Gun Control. Knife Control. Tomorrow, pointy sticks?

[Timber Loftis]

Ah, I love to see anti-gun nuts try to interpret gun ownership out of the constitution. HA! You do realize that doing so is historical revisionism. Since a gun was a common household item, a useful TOOL, kept in almost every home during the time period, your interpretation could not have been what ANYONE was thinking. But, whatever. You keep thinking what you think, and I'll keep pointing and laughing at you.

Generally, though, thank goodness we are finally moving to a society where all of these decisions are dictated by statute. I'm so irritated with having to *think,* I'll be very happy to let my government do it for me. And, who can trust other people to think? Nope -- that's a job for the government.

[Azred]

Originally posted by Grojlach: quote: Originally posted by Azred: No, I think a sufficiently long period of time has elapsed to accurately measure the effect of bans or restrictions on guns. The net effect: bans/restrictions don't work, just like Prohibition didn't work and the War on Drugs didn't work.

That's a very bold statement that I would love to see you support with some evidence. While I agree with the Prohibition/War on Drugs example, and while I'm pretty sure a ban on guns in the US wouldn't work in a million years, I don't think you can hold that claim for other, less gun-fixated nations. In a similar fashion to taking cultural and social developments into account as I applied in my previous posts in this topic, I'm not going to claim that statistics are automatically conclusive; but if you look at for instance homicide rates, those are still significantly higher in the US than in Western Europe. I'm not going to make bold claims as to the effectiveness of gun restriction laws based on that figure, but I can't imagine you stating that it has no effect whatsoever in the face of this knowledge.

Also see
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502.pdf [/QUOTE]I do not need to have "evidence" to back up my opinion. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

Bans on guns (or certain gun types) do nothing to deter crime rates because the criminals don't care about laws banning guns. Bans have an effect only on law-abiding citizens, who then wind up being defenseless in the face of gun-wielding criminals...or jack-booted governmental thugs. Decades of martial arts movies to the contrary, not even the most highly-trained artist would try to take on a punk with a pistol. In a face-to-face confrontation, the gun almost always wins.

Therefore, argue relative crime rates until you are blue in the face; I am a mathematician, so I know how statistics are meaningless because almost everyone misuses them. Argue about how allowing gun ownership makes a society violent, even though there have been plenty of "violent" societies that have existed without guns. Argue about how "my side" is better than "your side". Whatever. My opinion will remain the same: a fully-armed society in which anyone may own a gun (with a license) is a safer (or at least more polite) society. Why? Because some criminals won't pounce upon a person who just might be packing heat.

[Aragorn1]

Originally posted by Azred: My opinion will remain the same: a fully-armed society in which anyone may own a gun (with a license) is a safer (or at least more polite) society. Why? Because some criminals won't pounce upon a person who just might be packing heat.

You mean you can wander about the streets with a gun?!!!
I mean, any psycho can get a gun and wander about the street?
Safe, real safe...
Our police don't even carry guns, unless for a specific purpose, i.e. armed response or guarding a potential terrorist target. If they feel happy without one, so do I. I have never felt a gun would make me feel more safe.

[ 05-31-2005, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Aragorn1 ]

[shamrock_uk]

What about the causality though? If a burglar expects that the house he's about to burgle might have a gun inside, he will make sure he's armed appropriately. Whereas the victim might have got away with a knock on the head before, now they might end up dead.

It seems to me that legalisation of this sort amounts to escalation, and is therefore not much different than the arms races we see on a global scale.

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by Aragorn1: quote: Originally posted by Azred: My opinion will remain the same: a fully-armed society in which anyone may own a gun (with a license) is a safer (or at least more polite) society. Why? Because some criminals won't pounce upon a person who just might be packing heat.

You mean you can wander about the streets with a gun?!!!
I mean, any psycho can get a gun and wander about the street?
Safe, real safe...
Our police don't even carry guns, unless for a specific purpose, i.e. armed response or guarding a potential terrorist target. If they feel happy without one, so do I. I have never felt a gun would make me feel more safe. [/QUOTE]That depends largely on local ordinances. In rural communities it's common to see people with gunracks in their pickups loaded with shotguns, rifles, etc. For handguns a simple concealed weapon permit makes it fully legal for the area covered by the permit (as long as the gun is also registered and legal).

{edit} background investigations are of course required for concealed weapons permits, as well as training classes in most areas. There are things that can expedite the process like military service.

[ 05-31-2005, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: What about the causality though? If a burglar expects that the house he's about to burgle might have a gun inside, he will make sure he's armed appropriately. Whereas the victim might have got away with a knock on the head before, now they might end up dead. It seems to me that legalisation of this sort amounts to escalation, and is therefore not much different than the arms races we see on a global scale.

I see things differently, if the house I was going to break into looked like there might be a reasonable chance for a gun to be present I would move on to an easier mark, one where my life would be less likely to be in danger.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: What about the causality though? If a burglar expects that the house he's about to burgle might have a gun inside, he will make sure he's armed appropriately. Whereas the victim might have got away with a knock on the head before, now they might end up dead.

Fair enough. I, however, am for taking my fate into my own hands. Which is the point, really. The intruder in my house may or may not have a gun, whether or not a gun is legal or illegal. Accordingly, I want to make sure I have one, whatever ramifications that may have on the ne'er-do-well's behavior. It's like an insurance policy -- something I hope to never have to use, but something I hate to do without.

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Azred: I do not need to have "evidence" to back up my opinion. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] Bans on guns (or certain gun types) do nothing to deter crime rates because the criminals don't care about laws banning guns. Bans have an effect only on law-abiding citizens, who then wind up being defenseless in the face of gun-wielding criminals...or jack-booted governmental thugs. Decades of martial arts movies to the contrary, not even the most highly-trained artist would try to take on a punk with a pistol. In a face-to-face confrontation, the gun almost always wins.

I will never understand the fear-based mindset that makes something think "hey, but if you take away our guns, I can't defend myself against the criminals anymore!", and that's probably the cause of all of our disagreements. I wonder though, if you personally ever decided to move abroad to a country with gun restriction laws and which doesn't have a gun culture, would you still feel the need to own a gun in order to defend yourself, even if only on a subconscious level? I certainly don't feel the need to own one, and we have strict anti-gun ownership laws over here.

Originally posted by Azred: Therefore, argue relative crime rates until you are blue in the face; I am a mathematician, so I know how statistics are meaningless because almost everyone misuses them. Argue about how allowing gun ownership makes a society violent, even though there have been plenty of "violent" societies that have existed without guns. Argue about how "my side" is better than "your side". Whatever.

No need to be rude about it.

Originally posted by Azred: My opinion will remain the same: a fully-armed society in which anyone may own a gun (with a license) is a safer (or at least more polite) society. Why? Because some criminals won't pounce upon a person who just might be packing heat.

And I'm convinced that the complete opposite is true. Agree to disagree, then? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 05-31-2005, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Aragorn1: You mean you can wander about the streets with a gun?!!! I mean, any psycho can get a gun and wander about the street? Safe, real safe... Our police don't even carry guns, unless for a specific purpose, i.e. armed response or guarding a potential terrorist target. If they feel happy without one, so do I. I have never felt a gun would make me feel more safe.

A "psycho" is likely to wander around with a gun regardless of whether it is legal or not. Our laws ensure that the law-abiding citizens can also wander the streets with a gun if they comply with local laws and recieve proper certification.

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Ah, I love to see anti-gun nuts try to interpret gun ownership out of the constitution. HA! You do realize that doing so is historical revisionism. Since a gun was a common household item, a useful TOOL, kept in almost every home during the time period, your interpretation could not have been what ANYONE was thinking. But, whatever. You keep thinking what you think, and I'll keep pointing and laughing at you. Generally, though, thank goodness we are finally moving to a society where all of these decisions are dictated by statute. I'm so irritated with having to *think,* I'll be very happy to let my government do it for me. And, who can trust other people to think? Nope -- that's a job for the government.

Hot Damn TL, did you enjoy the holiday? My Man, you have given this thread the one-two- shut the heck up, and get over it post!

Checks all 6 cylinders, good to go! Checks the law, good to go!