William Burroughs: "After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military." William Burroughs , U.S. author. "The War Universe," taped conversation (published in Grand Street, no. 37; repr. in Painting and Guns, 1992, in a slightly different form). John Adams: "Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851) Samuel Adams: "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." During Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, (1788), Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850) Benjamin Franklin: "The very fame of our strength and readiness would be a means of discouraging our enemies; for 'tis a wise and true saying, that `One sword often keeps another in the scabbard.' The way to secure peace is to be prepared for war. They that are on their guard, and appear ready to receive their adversaries, are in much less danger of being attacked than the supine, secure and negligent." 1747 (Smyth, Writings of Benjamin Franklin, 2:352.) Patrick Henry: "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" During Virginia's ratification convention, (1788), in The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution at 168, Jonathan Elliot, (New York, Burt Franklin: 1888) Aristotle: Tyranny derives from the oligarchy's "mistrust of the people; hence they deprive them of arms, ill-treat the lower class, and keep them from residing in the capital. These are common to oligarchy and tyranny." Politics (J. Sinclair translation, pg. 218, 1962)
Grizzled - to avoid a point by point drawn out discussion that will never be resolved other than us eventually agreeing to disagree, let me bottom line it for you. Taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens does not promote the safety or general welfare of the populace as a whole. Much to the contrary a criminal (or government) intent on doing you bodily harm would much prefer you be unarmed. See the chart below and you can see just how GREAT the danger of being accidentally killed with a gun is. Source: National Center for Health Statistics In Texas you can be proactive with regards to your personal safety as provided for by the Constitution of the United States and the Texas Legislature. <b>Texas' Concealed Carry Law Works, Says NCPA Report</b> DALLAS (May 26, 2000) - Marking the fifth anniversary of Texas' concealed carry law, a new report from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) shows that Texans with concealed carry permits are far less likely to commit a serious crime than the average citizen. "Many predicted that minor incidents would escalate into bloody shootouts if Texas passed a concealed-carry law," said H. Sterling Burnett, a senior policy analyst at the NCPA and the author of the report. "That prediction was dead wrong." In 1995, Texas Gov. George W. Bush signed a law granting Texans the right to carry concealed firearms. This made Texas the 23 state to pass a concealed carry law since 1986. According to the report, the slightly more than 200,000 Texans who have become licensed to carry a concealed firearm are much more law-abiding than the average person. Comparing arrest rates for example: * Texans who exercise their right to carry firearms are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for a violent offense. * They are 14 times less likely to be arrested for a non-violent offense. * They are 1.4 times less likely to be arrested for murder. Moreover, of the six licensees who were arrested and tried for murder or non-negligent manslaughter, four were found not guilty because they had acted in self-defense. The right to carry may also be affecting Texas' crime rate in a positive way. Texas had a serious crime rate in the early 1990s that was 38 percent higher than the national average. * Since then, serious crime in Texas has dropped 50 percent faster than for the nation as a whole. * Murder rates have dropped 52 percent, compared to 33 percent nationally. * Rapes have fallen by 22 percent compared to 16 percent nationally. This experience is consistent with the experience of other states with concealed carry laws. According to University of Chicago law professor John Lott, concealed handgun laws on average reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent. "Far from recreating the Wild West, concealed carry laws create a safer society," said Burnett. "The law allows law-abiding citizens to protect themselves." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The National Center for Policy Analysis is a public policy research institute founded in 1983 and internationally known for its studies on public policy issues. The NCPA is headquartered in Dallas, Texas, with an office in Washington, D.C. In other parts of the world where draconian gun laws have been passed crimes have risen since the criminals know the populace is unable to protect themselves, and the police arrive after the crime has been committed 99% of the time. <b>Police fears over rising gun crime -BBC News Friday, 3 August, 2001</b> Gun crime in London is increasing so rapidly that police fear they may not have the resources to cope, the BBC has learned. Members of the Metropolitan Police's SO19 firearms unit say lack of staff, money and out-of-date equipment is threatening to affect their work. The BBC's Zubeida Malik says that at a meeting this week, officers reported there had been a 100% increase in firearms-related crime in the capital this year. This follows the publication of Home Office figures last month which showed that violent crime in England and Wales was continuing to rise. <b>Australia's Gun Ban, Crime & Video Tape</b> Between 1980-1995, Australia's firearm-related death rate was cut nearly in half and its firearm-related homicide rate nearly by two-thirds. (The former decreased 46%, from 4.8 deaths per 100,000 population to 2.6; the latter decreased 63%, from eight per 100,000 to three). In 1995, the annual number of firearm-related deaths fell to its lowest point in the 16-year period. Despite this real progress over a decade and a half, the demented acts of a lone gunman in Port Arthur, Tasmania, on a Sunday in April 1996 were used to launch a massive campaign against law-abiding Australian gun owners. Rather than acknowledging one man's insanity, opportunistic gun control activists and scared politicians rushed to blame "loose gun laws." It didn't matter that those laws required any Tasmanian who wanted to own a firearm or even an air rifle to pass a gun handling course and carry a photo-bearing gun license that had to be produced prior to the purchase of any firearm or ammunition. The end result for all Australians was a government turn-in scheme and the follow-on destruction of more than 640,000 hunting rifles and shotguns. Ban supporters, including gun prohibitionists in the U.S., are actively promoting the legislation's alleged crime-fighting benefits. Crime statistics, however, contradict them. For example, from 1997-1998, assaults and armed robberies increased in all Australian states. Armed robberies increased from 42% of all robberies in 1997 to 46% in 1998. The number of total violent crimes and the numbers of all individual categories of violent crime, with the exception of murder, increased. In addition, unlawful entries rose 3.3% from 421,569 in 1997 to 435,670 in 1998. The violent crime statistics shown below were retrieved on March 27, 2000, from the Australia Bureau of Statistics website: VIOLENT CRIME 1997 1998 TREND Murder 321 284 -11.5% Attempted Murder 318 382 +20.1% Manslaughter 39 49 +25.6% Assault 124,500 132,967 +6.8% Sexual Assault 14,353 14,568 +1.5% Kidnaping/abduction 562 662 +17.8% Armed Robbery 9,054 10,850 +19.8% Unarmed Robbery 12,251 12,928 +5.5% TOTAL 161,398 172,690 +7.0% * "The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws. --Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997. * "Gun crime is on the rise despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre, but gun control lobbyists maintain Australia is a safer place.... The number of robberies involving guns jumped 39% last year to 2183, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and assaults involving guns rose 28% to 806. The number of gun murders, excluding the Port Arthur massacre, increased by 19% to 75." --"Gun Crime Rises Despite Controls," Illawarra Mercury Oct. 28, 1998. * "Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%." --"Gun crime soars," Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998. * "Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme, which removed 225,000 registered and unregistered firearms from circulation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996 before the scheme started." --"Killings rise in gun hunt," Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 23, 1998. * "Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls in a decade and its lowest arrest rate ever." --Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 11, 1999. * "The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago." --South Australia Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, reported in The Advertiser, Adelaide, Dec. 23, 1999. In Summation... I choose to be proactive when it comes to my personal safety and my guns are not a danger to my neighbors, kids, coworkers, or anyone else except someone intent on inflicting upon me (or my family) grievous bodily harm. The threat by law abiding citizens owning firearms to the general population is minimal, yet because of a greater perceived threat some people are intent of depriving millions of Americans their rights guaranteed by the constitution to protect themselves from threats both foreign and domestic.
William Burroughs: "After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military." William Burroughs , U.S. author. "The War Universe," taped conversation (published in Grand Street, no. 37; repr. in Painting and Guns, 1992, in a slightly different form). >There is some truth to the first part. The second part is an unsupported statement from a guy who doesn’t live in such a place. Informed opinion? Perhaps not. John Adams: "Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851) >No mention of handguns. Obviously he’s not saying “resistance by any means” so I don’t think this helps us much in addressing the question of whether or not handguns preserve or threaten one’s person, limbs, life, etc. Samuel Adams: "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." During Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, (1788), Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850) >Again, he’s not saying “any and all” arms. Clearly today there are laws that limit ownership of weapons that are dangerous to society. There just has not yet been a realisation that handguns also pose such a risk. Benjamin Franklin: "The very fame of our strength and readiness would be a means of discouraging our enemies; for 'tis a wise and true saying, that `One sword often keeps another in the scabbard.' The way to secure peace is to be prepared for war. They that are on their guard, and appear ready to receive their adversaries, are in much less danger of being attacked than the supine, secure and negligent." 1747 (Smyth, Writings of Benjamin Franklin, 2:352.) >This brings up images of the situation in Switzerland, rather than the US where the weapons pose a threat to, and are essentially exclusively used against, other members its own nation. On the individual level, this would seem to suggest that owning weapons reduces crime. Statistic comparing societies where handgun ownership is common with ones where it is not suggest that this does not tend to be the case. Patrick Henry: "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" During Virginia's ratification convention, (1788), in The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution at 168, Jonathan Elliot, (New York, Burt Franklin: 1888) >Another historical quote, but again, today restrictions exist, and are widely supported, for certain kinds of weapons that pose a threat to society. Restricting handgun ownership is just the next bit of progress in that direction for the same reasons. Aristotle: Tyranny derives from the oligarchy's "mistrust of the people; hence they deprive them of arms, ill-treat the lower class, and keep them from residing in the capital. These are common to oligarchy and tyranny." Politics (J. Sinclair translation, pg. 218, 1962) >Which is why a healthy democracy where the elected members are in fact representative of the citizens, of the demographics, values and beliefs of the populace as a whole, is so important. I have lived in our nation’s capital, so I have first hand knowledge that lower classes do live there. In a nation where only 50% of the electorate actually vote, and where only two parties, both of whom are controlled by a relatively narrow demographic of wealthy people, exist as realistic options, the situation may be somewhat different. That power structure may qualify as an oligarchy. I suggest that the preferred solution would be to reform the democracy, rather than arm the populace, though.
We can agree to disagree, but just for the fun of it I’ll respond to a few of the points in your post. I think you forgot to include the chart. Responding to your comments, in a society where handguns are rare and penalties for using them are harsh, criminals tend not to use them. They aren’t worth the risk. And if our government started using strong arm tactics on us, we’d just vote them out. That’s the beauty of democracy. Also, I suspect that a large percentage of gun crimes aren’t committed by people intent on doing you bodily harm. I suspect that may of them happen when an individual with a gun in their hand make a rash decision they later regret. If that individual had a knife in their hand, or nothing at all, the consequences would likely be much less severe. This is a different point, isn’t it? This is a comparison between registered concealed and non-concealed weapons. Most gun crimes aren’t committed by the registered owner, I believe, so stats on any kind of registered owner really aren’t the issue. The point is that legal guns find their way into the hands of criminals who commit crimes with them. If the guns weren’t there to begin with, the criminals would get their hands on them. At least guns would be much much rarer, like they are in Canada. You had liberal gun laws and a high execution rate, but your crime rate was 38% above the national average?! Perhaps some of those deterrents aren’t such great deterrents. Gun control laws are “draconian”?! That’s a twist. At any rate, I think this is blatantly untrue. Gun control laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals. You are more than 14 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun in the US than you are in Canada. (The murder rate in general in the US is 3 1/2 times the Canadian rate.) You are also 3 ½ times more likely to be robbed with a gun in the US. Laws for illegal possession of a handgun are much more severe here, so the criminals are at significant risk the whole time they are in possession of the gun, so it’s not worth it to them and they tend not to carry them. As far as I know, gun laws haven’t changed radically in England recently, so I don’t see how this relates to gun laws. This is what happened here too. Gun control is a motherhood issue after all, and politicians are sometimes tempted to exploit these issues for short term popularity. In doing so they are acting in their opportunistic self-interest, but not their long-term self-interest. If the laws don’t make sense, people will figure it out sooner or later, and the politicians will have to back off, or lose at the ballot box. I would expect the current federal government to quietly back off on our new laws, as they apply to riffles anyway, in the next couple of years. Those are pretty unconvincing numbers, especially when we’re only looking at a one year trend. Further, percentages can be very misleading when you are dealing with such small numbers. The attempted murder stats, for example, are for a country of 20,000,000 people. So in 97 the rate was 1.59 per 100,000, while in 98 the rate was 1.91 per 100,000. These numbers are so low that this may well be with the range of normal fluctuation from year to year. Calgary, for another example, periodically has 30% or 40% increases in our murder rate followed by similar decreases. What this means is that in this city of 1,000,000 we may have 10 murders one year, followed by 15 the next, and back to 10 the year after. It does not represent a long term change. Statistics can be very misleading. The stats on Victoria seems to contradict the first ones, but without knowing how big Victoria is it’s hard to tell. Certainly the stats for Australia as a whole don’t seem out of line. I’m sure that you are very safe with your guns, and would never allow them to fall into the hands of criminals, but not all legal owners are as safe and legally purchased guns find their way into the hands of criminals and threaten other law abiding citizens all the time. The 350% difference in murder rates, and 1400% difference in handgun murder rates, between Canada and the US suggest that there is a significant problem. Maybe the solution would be to make the registered owner responsible for any crime committed with his or her gun. If a gun was stolen and used to commit a murder, the registered owner would be charged with criminal negligence causing death, or similar charge. This is not really a workable solution though, and would only serve to throw even more people in jail. It would be better to control the problem before it starts, IMO, and severely restrict the ownership of handguns in the first place. The US already has controls on guns that post a threat to society, so all that would be required is the recognition that handguns also pose a threat to society, rather than a serve as a deterrence. There is nothing specific about handguns in the constitution that would preclude restrictive laws, just as there wasn’t for assault riffles. Same principle. I’m not a Texan, of course, and it’s certainly not my place to lobby for gun laws in Texas. This is just my perspective on the issue, which is probably a fairly typical Canadian perspective, although we certainly have our range of view here as well. So we can agree to disagree.
Am I the only one who finds it amusing that a quote from Aristotle is used to promote gun ownership even though he died more than 1,000 years before gunpowder was even invented?
Since this has decended into pretty much "I hate guns" vs. "I love guns" I just wonder something. I guess I understand the desire to hunt if that is your thing. I get that some people like to target shoot. Fine. The idea of a gun for protection from criminals doesn't always work according to statistics, but whatever. I'm not going to argue those points because, even if I don't really agree, they aren't particularly nutty. However, there seems to be this idea that guns are our protection from some sort of government oligarchy that I find just really bizarre and that is often times the argument we hear from the NRA and other gun groups. "The first step to a government taking over is taking your guns." Really? First, it sounds very "living-on-a-compound-protecting-my-family-from-the-government" ish. Normally, that is relegated to white supremicists, certified nutcases and conspiracy theorists of the highest order. Maybe I have you guys figured wrong, but I honestly don't peg any of you as posting to the ClutchCity.net BBS from your fortified bunker. Second, if the government really, honest to God, wanted to control the military and run the whole lot of them onto our front lawns and into our homes, what exactly are you going to do with the Gloc anyway? How effective do you think the .20 guage is going to be against the tank? Not very. Finally, most of you who argue for gun ownership and use this oligarchy argument are also pro business. Has anyone ever stopped to think that the most likely takeover isn't from our hapless and completely disorganized government, but from big business? I mean, conservatives are always harping on how the government can't do anything right. If they are too ignorant to handle basic services, how in God's name are they supposed to be organized enough to form some sort of fascist regime and enslave the country? Truth is that business RUNS government through lobbyists and huge contributions. We see they get massive tax breaks and break the law right and left with no real fear of repercussions. Hell, Microsoft scares me a helluva lot more than Congress. Like I said, I understand that some of the reasons you have may be legitimate even if I don't agree with them, but can someone please explain to me the rest of this crazy-sounding rhetoric? <i>Lisa: The second amendment is just a remnant from revolutionary periods, it has no real meaning today. Homer: You couldn't be more wrong, Lisa. If I didn't have this gun, the King of England could just come in here and start pushing you around. Do you want that? Well, do ya'?</i>
I actually prefer my DPMS A-15 (basically a M-4 carbine copy) to a pistol for personal protection. It's alot more reliable and stable than the crappy old M16A2 they've got me using in service... Not to mention a lot more firepower than any pistol. Put him out, not down, is what I always say... *soon to be posting from a fortified bunker*... BTW, the US Army (or anyone else, for that matter) ain't gonna be charging into anybody's homes in the near future in order to institute martial law. We're currently busy on other projects. And when we finish those... Unless you killed someone unlawfully, are collecting kiddie p*rn, smuggling large quantities of illegal substances or producing them yourself at home, or are communicating with known terrorists - we flat just don't care. If you are not participating in any of these acts, then Have a nice day. We'll talk to you in a decade or two. We're just swamped at the moment.
Grizzled - as you can see from the chart above (which I've now fixed), the threat of accidental death is far from a threat to the populace as a whole. I've included a pie chart below if you prefer pies to lines... (emmm pie) Here are the actual numbers Total Deaths 19 year period 41,355,800 Total Accidental Deaths same period 1,788,564 Total Accidental Firearms Deaths same period 26,694 As you can see the threat of accidental death by firearm is not very great (1%). It's your choice if you want to leave your personal protection to the police and/or government, but I choose to exercise my rights and depend upon myself. This statement is very nieve. In texas we have strict laws concerning the commission of a crime while using a handgun, and we execute more people than any other state in the union. Strict laws have yet to persuade the criminals to stop using guns in the act of a crime, and I don't know of any punishment that is worse than death. You can pass all the laws you want and go house to house to collect all the guns and the only people who would be affected would be the law abiding citizens who would then be disarmed and easy targets for the criminals who wouldn't turn their guns over anyway. On the other hand liscensing law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons is a great deterrant and may actually help lower crime. With the threat of accidental death by firearm being less than 1% of all accidental deaths, explain to me why people who are law abiding citizens should be denied the right to bear arms? Jeff- Ask the people in the streets of the west bank if they would prefer fighting against the tanks with rocks or guns and I'm sure guns would be weapons of choice. An unarmed populace makes an easy target... <i>Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons 11 November 1938 With a basis in § 31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1928 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and § 9 of the Fuhrer and Chancellor's decree on the administration of the Sudeten- German districts of 1 October 1928 (Reichsgesetzblatt 1, p. 1331 ) are the following ordered: § 1 Jews (§ 5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt 1, p. 1332) are prohibited from acquiring. Possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. § 2 Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation. § 3 The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in § 1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power. § 4 Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of § 1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years. § 5 For the implementation if this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions. § 6 This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts. Berlin, 11 November 1938 Minister of the Interior Frick</i> I'm through with this discussion (until I get back Monday at least). I have to load the car to drive half way across the state and I'm taking a handgun with me for protection. I hope you all have a great weekend.
You are comparing the Palestinians to Americans??? Riiiiight. First off, Palestine is not part of Israel, so, technically, it is an occupation. Second, Palestine's problems are as much the result of poverty and lack of education as they are a lack of weapons. Like I said, I understand SOME of the reasons, but this is not one of them. If you want to make an argument for gun ownership and you harp on this one, you're going to sound like a nut to the majority of people.
I hate to say this Jeff, but the military would have a hard time stopping the millions of armed citizens here in the U.S. .... Just for those who are owning weapons and ammo "legally", this would include .30-06 150 grain armor piercing bullets that you can legally handload...(I did a test and managed to shoot through a block of cinderblock, and (2) 6 X 6 wood posts behind it simultaneously...the scary thing is the bullet kept traveling...) Further if you have the money you can purchase a .50 BMG semi-auto gun....This weapon is capable of downing a small to medium sized planes and with the 700 grain incendiary blue tip round, you can punch through most tanks...btw 1 round costs $3.99 from cheaperthandirt.com Of course, these examples are just legal aspects.... My advice is to buy a BMG as soon as possible...I can see them outlawing this gun to civilians in the future....
All I want to say is if we are unarmed, would the people even try to take a stand if it were prudent Guns are more than peices of wood and metal, they are sybols that the PEOPLE still rule this country
Geez I am glad I don't live in a country that allows crap like this... Look at England...even the police aren't allowed guns in the majority and their problems with violence are MUCH less than yours. Your constitution has a lot to answer for.
I second that SRJ. In Hong Kong parents don't need to worry about their children getting shot at in a classroom by some Littlerock kids since guns are outlawed. I'd also like to point out that even "just" 1% of accidental deaths is still too many lives. Twenty six thousand people. That's half the casualties suffered in the Vietnam War. Maybe it's not a painful number to some right now, but they'll feel the pain if one of those victims from firearm accidents or related crimes is one of themselves or their loved ones.
...But see that is what separates US from countries such as China and England...We have rights and enjoy them!...OUR constitution had to answer to the tyrannical abuse from bloody jolly ole' England...So if you wanna talk smack, remember you begat US....Don't ever forget that we are the butchered, bloody child of Great Britain and the constitution was written to dispell infringement upon liberty.... There are many Jews who believed in what you said Panda before WW2...A society where we can all be safe...Riiiight...The only thing that ensures your liberty is what we have right here in the U.S.,..."the Bill of Rights" (especially 2nd admendment)...
Those giving up essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." —Benjamin Franklin
You know, , some people still won't believe you! <b>Mrs.JB</b>: That Aristotle thing... it's the principle of the matter. A penny saved is a penny earned was around long before technology stocks... oops a bad example!
I’m using Mozilla and it wouldn’t show the charts. I fired up the old IE and the first one showed up, so it may have been my software rather than a problem with your chart. The statistics you quote are for accidental deaths, and while this is certainly a problem caused by the large numbers of handguns around, the majority of the problems relate to criminal offences, which aren’t covered by these statistics. Did you have a look at these statistics? http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html#intl It’s isn’t my choice not to carry a handgun any more than it is my choice not to carry an assault riffle. It would be HIGHLY illegal for me to do either one. It is also illegal for my neighbours to “protect” themselves with handguns, and for that I’m truly grateful, and much safer overall. It’s not at all naive. It’s an accurate reflection of the society I currently live in. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The Calgary Police Service serves about 900,000 people. In 1999 we had 11 murders (couldn’t quickly find newer stats). Houston has what? 4,000,000? In 1997 you had 254 murders! 191 of which were committed with firearms! We had 1,000 robberies compared to your 8,000, 4,000 or which were committed with were committed with firearms. Those are very dramatic differences. Frankly it’s naïve to think that guns reduce crime. http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/articles/Year.htm http://www.police.york.on.ca/National Comparison.pdf http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html#intl Actually it’s been proven many times that the death penalty is not a deterrent, but that’s another thread. I guess it’s a question of which laws you make strict. If you are relying on laws to dissuade people in the heat of the moment, while they have a gun in their hand, I suspect the laws won’t be that effective. If you focus on laws that take guns out of the criminal’s hands to begin with, you have much more success. In Canada you get a minimum of a year sentence for being in possession of a stolen gun. If you get caught jaywalking, and you and are in possession of a stolen gun, you are gonzo for a year, minimum. The criminal justice system takes gun crimes very seriously here. So, is it really worth it for criminals to carry guns? Generally no, and those who are intent on doing so often get taken off the street before they can use them. If you or your group have a rep for guns, you can be sure the police will be keeping a close eye on you. Simply not true. Come to Canada and see for yourself, but make sure you leave your guns behind. We’d like you to see more than just the inside of a Canadian prison. Accidental death isn’t the real issue, although considering that these are preventable and needless deaths, they alone might be enough reason to enact strict gun laws. The bigger issue is the fact that guns fall into the hands of criminals who commit crimes with them. Law abiding citizens don’t protect their guns well enough, and that poses a major threat to other law abiding citizens. In fact, most of the handguns on the streets in Canada are smuggled in from the US. So, your collective recklessness with your guns even endangers us. Think about the treat posed by assault riffles, and the laws restricting them. By the same rationale and principles, handguns should be severely restricted too, IMO. Thankfully, in Canada they are. Jeff: I like to think that my argument is a little better thought out and presented than “I hate guns.” You ask a good question though.
Not at all. My point is... I see people chunking rocks at troops armed with assualt rifles and tanks. Ask them and I'm sure they would tell you they would prefer guns to rocks even if the caliber left them under armed against the agressors.
Grizzled - I'm an American. My family has been on this continent since 1672. My direct descendants have fought in every war this county has ever been involved in including the Revolutionary War. Many of my decedents have fought and some have died to preserve our personal freedoms and the freedom of people through out the world. I believe very strongly that these freedoms that my fore fathers fought for are under attack by people and groups that don't have the welfare of the citizens of the United States of America in their best interest. We don’t need the secretary general of the united nations, the queen of England, or anyone else for that matter telling us how to run our country. See what works best in Algeria, England, Canada or Switzerland may not be what is right for the United States. I'm glad your socialist utopia is working for you in British north America and you are just doing your Canadian duty by trying to force your socialistic views to promote the interest of the British Empire from Canada (which is nothing more than a glorified British Colony). Americans, unlike Canadians, fought for the right to be free, which is something I'm sure you know nothing about. Now to the finer points of your argument... Your ignorance of how a gun works is showing. A gun can not "go off" by itself. It is an inanimate object that takes an action by a person to make it "go off". A unloaded gun is nothing more than a hammer. A loaded gun is not dangerous unless the person using it is either careless or intent on doing harm with it (a criminal). I've been around guns all my life and none of them have ever made it into the hands of criminals. NEVER. You could say that, but it wouldn't make it true. You could say Auto manufacturers violate the rights and freedoms of the general public by creating a dangerous environment on our roads but that wouldn't be true either. You could blame the car, or the gun, but blaming an object for a persons crime or accident is idiocy. You have yet to prove this is true. You have NO proof to substantiate your point other than propaganda from anti-gun group websites. Once again you are blaming an object when a person has to be negligent or criminal to make the object dangerous. I shoot with the Texas Historical Shootist Society which is a gun club that preserves our States Heritage and honors those who have fought for our rights in the past. At our annual shoot, much to your dismay, over 250,000 rounds of live ammunition are put down range with out a single incident. No guns fall into the hands of criminals or jump off the table, or out of holsters, to harm innocent people. You suspect? Who made you the expert? Facts to substantiate? Once again you have none. Simply not true. A blatant lie. Gun control laws make it harder for law abiding citizens to acquire new guns while doing NOTHING to prevent criminals from getting guns, and further more do nothing to prevent crime. Once again you imply that restricting the rights of law abiding citizens would solve a criminal problem, and I hate to break it to you but law abiding citizens are not committing crimes with guns. Criminals are. And just for the record in the same 19 year period... TOTAL DEATHS 41,355,800 TOTAL ACCIDENTAL 1,788,564 TOTAL MOTOR VEHICLE 858,709 TOTAL HOMICIDES 271,103 I guess I should be much more worried about some nut killing me with his car than with his gun. Maybe you should start telling Americans they should all take public transportation and see how well that goes over. You are correct it is not your right, your government has already made sure you don't have that right. I on the other hand can own and or carry a handgun, a right my forefathers fought for and one for which I'm eternally grateful. You may be grateful, but your feeling of safety is misguided. If your neighbor is being raped, or assaulted you dial 911 and hope the police get there in time. Me I dial 911 then go stop the SOB from violating my neighbors rights. Who is the better neighbor? Glad I don't live next door to you. OK expert more pure speculation on your part. Where is your proof? How many guns have you been around? How many gun owners do you know? Me I know hundreds. Every one of them is very responsible with their guns. They all understand the importance of keeping their guns out of the hands of criminals and almost all of them keep their guns in a safe. There is no way you can know this is fact. More speculation. Here is some speculation on my part... Most pot in the NW part of the USA is smuggled in from Vancouver, Canada. You should make sure you aren't endangering anyone in the US. Worry about your criminal before you start trying to take rights away from law abiding citizens. You can pass all the laws you want and go house to house to collect all the guns and the only people who would be affected would be the law abiding citizens who would then be disarmed and easy targets for the criminals who wouldn't turn their guns over anyway. On the other hand licensing law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons is a great deterrent and may actually help lower crime. Facts to substantiate. SELF-DEFENSE & RIGHT-TO-CARRY Survey research during the early 1990s by criminologist Gary Kleck found as many as 2.5 million protective uses of firearms each year in the U.S. "[T]he best available evidence indicates that guns were used about three to five times as often for defensive purposes as for criminal purposes," Kleck writes. Analyzing National Crime Victimization Survey data, he found "robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all." (Targeting Guns, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997) Most protective firearm uses do not involve discharge of a firearm. In only 1% of protective uses are criminals wounded and in only 0.1% are criminals killed. A Dept. of Justice survey found that 40% of felons chose not to commit at least some crimes for fear their victims were armed, and 34% admitted having been scared off or shot at by armed victims. (James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous, Aldine de Gruyter, 1986) Thirty-three states now have Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws providing for law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for protection against criminals. Twenty-three states have adopted RTC laws in the last 15 years. Half of Americans, including 60% of handgun owners, live in RTC states. Professor John R. Lott, Jr., and David B. Mustard, in the most comprehensive study to date of RTC laws' effectiveness concluded, "When state concealed-handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell about 8 percent, rapes fell by 5 percent, and aggravated assaults fell by 7 percent. . . . Will allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns save lives? The answer is yes, it will." (Lott, More Guns, Less Crime, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1998) RTC states have lower violent crime rates on average: 22% lower total violent crime, 28% lower murder, 38% lower robbery, and 17% lower aggravated assault. The five states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states. (FBI) People who carry legally are by far more law-abiding than the rest of the public. In Florida, for example, only a fraction of 1% of carry licenses have been revoked because of gun-related crimes committed by license holders. (Florida Dept. of State) FIREARM SAFETY Because focus group research has shown that the public reacts unfavorably to the term "gun control," the anti-gun lobby has begun calling its legislative proposals by the euphemistic term "gun safety." (Handgun Control, Inc., now calls itself the "Brady Campaign.") True gun safety depends on education and personal responsibility, not government regulation. NRA's 38,000 Certified Instructors and Coaches reach 700,000 Americans each year. NRA's award-winning Eddie Eagle® Gun Safe Program has been used by more than 20,000 schools, law enforcement agencies and civic groups to reach more than 15 million children since 1988. Accidental deaths with firearms have been decreasing for decades and are now at an all-time annual low among the U.S. population on the whole and among children in particular. Since 1930, the annual number of such accidents has decreased 78%, while the U.S. population has more than doubled and the number of privately owned guns has quintupled. Among children, fatal firearm accidents have decreased 78% since 1975. (National Center for Health Statistics and National Safety Council) The per capita rate of accidental deaths with firearms is also at an all-time low, having decreased 91% since the all-time high in 1904. Firearm accidents account for less than 0.9% of accidental deaths and less than 0.04% of all deaths in the U.S. Among children, firearm accidents account for 2% of accidental deaths and 0.4% of all deaths. Most accidental deaths involve motor vehicles or are due to drowning, falls, fires, poisoning, medical mistakes, choking on ingested objects and environmental factors. "GUN CONTROL" FAILURES The federal Gun Control Act was imposed in 1968, yet violent crime increased until 1991. Washington, D.C., banned handguns in 1976 and by 1991 its homicide rate had tripled, while the U.S. rate had risen only 12%. Chicago, the only other city to ban handguns, has had more murders than any city for the last two years. Despite having some of the most restrictive gun laws, Maryland's robbery rate remains highest among the states, and Baltimore's murder rate has nearly overtaken D.C.'s. States that delay firearm sales with waiting periods, licensing and purchase permits have historically had higher crime rates. For many years after California imposed a 15-day waiting period on firearm sales in 1975 (reduced to 10 days in 1997), its violent crime rate was 50% higher each year, on average, compared to the rest of the country. States that prohibit or severely restrict the right to carry have higher crime rates, on average. A Library of Congress study concluded, "it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes." (Report for Congress: Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998) A study for the Department of Justice concluded, "[A]dvocates of stricter weapons regulations sometimes assert that the United States is virtually the only advanced civilized nation in the world that exercises no controls over the civilian ownership, possession, or use of firearms. In fact, there are about 20,000 firearms laws of one sort or another already on the books." (James D. Wright, Peter H. Rossi and Kathleen Daly, Under the Gun, Aldine de Gruyter, 1983) CRIME CONTROL, NOT "GUN CONTROL" Violent crime has decreased every year since 1991. Most criminologists, sociologists and law enforcement professionals, including the FBI, attribute the decrease to factors unrelated to restrictions on firearms, such as increased imprisonment rates, mandatory sentencing requirements, the hiring of additional police officers, "community policing," improved policing methods and equipment, the aging of gang populations, the decline in the crack cocaine trade, and the improved economy during the 1990s. Notably, less than one-fourth of violent crimes are committed with firearms. (FBI) "Gun control" advocates instead credit the federal Brady Act and "assault weapon" law. However, both laws were imposed in 1994, three years after violent crime began declining, and independent studies have found no evidence that either has affected crime levels. (The Urban Institute, cited above, and Ludwig and Cook, "Homicide and Suicide Rates Associated with Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act," Journal of the American Medical Association, 8/2/00) "Gun control" advocates allege that federal restrictions on firearms have reduced crime by reducing gun sales -- an extension of their slogan, "more guns means more crime." To the contrary, privately owned firearms increased in the U.S. by an average of 5.3 million per year during the 1990s. Rather than imposing additional laws that restrict the rights of law-abiding people, existing laws should be strictly enforced against violent armed criminals. "Project Exile," launched in 1997 by U.S. Attorneys working with state and local law enforcement authorities in Richmond, Va., cracks down on illegal possession of firearms by felons. In a year, the city's homicides were cut 41% from their 1994 high. Crimes committed with firearms decreased 65%. In the first three years of the program, several hundred felons were returned to prison with sentences averaging 56 months. Six states--Virginia, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Louisiana and Colorado--have instituted similar programs, as have several major cities, including New Orleans, Birmingham, Philadelphia, Oakland, Rochester and Buffalo. ASK THE PEOPLE Eighty-five percent of Americans believe people have the right to use firearms to defend themselves in their homes, 64% favor allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for protection outside their homes, and 72% prefer stiffer sentences for criminals who use guns in crime, rather than more gun laws. (Lawrence Research, National Survey of Registered Voters, 1998) GENERAL INFORMATION * Privately owned firearms in the U.S.: More than 200 million, including 65-70 million handguns * Gun owners in the U.S.: 60-65 million; 30-35 million own handguns * American households that have firearms: Approx. 45% <i>On a personal note</i> My Aunt came home from work late one night and a criminal had just finished raping her roommate and came at her intent upon raping her also. Lucky for her she was able to retrieve her hand gun from her purse and shoot the sob before she was another victim. You try and tell her she would be safer to give up her right of self defense. I'm PROUD to be an American and I'm proud to live in a country where people still have some freedom, especially the freedom of self defense. Anyone who tells me I should give up this freedom for the good of society as a whole, has no idea what freedom is all about.
You're right. Hell, I'd surrender immediately. No sense fighting or resisting in the face of superior firepower. It seems like you think freedom is something you're allowed to have only if the government decides it's OK, and that now that we have a huge and intrusive government with big guns, we can't possibly hope to oppose it if it begins rescinding our freedoms. If our government decided to suspend the Constitution (which, to hear some of you tell it, Ashcroft is already working on) and declare martial law tomorrow-- become a police state-- you wouldn't take up arms against it? Why do you think the Constitution was written? Seriously. For what reason do you think it was written?
