America's Love Affair With Guns Breeds Bloody Results

[legion]

http://www.uexpress.com/asiseeit/

This article is so incredibly flawed:

1) She cites one specific example of gun violence, then implies this means "gun assaults are rising", without citing any proof to back this up.

2) She uses the classic "everyone else says I'm right" argument, citing that because France and Britain (among other countries) ban guns, it must be right. She fails to mention their crime statistics.

3) She uses the "I will prevail in the future argument." This presumes that future generations will necessarily agree with her, the current batch of old codgers just needs to die off first. (She talks about how future anthropologists will be puzzled by individual gun ownership in the future.)

4) She assumes that banning guns will automatically lead to a drop in violent crimes.

5) She assumes that banning guns will make it impossible for criminals to get them. (It has worked so well for cocaine and meth.)

6) She cites a flawed study that handpicked certain cities to show and increase in gun crime--the purpose of the study was to bolster arguments for banning guns.

7) She cites Michael Bloomberg as a Republican that "gets it". I contend he is neither.

Edit: Linked to the story in a different location. For some reason, when Yahoo has really long URL names, I can't like them here correctly.

[Joeaksa]

Clicked on the link and it did not work.

[alf]

Our rights to bare arms as an a Americans serves to keep our elected government in check so that we could stand up to the likes of another King George (the English one).

I refuse to be a subject and will not bow to any monarch, unless that person bows back.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by alf
Our rights to bare arms as an a Americans serves to keep our elected government in check so that we could stand up to the likes of another King George (the English one).

I refuse to be a subject and will not bow to any monarch, unless that person bows back.

Agree to the top. I bow only to the Lord...

[rdk409]

I have yet to hear a good argument to the statement:

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

People were killing others for centuries before the gun was invented. Murder happens today in countries with anti-gun laws like Japan and Singapore as well. If you take the gun away, the way of murder just changes.

Now, with that being said, I like the way Singapore outlawed guns. If you are caught with a gun, a bullet, or even an empty casing, it's death by hanging. They REALLY outlawed guns, not just made them illegal. That would never work in the US though, because the country is against the death penalty.

They also did the same thing with drugs....

[Moneyguy1]

Guns do not kill people. People with easy access to guns kill people.

Just add a few words. The same for anything that can be used as a weapon, whether it be a hammer or a firearm. The difference is the former has other uses while the latter has only one.

BTW...To set the record straight, I am not in favor of gun control, just common sense on the part of SOME gun advocates.

It will be interesting to see how many get their panties in a twist........

[rdk409]

The issue is though, if they can't pick up a gun and kill, they will pick up what ever else is lying around that they could use as a weapon. It's not the weapon that kills someone, it's the decision the murdering mind makes. If the decision has already been made and the murderer can't find a weapon, they will just use their hands.

[Moneyguy1]

rdk: Hands are just so personal. As is a hammer a sword or a knife. All require "up close and personal" action. Firearms are death at a distance and impersonal. Of course, of the murderous individual is really intent, then all bets are off and anything goes!!

[legion]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Guns do not kill people. People with easy access to guns kill people.

So the guns make the people kill?

What about easy access to box cutters, ice picks, and wood chippers?

I don't get this thing about guns being a less personal way to kill. Most murders, regardless of weapon, are done at very close distances.

[Moneyguy1]

legion

Please read my other post about the difference between impersonal and personal methods of killing. You sometimes come off like a broken record or at least someone who will never even consider an alternative point of view. Far easier to pull a trigger than hit your adversary over the head with a hammer.

Guns do not make people kill. The ease of killing with a gun is the point. I am not against firearms; just a bit more rational about the uses to which they can be put, and far less emotional about the subject. A box cutter has a purpose: To open packages; an ice pick has a purpose; to chip ice. A wood chipper was dsigned to reduce brush into mulch. All of these, granted, can be used for mor nefarious purposes. However, a firearm makes a poor box cutter, a terrible ice pick but a modestly usable wood chipper. The firearm has, like the tools you mention, a specific purpose. Define that purpose in relation to other tools and you do arrive at the conclusion that the NRA slogan is empty and meaningless.

I was a marksman in the service; I rspect firearms and understand their basic purpose. Unfortunately, too many people revere them as some form of holy object rather than a tool with a specific range of purposes.

[legion]

Bob, your argument is well-reasoned but wholly irrelevant.

The Consititutions states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I see nothing there about the purpose of firearms.

You may well ascribe to the "collective rights" theory on the Second Amendment. If that is the case, please tell me how this means that only the government gets to read books:

"A well-informed government, being necessary to the existence of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

[rdk409]

A gun is designed to kill someone of something, period. There is no doubt about that.

The only murders that I think gun control would effect would be the accidental murders. The murders that someone takes the time to planswouldn't be effected in anyway. They would just plan to use another way to get the job done.

[legion]

Robberies? Most of those guns are gotten illegally today.

[Racerbvd]

Ban swimming pools, they kill children

http://timlambert.org/2001/07/levittpoolsvsguns/

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by rdk409
A gun is designed to kill someone of something, period. There is no doubt about that.

The only murders that I think gun control would effect would be the accidental murders. The murders that someone takes the time to planswouldn't be effected in anyway. They would just plan to use another way to get the job done.

Nope, cannot make a blanket statement about guns.

For years I shot guns that were designed to shoot other things, like paper targets.

Lets make it easier. ANYTHING can be used to kill something or someone if the person really wants to harm.

[rdk409]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Nope, cannot make a blanket statement about guns.

For years I shot guns that were designed to shoot other things, like paper targets.

Lets make it easier. ANYTHING can be used to kill something or someone if the person really wants to harm.

Yea, but you have to admit that the main purpose of a gun is to kill. If you can't admit that, you are in denial.

They were invented for warfare, then used for hunting. I understand they are used for target practice now, but what are you practicing for? To increase you likelyhood of killing something.....

[red-beard]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
rdk: Hands are just so personal. As is a hammer a sword or a knife. All require "up close and personal" action. Firearms are death at a distance and impersonal. Of course, of the murderous individual is really intent, then all bets are off and anything goes!!

That describes a rifle. A pistol is up close and personal. They are not much use over 15 yards. And very little use holstered under 20 feet.

I'm a pretty good shot. But, I expect I'm far deadlier with my car than a handgun. The handgun is the equalizer. It can make the weak, strong.

Car Accident deaths: 41,345 (1999)

Murder & non-negligent manslaughter 12,658 (1999)



So, even though we have had significant changes in gun laws since 1964, and the murder rates have gone up and down, the % use of guns in murders has not changed.

[Racerbvd]

Originally posted by rdk409
Yea, but you have to admit that the main purpose of a gun is to kill. If you can't admit that, you are in denial.

They were invented for warfare, then used for hunting. I understand they are used for target practice now, but what are you practicing for? To increase you likelyhood of killing something.....

The main purpose of a knife is to cut & kill, do you want to ban them too???

[FrayAdjacent911]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
legion
Unfortunately, too many people revere them as some form of holy object rather than a tool with a specific range of purposes.

This is, honestly, one of the most retarded sentiments about the 'gun culture' that the gun banners seem to hold on to.

People who are into shooting sports, self defense, collecting and other hobbies that involve firearms are not some sort of cult worshippers of inanimate objects.

Many of us ARE very reverent of our FREEDOMS. Owning firearms is a core part of the American style of freedom. THAT is what we can be fanatical about. THAT is what is often, and rather moronically, summed up as some sort of 'gun woshipping'.

[legion]

Originally posted by FrayAdjacent911
This is, honestly, one of the most retarded sentiments about the 'gun culture' that the gun banners seem to hold on to.

People who are into shooting sports, self defense, collecting and other hobbies that involve firearms are not some sort of cult worshippers of inanimate objects.

Many of us ARE very reverent of our FREEDOMS. Owning firearms is a core part of the American style of freedom. THAT is what we can be fanatical about. THAT is what is often, and rather moronically, summed up as some sort of 'gun woshipping'.

It's no different than people who have passions about cars.