Poll: Voting in the coming election

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 30, registered Independent, and realizing my vote in the next election won't mean diddly-squat. First, Bush will win. Second, I live in Illinois which will vote Democratic no matter what. So, no need.

But wonder if everyone had that type of thinking? Everyone should go out and vote, you saw how close it came last time. Down to THOUSANDS.

[Timber Loftis]

Z-man! Nice to see you visiting the war current event forum. I recognize the importance of the individual vote when it counts. As I said, if the race is close (at all) in my state, I'll make a mad dash to the polls. As to who I'd vote for... I'm still deciding.

[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by Gab: Oblivion, you can go on with this BS about gun control, but you're wrong. It hardly makes any difference having a gun in your house. Burglars usually don't break into a house when there's people home. If they do, it's almost always late at night when everyone's asleep. You wouldn't likely get to your gun on time nor would the thief let you. If you did, you'd risk getting killed in a gun fight. The best answer would be to just simply call the police.

First, how am I bullshitting? Just saying I'm wrong doesn't MAKE me wrong. Second, who the hell sleeps through a break-in? Is everyone in Canada a Narcoleptic or something? Also, the thief doesn't even know if I have a firearm in the home, nor could he likely prevent me from getting it. If he knew I did, chances are he'd rob a different house. I'd keep the pistol on the night stand, next to the head-ache medicines and whatever book I'm reading, but it'd be in a lockbox. I'd rather risk getting killed in a gunfight than wait for 30 minutes for the police to get to my home. By that time the burglar could have completely cleaned out the lower floors of my house, and left me damn near penniless. Not to mention, if in fact he is carrying a firearm, he could have my family dead in under a minute flat. I'd rather kill him. My family means more to me than he does, and he's a direct threat. Burglars are not superhuman monsters with omniscient vision into your home, they're not that smart either, that's why they're home-burglars. Smart criminals are already into slightly more white-collar things, like 'Give-up' hijackings, credit card schemes, and car theft.

I'll also mention there's been dozens deaths in California from firearms because of roadside rage and fights with family members. With so many homocides from firearms in America each year, it makes sense to have gun control.

Two words about the roadside rage and family fighting: Prove it! If my civilized instinct has broken down so much that I can shoot someone, I can most certainly stab them or start hitting them as well. Should we ban closing of hands and knives to get rid of that trouble as well?

And, at 11000 (a number Michael Moore had to use redundant factors to get, I might add) assuming they're all really homicides (which they're not, some of them are police killings, and a very large number are self-defense killings, but the data from that particular year was never broken down, especially by anti-gun groups) dead from firearm use/misuse every year, that's 1 per 20000... Everyone dies, but in the United States, one in every 20000 meets their end by way of the gun. That's 0.005% of all deaths. You should see the stabbing and blunt instrument murder numbers in any city, they are one reason some use the violent culture and history argument, and they seem highest in ethnically diverse areas (in short, Heston was right) where racial conflict is high.

[b]Regarding Canada, I can asure you that crime with firearms hasn't increased (might have with poverty, though) and we've had gun control laws there since the 60s. There's been only a few murders in Canada each year from guns. [/QB]

Citing raw numbers is misleading, and very significant in propaganda tactics. A lot more people live in the US, and there are more criminals here too (more stuff is illegal, for starters) in some areas. Assure all you like, but the numbers don't agree. Like I said, there once was a time where theory picked a fight with reality, and reality threw theory into the dirt, and proceeded to give it a sound beating...

[Gab]

Are you trying to tell that you always have a gun close to you when you sleep?! Are you that scared of buglars breaking in ?! I must say that it's a false sense of security. Many theifs aren't as stupid as you think. Most burglars are good at being very quit and can break in without waking you up. If it's the middle of the night and you're fast asleep, the burglar could use tools to open a window and crawl in without waking you up. It's that simple. If you were waken up, you'd be in the dark,sleepy and stumbling trying to get your gun. Not to mention that the thief usually just wants your valuable things instead of killing you. In fact, he"s more likely shoot if you've got a gun.

If you wan't to know the exact number about family homicides and road rage, look it up yourself! If you got so angry at a family member, you might take out a gun and shoot them without thinking. It's totally ridiculous comparing a gun to a knife or your fists. It would take many slashes with a knife to kill someone, while one shot of the gun can be fatal.

11,000 deaths each year from a firearm is pretty sugnificant even if the data isn't completely correct. In fact it's higher. It's doesn't matter if some of them have been deaths from firearms out of self-defence, that's still a death. Is the thiefs life not important? The total number deaths from a firearm each year in the United States alone (no matter the reason) is around 25000.

There was once a time where theory picked a fight with what was believed to be reality,and theory threw what was believed to be reality into the dirt, and proceded to give it a sound beating...

[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by Gab: Are you trying to tell that you always have a gun close to you when you sleep?! Are you that scared of buglars breaking in ?! I must say that it's a false sense of security. Many theifs aren't as stupid as you think. Most burglars are good at being very quit and can break in without waking you up. If it's the middle of the night and you're fast asleep, the burglar could use tools to open a window and crawl in without waking you up. It's that simple. If you were waken up, you'd be in the dark,sleepy and stumbling trying to get your gun. Not to mention that the thief usually just wants your valuable things instead of killing you. In fact, he"s more likely shoot if you've got a gun.

I didn't say I was really secure. I'm not 'secure' in the truest sense of things. There's only one way to be sure of security, and that would be to submit all of my freedoms and allow myself to be locked in a solitary confinement cell for the rest of my life. I'll just be better able to react. If what you're saying is true that in fact most people sleep through breakins (unsubstantiated, but we'll go with it) and I happen to be the odd-man-out who wakes up and has the gun, isn't it rather likely that the burglars have gotten smart, and spared themselves the bulk of a clunky firearm (one worth carrying, a Jennings .25 or a Allen-Wheelock .22 Short isn't even worth the weight, really, it beats throwing rocks, however) and save that space for an additional item, a dozen wristwatches, perhaps. If not, then he won't be expecting my conscious response, and I can blast him or talk him down rather easily. Surprise is one hell of an advantage, history has proven this over, and over, and over, and over... Also, I wake up FAST. When I go to bed, I do so with latent traces of caffeine in my blood, and I in general don't sleep well. I'm a very light sleeper, and infrequently so. It's related to a nervous condition I have.

If you wan't to know the exact number about family homicides and road rage, look it up yourself! If you got so angry at a family member, you might take out a gun and shoot them without thinking. It's totally ridiculous comparing a gun to a knife or your fists. It would take many slashes with a knife to kill someone, while one shot of the gun can be fatal.

YOU get the numbers, I've read the numbers, and you made the argument! Do your own homework! There's a reason the Fifth Ammendment was passed: Asking someone to send themselves up the river is unreasonable. If your argument were founded, then I suppose you would have no trouble presenting it yourself. Also, have you not heard of stabbing? With a pen, fork or tableknife, I could easily pierce your windpipe in a single blow. If I were THAT angry, you would likely have more trouble with my wrath in general than just what I was armed with. Slashing is mainly a disabling tactic, albeit not nearly as reliable as good frangible ammunition (Glaser comes to mind) from a compact firearm. If your 'might' scenario can't be shown as a common example, I'm going to guess your balloon is deflated.

11,000 deaths each year from a firearm is pretty sugnificant even if the data isn't completely correct. In fact it's higher. It's doesn't matter if some of them have been deaths from firearms out of self-defence, that's still a death. Is the thiefs life not important? The total number deaths from a firearm each year in the United States alone (no matter the reason) is around 25000. There was once a time where theory picked a fight with what was believed to be reality,and theory threw what was believed to be reality into the dirt, and proceded to give it a sound beating...

You aren't getting the point, everyone dies, but if 1/10000 or less of our population is dying of a particular cause, it's not a significant problem when far greater numbers die of something like car crashes or heart disease or cancer. AIDS kills more people in the US than all firearm related deaths (including deaths related to the manufacture of ammunition, which are rare these days) and it's rather paltry when you consider that heart disease kills more people than it, car accidents and cancer combined. The problem is, a number of those heart disease cases are related to weight problems, most of which are rather fixable. Accidental firearms deaths can be eliminated or rendered negligable by simply educating people about them, and ideal storage practices.

Also, way to twist my rhetoric (well-applied) into a hypocritical statement. You're semantically arguing a point up and down, but your theory doesn't have any reality to back it up. I've got a few angles, History, raw numbers, and criminology reports.

[Gab]

Oblivion, it's you who isn't getting the point and I don't have time right now to give you a huge responce to your argument. My whole point was that gun control lowers homicides from firearms. You're going off topic and state that you're a light sleeper and would be able to react quickly with a burglary, but not everyone is like that. Like I said before, most thiefs want your valuable stuff rather than killing you. The best solution is a burglar alarm.

I cannot remeber where I got the information on family shootings and roadside rage (I'm seriously not lying! I don't even know exactly how to provide links to sites), but it occurs. Do I need absolute and concrete evidence for you to belive me? A guy gets into a fight with a family member, he gets so angry and shoots and kills them without thinking. What on earth makes you think that hasn't happened? I know there's been dozens of those. Take faith. It's that simple and I think we should leave it at that.

I know there are many other things that kill much more people, but gun control lowers homicide from firearms. The less deaths the better of course and most of them aren't accidental.

[ 02-22-2004, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: Gab ]

[Seraph]

My whole point was that gun control lowers homicides from firearms.

Then why does Canada, which has a substantually higher number of guns per capita, have a lower homicide rate from firearms? Switzerland has more firepower per person than any other country in the world, yet it is one of the safest places on Earth. How does "gun control lowers homicides from firearms" explain that?

About the only country I am aware of that really has ever had success with "gun control lowers homicides from firearms" is Nazi Germany, which used some really heavy handed tactics and managed to get the (non-state sponsered non-war related) homicide rate down to an increadibly low level.

A guy gets into a fight with a family member, he gets so angry and shoots and kills them without thinking. What on earth makes you think that hasn't happened? I know there's been dozens of those.

If he decided to kill them with an axe would you be in support of axe control?

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

I am ALL for gun control. But I admit that if you really want to kill someone, you'll find a way.
However, guns make it very easy to kill people. It's much more difficult to, say, get a knife and stab. For one thing, stabbing is a much more 'involved' way to kill someone than just pulling a trigger.
Shooting requires less thought, I believe. It would be easier to shoot someone in the heat of the moment than to wait and kill them later.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Bush has been a popular war-time president overall. And, having suffered through those woeful years of rampant economic success and scandalous behavior under Clinton, Republics have now crawled out of the woodwork to yell loudly and affirmatively that they're going to put the world back the way it oughta be. And Bush is their man to do it. His biggest failure -- spending -- will be forgiven in light of the war. I simply think he'll get re-elected unless he does something truly stupid (meaning above and beyond his normal level). ********* So, down with Dems in '04, most likley.

I'd like to update this reasoning with new facts:

Ralph "the Asshole Closet Republican" Nader is running. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by Gab: Oblivion, it's you who isn't getting the point and I don't have time right now to give you a huge responce to your argument. My whole point was that gun control lowers homicides from firearms. You're going off topic and state that you're a light sleeper and would be able to react quickly with a burglary, but not everyone is like that. Like I said before, most thiefs want your valuable stuff rather than killing you. The best solution is a burglar alarm.

Burglars interviewed have stated that the one thing that they feared the most when they first started breaking into homes was the possibility that the people who lived there were gun enthusiasts, or even kept a firearm in the house. They admitted to the interviewers that if they'd managed to wake them up (a very common occurence among break-ins, it's not easy to get through latched windows and locked doors without making lots of noise, it's an art-form that our intelligence services and some of the best thieves in the world are among the few capable of so doing. I'd say the same thing about thieves. Gangsters, Wiseguys, burglars, robbers, drug dealers, they're out for the money, quite a few of them lack the viciousness of professional killers or serial murderers and thusly aren't willing to stick their necks out any further than it takes. You said I'd get shot, so I clarified that I don't sleep well enough to be easily busted out.

I cannot remeber where I got the information on family shootings and roadside rage (I'm seriously not lying! I don't even know exactly how to provide links to sites), but it occurs. Do I need absolute and concrete evidence for you to belive me? A guy gets into a fight with a family member, he gets so angry and shoots and kills them without thinking. What on earth makes you think that hasn't happened? I know there's been dozens of those. Take faith. It's that simple and I think we should leave it at that.

Well, to provide a link to a site type the address out. Go find the information again so I can see it. Show me that it occurs on a significant basis (I want you to show more family shootings than snuff films, if that helps for the ballpark figure I'm looking for) and I'll agree that it's a problem. The roadside rage thing, well, like I said, get the info together and I'll concede. As for your question, yes, I need absolute and concrete proof! You have to prove something has happened, especially when using it as a point of contention. I shant take faith where liberty is concerned, it's never 'that simple' and we'll argue this one till Apocalypse and back else one leverage the other. Freedom is more important to me than security. The first ordered societies existed purely to limit individual freedom. The formation of the United States and the Bill of Rights are a radical step in the opposite direction. Our power to defend that ideology of freedom is as important as the freedom itself.

I know there are many other things that kill much more people, but gun control lowers homicide from firearms. The less deaths the better of course and most of them aren't accidental.

The possibility of gun control lowering firearm homicide is unproven. Quite the opposite, when we cross-section various areas of highly restrictive control against the areas with no control, and even highly encouraged and celebrated ownership, the revelation is startling: Areas where firearms aren't totally maligned and looked down upon, and the principles of responsibility and discipline that good ownership entails, have few firearms related deaths. There's a whole category of deaths we should be eliminating from the debate: Self-defense killings and police killings... Either of those are basically acceptable if you believe self defense is a natural right, and criminals gunned down by law enforcement aren't to be considered.