From the Utne Reader: Gun Control, NRA-Style A Vermont state legislator has introduced a bill that would require unarmed citizens to pay a $500 fine "for the privelege of not owning a gun," reports Joanna Mareth in The American Prospect (March 27, 2000). Should the bill become law, gunless Vermonters would be required to register with the state as non-gun owners; those of military age who are not serving in the armed forces or police force would be subject to the fine. The bill's sponsor, Representative Fred Maslack, says the law is not designed to protect citizens from crime, but to make sure each citizen assumes responsibility for protecting the state from hostile invaders. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," he said. Huh? Right. ------------------ "No one gets out ALIVE!" SaveOurRockets.com
Only in America. As an non American i just can't and never will (I Don't care what argument anyone uses) understand, comprehend and accept the whole Love of guns, number of gun deaths and the non-existent guns laws in America. It is just illogical. ------------------ Mango is the Smeg of Bizarro World
Bob: this was not online. I transcribed it from Utne Reader, a lefty magazine (as BK would describe it) that cobbles together articles from a variety of different sources on particular topics. This was just a blurb really but totally legit. ------------------ "No one gets out ALIVE!" SaveOurRockets.com
Wow. That's like saying if you ever confess to a crime, you'd get fined for not "pleading the fifth". Absolutely ridiculous. ------------------ "Go to hell Costas"-Dave Nelson after sweeping the ABSCAs on NewsRadio visit www.swirve.com
How about charging that legislator $500 for being legally stupid? ------------------ MANGO - Get in my BELLAY!
Don't just fine him $500...remove him from office for being the biggest bonehead alive. He doesn't deserve to be where he is if he truly believes in that crap. People with guns are the problem in this country! Every kid that ever went and shot up a high school got the guns or idea of guns in the family where Daddy even taught the little prick how to use it. Little did Daddy know that son was a psycho-brat who couldn't handle things and had to shoot everyone because they were picking on him...boo hoo hoo....or because he couldn't get and keep the girl...boo hoo hoo. No excuse to go psycho on the town. Now, all you hear about is so-and-so took Dad's unlocked gun and shot his friend or the teacher or himself or the school. Ultimately, parents are stupid idiots who can't lock guns up properly. Countless lives would have been saved if no gun was even in the family. All I ever had was a BB gun growing up and that is enough for me. Of course, we were stupid and had BB gun wars and one of my friends had a BB lodged in his head for a few weeks. He ended up squirting it out like a zit after it became infected . Just think what we would have done if we had some 9mm guns lying around under Pop's bed! Screw guns...all they ever did was hurt people and hurt animals. Who needs em besides the gangs, police, and military? Not I...and I will live and live happily without. Any legislator who sides with the NRA is a SOB who needs to be out of office. Surfguy ------------------
Cool find Jeff. I love these little strange stories. Isn't it interesting that it's OK for just anyone to have a gun, and that those TRAINED on how to safely use firearms (military & law enforcement), are the ones that are exempt! I wonder what "hostile invaders" are threatening a takeover of Vermont? ------------------ Stay Cool... [This message has been edited by dc sports (edited June 26, 2000).]
Actually, there is a town in Georgia whose name escapes me at the moment (saw it on MSNBC this weekend). They passed a law about 12 years ago stating that all heads of households had to own a firearm. Would anyone like to guess what the crime rate in that town is now, as opposed to what it was before the law was passed? Or, would anyone like to compare the crime rate in that town with the crime rate in Washington, D.C.-- a town that has probably the most stringent anti-gun regulations in America?
BK: I'd be willing to bet that town in Georgia has a population of about 600 and had little crime before the law was passed. Even if you think guns are fine, there should be no gun control, etc...Making someone own a gun? I can think of many brain-dead people I would not like to own/operate a gun. ------------------ rimbaud post-a-thon 2000
BK: If you want to make those arguments, then England bans hand guns and has less than 100 gun deaths every year. In America, the last I checked there were more than that every day! ------------------ "No one gets out ALIVE!" SaveOurRockets.com
I didn't say it was a great idea, just that a lot of the responses on this board have been of the knee-jerk emotion-based variety, without any regard to the facts. And the facts indicate very clearly that in America, states and municipalities that encourage gun ownership experience lower crime rates. When the predators can't be sure if they're picking on an armed citizen, they are far more hesitant to strike. I think comparing localities within America makes for a better argument, frankly. There are cultural differences everywhere, obviously, but those differences are more pronounced under different systems of government. But, if we want to go global with this baby, then perhaps we should look at what's happened to the crime rates in Australia since the big gun roundup over there. ------------------ You bring the bullets, I'll bring the wine.
But remember, this isn't a law about controlling crime. It's about repelling invaders! Which is, of course, the silliest part. If it were about controlling crime, they would require those trained in the use of firearms to have them. Brian, I'm all for encouraging gun ownership -- but only with the requirement that people know how to safely use them. There are way too many accidents caused by people who own guns -- but do stupid things with them. Requiring gun ownership is just going to put a lot of people in an unsafe situation. I think we'll all agree that there is a big difference between allowing anyone that wants a gun, and meets some type of minimum standard to have one, and a law requiring everyone to have a gun. I REALLY can't see any politician submitting a law that anyone have a gun for the purpose of "repelling invaders" of a state. Certainly, I don't picture Vermont being in any danger. It sounds like a case for someone who needs some help. ------------------ Stay Cool... [This message has been edited by dc sports (edited June 26, 2000).]
dc, I totally agree. No one should buy a gun unless they're comfortable using it. But I do think a lot of people who aren't comfortable with guns should more carefully weigh the pros and cons of owning one before deciding not to. I can't imagine, for example, too many women deciding they'd prefer to take their chances with a rapist rather than carry a concealed weapon. In case I left my posts too open to vague interpretation, I'm not actually in favor of this law. You can't mandate behavior that requires (or ought to require) practiced skill; this would be like mandating literacy or driving a car. I just think that the fact that an armed populace will enjoy a lower crime rate than an unarmed populace (under a stable, constitutional republic) is an imporant and often-ignored one. It's written off too quickly and glibly by anti-Second Amendment types, and that's a shame because it's entirely true. Had to throw that parenthetical disclaimer in there just so no one popped up with, "What about Bosnia?" ------------------ You bring the bullets, I'll bring the wine.
BK: I am glad you do not agree with this law. But, on to cultural and social differences. You are right when you point out the problems with comparing the US to England. However, I must point out that it is this love of guns throughout this country's history that has lent itself to crime rates. Everyone arming themselves does not deter this. If a burglar comes into the house of an armed civilian, one of them (or both) will not make it out unharmed. Even if the homeowner kills the bad guy, that is still more death. Still, this might deter crime for a while, but what happens when the criminals have better/more weapons than homeowners? Criminals, being that they ARE criminals, can get more advanced, illegal weapons at a faster rate than a civilian. Hell, a lot of them have better weapons than the police. Additionally, what of 3 armed felons come into your house, all with automatic weapons - will a single fire handgun give you much of a chance. SO, criminals can just travel in packs. Should there be shootouts occuring every night that do not involve trained "crime fighters"? These are just things that I would do if I was a criminal in a city that was well armed. I am sure there are many more methods to be used. Additionally, criminals always have the advantage because they have the element of surprise. Even people who take gun training courses cannot be prepared for the shock of someone breaking in with a gun. The fear, the panic - can be too much for some people. Do you know what it is like to face someone with a gun? I, for one, do and I was lucky to get out of a few situations. But it is not a fun experience and it can leave you in a chilled state. The first time, I just stood there, the second, I babbled and basically talked myself out of the situation. Anyway, If I had had a gun who knows what could have happened. Anyway, that is just my opinion... ------------------ rimbaud post-a-thon 2000 [This message has been edited by rimbaud (edited June 26, 2000).] [This message has been edited by rimbaud (edited June 26, 2000).]
Just a stat that is worth noting: Having a gun in your household makes you 50 times more likely to have a family member shot than if you own no gun. That stat includes violence perpetrated by criminals. The reason this number is SO high is because the number of accidental gunshot wounds and deaths as well as the number of family members shot as a result of domestic violence represent nearly 50% of all gun violence in the US. The fact is that you are far more likely to be hurt or killed if you own a gun than if you don't and all the statistics back that up. Protection as the result of owning a firearm is an illusion. You might feel safer, but you simply are NOT safer. ------------------ "No one gets out ALIVE!" SaveOurRockets.com
Would anyone like to post numbers on who is more likely to be hurt or killed -- someone who owns a car, or someone who doesn't? ------------------ Too-Rye-Aye!
rimbaud, nice post, but I am not sure what part of that is supposed to make me have any second thoughts about arming myself. If anything, that post simply serves to underscore the importance of gun ownership. Criminals can come up with whatever plots they want. My answer is always going to be the same: I wouldn't hesitate to shoot a burglar or burglars, period. Jeff, let me get back to you on the efficacy of the methods used to compile those stats (not that I don't trust Handgun Control, Inc to treat things objectively!), but in the meantime let me pose a counter question: what is the likelihood of surviving an encounter with a criminal for armed Americans vs. unarmed Americans...? In other words, let's say I am part of the group of gun owners that are smart enough to take the necessary steps to prevent accidentally shooting myself or having my kids stumble across my gun. In that case, how much better off am I if some junkie breaks into my house at 3 AM versus someone who doesn't own a gun...? ------------------ You bring the bullets, I'll bring the wine.
