing so.

And so, as I asked:  what "tight regulation" will stop them?

That's pretty funny!

You thinking it to be funny doesnt in any way affect the validity of the position.

Treat guns like cars?   I agree.

You need insurance, valid inspection and proper registration to drive a car in the vast majority of cases. Your argument is invalid.

[Ballistic fingerprinting is...] Not useless.

Most gun owners don't have your expertise. The average gun owner loads his gun and keeps it in a drawer somewhere and never takes it out for target practice or even to clean it.

Criminals arent average gun owners.

All it takes to alter the ballistic fingerprint of a gun is a few passes of steel wool through the chamber and down the barrel.  Suddenly, that fingerprint is useless.

Now, tell me a criminal wont do that.

A criminal won't do that. Criminals are below average gun owners.

You are smarter than the average criminal.
Link to article.

[hunky_artist]

Why?
If you're going to treat firearms like cars, then the restrictions will only apply when you use (not transport) a firearm on public property - just like for cars.

It wasn't me who made that comment.

However by using the 'getting a car but keeping it on your drive' argument, then you're reducing the gun argument to people who want one but never want to use it.

and i don't think that's what most of the people here are talking about

[TA Pilot]

Lott quoted 97/98%. He is wrong. You quoted 97/98%. You are wrong as well, unless you can provide a link to something more concrete.

LOL
So, the only credible source are those you can link, to, huh?
LOL

I'll see if I can find a link.

Meanwhile, tell me how the number of criminals killed defensively is a legitimage standard by which the number of crimes stopped by the defenesive use of a gun can be judged.



I dont recall you addressing this, so...

"Tight regulation" is of the use that some unknown number of people would not have died.

Ah.   The old "if it saves one life" argument.

What if that "tight regulation" keeps someone from getting a gun - and then that person dies because he could not defend himself?  If "tight regulation" gets credit for saving a life, does that "tight regulation" get the blame for taking one?

If so, where does that leave your argument?

And:  what "tight regulation" will stop them?




You need insurance, valid inspection and proper registration to drive a car in the vast majority of cases.

Hardly.
I can own a thousand cars.  I dont need a driver's license to own any of them.   I dont have to register them, I dont have to insure them.   I can park them in my garage, or I can drive them on my land or that of anyone that will allow it.  I can do all of these things w/o a license, registration or insurance.

The ONLY time you need to have a license or register/insure a car is to drive it on the road - that is, use it on public property.

If you want to treat guns like cars, then the only time I'll need to have a license, or register the gun, or have insurance, is if/when I USE the gun on public property.  Just like a car.

I'm perfectly OK with that.



Your argument is invalid.

Please, show me how.




A criminal won't do that. Criminals are below average gun owners.

Yeaaaaaah.  

Convenient argument.
A criminal is smart enough  to avoid all the gun control laws out there to get a gun, but he's not smart enough to run some steel woll down the barrel.

Riiiiight.

[TA Pilot]

However by using the 'getting a car but keeping it on your drive' argument, then you're reducing the gun argument to people who want one but never want to use it.

Not so.
"Private property" means a lot more than my driveway.

And, the term is "use", not "own" or "have" ot "transport" or even "carry".  You can transport a car on the road w/o a driver's license, and w/o registration and/or insurance.  So, when treating a gun like a car, you would similarly be able to transport said gun.

What this means is within the car analogy. as long as you have a proprty owners permission (or specific denial of), you can use your gun w/o licensing, etc.  You can transport said gun on public property w/o a license, etc.

The only time you'd need a license, etc, is for when you USE it on public property.

[patrickl]

Always funny to see how much americans love their guns (or at least some of them) What's even more funny is seeing how they (the same people?) go berzerk if they see a nipple on television or if someone smokes a joint.

I must admit that if you are ever put in a situation where someone points a gun at you, it completely changes your outlook on gun control.

What's even more scary is that many people are actually threatened with their own gun.

More people die from cars, than guns

But then cars do serve a purpose and guns don't.

The way I see it is that if a burglar expects people to have a gun he will be much more on alert and will actually be very likely shoot the people he robs the instant he gets caught. Over here (netherlands) it's quite unlikely that a robber will carry a gun since he doesn't need one to "protect himself" and the extra risk of getting caught with a gun is a useless risk to take. When only criminals have guns it really still is much safer for the general public.

Gun related deaths counts are probably mostly useless. I'd say 90% of the people who get shot (and killed) over here are criminals themselves.

Quoting gun related crime figures is even more silly. Those also contain people carrying replica guns and such.

[RacerX]

The way I see it is that if a burglar expects people to have a gun he will be much more on alert and will actually be very likely shoot the people he robs the instant he gets caught. Over here (netherlands) it's quite unlikely that a robber will carry a gun since he doesn't need one to "protect himself" and the extra risk of getting caught with a gun is a useless risk to take.

Actually, the robber is more likely to just pass the house and go on to the next one if he thinks the homeowner has a gun.  Think about it.  Are you going to go into a house where the person inside has a gun and wants to shoot you?

I didn't think so.

[TA Pilot]

More people die from cars, than guns...ut then cars do serve a purpose and guns don't.

yeah.   Thats why they're protected by the Constitution.

(warning:  strong dose of reality follows)
Guns exist to kill people.  There are times that people need to kill other people.  Thats why we have guns.



The way I see it is that if a burglar expects people to have a gun he will be much more on alert and will actually be very likely shoot the people he robs

But in the REAL world, criminals stay away from situations they know are dangerous to their life and limb.  Thats why they dont try to mug policemen.



Over here (netherlands)

Oh....  a Europeon.  That explains a lot.
See, here in the US, we believe that people have the right to defend themselves, with deadly force if necessary - and this right can be exercised individually or collectively.  Far too many of you Europeons have forgotten this right, and have turned into cowering slaves to fear.



it's quite unlikely that a robber will carry a gun since he doesn't need one to "protect himself" and the extra risk of getting caught with a gun is a useless risk to take.

Psst...
Criminals dont carry guns to 'protect  themselves'.
They carry them to makle their crime easier.
Its a lot easier to rob, beat, rape and murder people when you have a gun (or any other weapon) and they don't.



When only criminals have guns it really still is much safer for the general public.

Except everywhere its tried.  Guns are tightly controlled, if not banned, banned in most large US cities; large US cities have crime and murder rates as much as 15x higher than the national average.

Of course, this is because criminals dont obey the law, and theefore have an easvy victim in the person that does.



Gun related deaths counts are probably mostly useless. I'd say 90% of the people who get shot (and killed) over here are criminals themselves.

Interestingly enough, a large % (~1/3) of murderers and a large % (~1/3) of those murdered come from the same demographic:  Black males ages 18-25.  Go figger.



Quoting gun related crime figures is even more silly. Those also contain people carrying replica guns and such.

Yeah.  Just ignore what you dont like to see - I mean, who cares if it contradicts your argument, right?

[Dartful Dodger]

TA Pilot, please stop trying to help.

[TA Pilot]

TA Pilot, please stop trying to help.

Huh?