Is it better to carry a gun or not?

[Dreamer128]

Originally posted by MILAMBER: quote: Originally posted by Dreamer128: quote: Originally posted by Spelca: quote: Originally posted by MILAMBER: ... I ask you, where is the difference between shooting bows and shooting rifles? Is archery a noble sport and shooting not? Both were initially created with the sole purpose of killing, yet exceptions are made in one instance and not the other. Why is that? I submit that shooting guns is no different then shooting a bow and arrow. Both can be dangerous in the hands of those lacking maturity and training.

There's nothing wrong with shooting as a sport. But walking around with a gun is different. And there is a difference between walking around with a gun and with a bow. You can see the bow, and you can't see the gun...
[/QUOTE]I don't see a kid with a bow killing 18 students, but thats just me.[/QUOTE]This is limited to the hypothetical plane. Kids have killed other kids with knives and baseball bats before. Should nobody be allowed to own a knife? Should baseball be banned?[/QUOTE]Sure, kids can kill each other with almost everything. A pen can be very dangerous if you stick it in someones eye. But thats not the point. The point is that pistols are designed to hurt people. And they can cause alot more damage then knife's or baseball bats. Did any kid ever kill two dozen people at once with a knife or baseball bat? I don't think so.

[ 05-01-2002, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

[Azred]

re: guns and personal safety.

These numbers come directly from the National Vital Statistics Report released on 9 October 2001 for the calendar year 2000. Of course, these numbers are US statistics only.

Total number of deaths in 2000: 2,404,624
Total number of deaths due to injury by a firearm: 28,117

That means only 1.17% of all US deaths were gun-related.

Drug- and alcohol-related deaths were 15,852 and 18,539 respectively; they total to more than gun-related deaths.

Automobile-related deaths were 41,804, almost 50% more than gun-related deaths.

Breast cancer (42,290) and prostate cancer (31,255) also claimed more lives than guns.

*****

Follow the link to the report; you may see the numbers for yourself. There are many causes of death that claim more lives than guns. Would anyone suggest we take away automobiles? [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img]

Bottom line: if you are a responsible adult and you want to own guns, then do it. Guns are primarily for sporting and hunting. Enjoy your Second Amendment rights!

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Azred: quote: Originally posted by Spelca: I would be terrified to go out on the street if I knew that people have guns with them... I would feel less safe then than I do now when I know that it's harder to get a gun. I'm in Sweden btw. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I doesn't take guns to make the streets unsafe; glass bottles or bricks can do that. Or fists. Do those make you feel unsafe?[/QUOTE]Well, I would feel more unsafe if anyone could get a gun, yes. A gun can kill you, while a brick or a broken bottle can hurt you, but probably not kill you. Probably... And like Neb said, it's easier to run away from a brick and a broken bottle. AND you can see if a person is carrying it.

I know somebody on the thread said that you need a permit to 'carry' a gun. But what's stopping other people from carrying a gun also? I know, I know, criminals can then carry guns too, and they'd get guns no matter how many laws would be written. But it would still be better if people would actually need a permit to get a gun, and that it would be made sure that the person buying a gun isn't a person that gets upset easily, etc.

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Azred: re: guns and personal safety. ... Follow the link to the report; you may see the numbers for yourself. There are many causes of death that claim more lives than guns. Would anyone suggest we take away automobiles? [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img]

No, BUT you need a licence to drive a car, and you have to go through a medical check-up before you get it, and a first aid course, etc (at least where I live). And drivers get stopped regularly by policemen to check their driverse licence. And also cars get checked my mechanics. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 05-01-2002, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

[Azred]

Let me rephrase my statement, then. Some people would like to see guns restricted because they lead to deaths. I agree--guns do sometimes lead to death, when they are used by those who are irresponsible or have malicious intent. However, if you follow this line of reasoning then you must also begin restricting other causes of death; hence, restrictions on automobiles, knives, etc.

I have had knives used on me, but I don't think restricting the right to own knives is a logical or valid decision.

I have had a gun pointed at me, but I don't think taking away the Second Amendment right to own guns is a logical or valid decision.

Only those people who think that most adults are as irresponsible as children who need constant supervision ever suggest taking away all guns. I cannot overemphasize the fact that, in America, responsible gun ownership is a guaranteed right that should not be arbitrarily revoked. I am in favor of background checks, licensing, and training if you decide to own a gun, yes, but responsible adults will get/do these things anyway.

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Neb: quote: Originally posted by Thoran: Israel allows it's citizens to carry firearms (if they've received training) and actually will provide a citizen with a firearm at their request (which it does millions of times a year), It has one of the lowest murder rates in the world.

Do not forget what country you're talking about. They're pretty much threatened too much by the surrounding countries to think of hurting each other much I should say, that might be a factor. As well as being the reason for them allowing gun ownership. Likewise, the Swiss might also simply be a less violent group of people.[/QUOTE]yes exactly... they're a less violent group of people. My belief is that the presence or lack of firearms really doesn't change the death toll much. If a society is violent then it will show in the statistics, but statistics are funny things, for instance, Europe has much lower rates of Homocide than the US, but makes up for it by much higher suicide rates (weird...)

It's also interesting that the Palestinian terrorists don't use guns to do their public damage. Not long after a gunman walked into a McDonalds in California and killed 20 unarmed people (a few years back), 3 terrorists walked into a crowd of Israeli's and opened fire on them. They killed one before two of them were shot and killed and the third wounded by armed civilians. The surviving terrorist was quoted as saying that "it wasn't fair" that the civillians were armed.

Now they sneak around an blow stuff up, and I think even if you took the guns away 100%, the criminals would move to something else... like bombing. Whatever component of our society (inequality, poverty, education, whatever...) causes these violent tendencies is the root cause, guns are simply the knee jerk reaction. (Like when Chicago banned "Super-Soakers" after some kid got killed for spraying someone)

[MILAMBER]

Originally posted by Thoran: quote: Originally posted by MILAMBER: quote: Originally posted by Spelca: quote: Originally posted by MILAMBER: ... I ask you, where is the difference between shooting bows and shooting rifles? Is archery a noble sport and shooting not? Both were initially created with the sole purpose of killing, yet exceptions are made in one instance and not the other. Why is that? I submit that shooting guns is no different then shooting a bow and arrow. Both can be dangerous in the hands of those lacking maturity and training.

There's nothing wrong with shooting as a sport. But walking around with a gun is different. And there is a difference between walking around with a gun and with a bow. You can see the bow, and you can't see the gun...

I would be terrified to go out on the street if I knew that people have guns with them... I would feel less safe then than I do now when I know that it's harder to get a gun. I'm in Sweden btw. [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]There are two different ways to carry a firearm on you. You can carry, which means in plain site, or you can carry concealed which means you can hide the weapon on your person. The ONLY people who can get concealed weapons permits either work for the government, or work as say a bodyguard in the pivate sector. Conceales weapons permits are VERY difficult to obtain. Also, the only place in the U.S that you can carry any type of weapon on you in public is Texas, a nd when you do, it has to be in plain site.

So, while you could see somebody carrying a bow, you could likewise see somebody carrying a gun, unless they worked for the government.[/QUOTE]While your intent is accurate, the details are not 100%.

Vermont is the only state in the country that allows concealed carry without permit.

Somewhere around a third of the country allows concealed carrying of a handgun with the proper permit (if required)

There has been no documentable increase in firearms related violence in states which passed concealed carry laws.

If there is a statistical deduction to be made regarding gun control, it would be that states and countries where gun ownership is allowed have LOWER rates of homicide than those with strict gun control laws than their gun control neighbors. In europe for instance, Switzerland requires firearm ownership of it's citizens, and has a homicide rate that's HALF that of handgun banning Luxembourg.
In the US in 2000, states that had Right-to-Carry laws had lower violent crime rates on average, compared to the rest of the country. Their total violent crime rate was 21.9% lower, murder was 28.4% lower, robbery was 37.7% lower, and aggravated assault was 16.5% lower. (admittedly this data was compiled by a pro-gun forum... but it was extracted from the fbi crimes database. I would be interested to see conflicting data from a pro-control source)

Israel allows it's citizens to carry firearms (if they've received training) and actually will provide a citizen with a firearm at their request (which it does millions of times a year), It has one of the lowest murder rates in the world.

I think the idea that disarming the public will make the country safer is simply not supported by ANY data... domestic or foreign. I believe representing gun owners as trigger happy hicks does a disservice to the pro-gun control community, becuse it's an obvious ploy to artificially dismiss the valid arguments of that community... without having to actually respond to their arguments. That sort of tactic appears evasive to me... so of course I wonder why a group who feels so strongly has to evade simple debate points.

I respect the right of anyone to choose not to own firearms (as I have chosen not to own a handgun). But I simply can't support the idea of taking a right away from someone simply because you THINK it will somehow improve society. Beyond that, I see people continuing to blindly push this concept, with not a shred of evidence to support their position... and significant evidence to the contrary. If I've ever seen a more head in the sand, hands over the ears screaming "I can't hear you" group of people I sincerely can't think of where.

Now if you'll excuse me, me 'n pa r gonna head out to da woodshed and shute us some possum... from thirdy paces fer shure.[/QUOTE]I stand corrected. The only laws I'm really familliar with are Californian laws. I did a little bit of research for curiosities sake, and Vermont is the only state that DOESN'T have any concealed weapons legislature. It's not that the law says you can carry concealed, it just doesn't say you can't carry concealed.

[ 05-01-2002, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: MILAMBER ]

[MILAMBER]

Originally posted by Dreamer128: quote: Originally posted by MILAMBER: quote: Originally posted by Dreamer128: quote: Originally posted by Spelca: quote: Originally posted by MILAMBER: ... I ask you, where is the difference between shooting bows and shooting rifles? Is archery a noble sport and shooting not? Both were initially created with the sole purpose of killing, yet exceptions are made in one instance and not the other. Why is that? I submit that shooting guns is no different then shooting a bow and arrow. Both can be dangerous in the hands of those lacking maturity and training.

There's nothing wrong with shooting as a sport. But walking around with a gun is different. And there is a difference between walking around with a gun and with a bow. You can see the bow, and you can't see the gun...
[/QUOTE]I don't see a kid with a bow killing 18 students, but thats just me.[/QUOTE]This is limited to the hypothetical plane. Kids have killed other kids with knives and baseball bats before. Should nobody be allowed to own a knife? Should baseball be banned?[/QUOTE]Sure, kids can kill each other with almost everything. A pen can be very dangerous if you stick it in someones eye. But thats not the point. The point is that pistols are designed to hurt people. And they can cause alot more damage then knife's or baseball bats. Did any kid ever kill two dozen people at once with a knife or baseball bat? I don't think so.[/QUOTE]A little earlier in this thread, I was comparing a bow and arrow and the pistol because they were both designed with the sole intent of hurting others. You then came at me saying that they were different because you had never heard of any kids killing other kids with a bow and arrow. Now you say "The point is that pistols are designed to hurt people." Wait a minute. Lets break this down.

Both bow and arrows and pistols were created with the sole intent of killing. Agreed?

you say that bows are somehow less dangerous because you've never heard of anyone being killed with one.

You then say "A pen can be very dangerous if you stick it in someones eye. But thats not the point." Oh, so bows aren't dangerous in kids hands, but pens can be? Or is that "not the point" either.

Finally, you move on to say "The point is that pistols are designed to hurt people." We've already established that the point of bows and arrows is to hurt people as well. Therefore you are agreeing with my earlier statement by saying that bows and arrows are similar to guns in this respect? I guess I just got confused, because it sounded like you didn't agree with me earlier. Well as long as we're in agreement [img]smile.gif[/img] .

[Sir Taliesin]

[/qb][/QUOTE]No, BUT you need a licence to drive a car, and you have to go through a medical check-up before you get it, and a first aid course, etc (at least where I live). And drivers get stopped regularly by policemen to check their driverse licence. And also cars get checked my mechanics. [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QB][/QUOTE]

In the US, the only requirements for getting a licence to drive are proof of age (must be 16), correctable eye site,
and a drivers test. Got all of those and you can drive. To purchase a new firearm, you must be 21 years of age, have no felony convictions or violent misdemeaner convictions or restraining orders. Violent misdemeaners, include simple assault, which can be just making a threatening statement to someone who then takes a warrant out against you. You must be able to pass a background check.

To get a concealed carry permit (it varies from state to state), typically you must pass a second background check, go to a proscribed training course and qualify with your weapon. Some states also require a bond be posted. This process usually takes three months or more. Again all states are different. For example in my state, Tennessee it is relatively easy to get a concealed carry permit, where as in other states like California and New York, it's almost impossible.

Police the US must have probable cause to stop a car and inspect/search it. Some state have a car inspection and some don't. It is also very typical in the US that cities with the strictest gun-control have the highest crime rates.

[ 05-01-2002, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

[Morgan_Corbesant]

well, i have something that i think should be said. the only reason that no country has tried to take over America, is because we have the right to own a gun. Hitlers armies would have been crapping their pants if they came here, because they couldnt attack even the smallest town, for fear that they would be shot at from every angle imaginable. if you take away our right to own and carry a gun, then you take away our rights to defend ourselves rightfully. alot of people think that it makes it easy for criminals to get weapons. well, if a criminal wants a weapon, regardless of the laws, he will get one, and use it. i carry a gun, a H&K USP .40, and i feel alot more secure with it. if someone were to pull a knife, or gun on me, and i could pull mine in response, coupled with my training in the INFANTRY (meaning i have vast weapons training), then i know i would be able to win out, or have a better chance of doing so. however, if i DIDNT have a weapon, and that weapon were pulled on me, then that makes me an easy target, and a sitting duck. i say, let all who deserve and want one have them, and those who dont can sit and complain about them. i say VOTE CHARLETON HESTON for president!!!!