PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gun Control Debates
     Gun Myth #1

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The anti-gun community is decieving you.  This is the #1 tactic used by the anti-gun community to trick you into buying into their illogical opinion:

"GUN CRIME in england and australia has decreased subsequent to civilian disarmorment..."

Look at 99.9% of all anti-gun statistics.  THEY ALL SAY "gun crime has decreased."

The fact is, gun crime is irrelevant.  Correct me if I am wrong, but the TOTAL violent crime is what is relevant.  What good is it if gun crime decreases while total violent crime increases; you are less safe.  In England and Australia, citizens are more likely to be raped, assaulted, and violently robbed subsequent to civilian disarmorment.

You might say, "someone is more likely to get murdered in a crime where the criminal has a gun, thus justifying gun banning even if other violent crime increases."  This also if FALSE.  Murder in Australia has stayed ruffly stagnent, while murder in England has INCREASED.
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 01:09 AM on April 25, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My goodness.  I love the way you dissed the guy who couldn't spell Australia and then you can't even get "stagnant" right.  Don't throw rocks.  Let's look at an undisputed fact.  Most people who are killed by guns are killed by guns that were stolen (often their own).  Sure makes me want to own one.  Here's a radical concept... learn to protect yourself WITHOUT a gun.  I know, too radical of an idea.  Might even be a little logic in it.  We can't have that.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:48 AM on April 25, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 08:48 AM on April 25, 2006 :
 Here's a radical concept... learn to protect yourself WITHOUT a gun.  I know, too radical of an idea.  Might even be a little logic in it.  We can't have that.



Yeah, that is logical.  I'll tell my 115 lb fiance the same thing: "Baby, just learn how to karate chop those 250 lb rapists.  That solves everything."

Thats an awesome idea.  Maybe thats what they should do in England and Australia, where the criminals have guns and the civilians don't.  Just get the government to spend a couple billion dollars teaching every man, woman, and child Tae Bo
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 10:21 AM on April 25, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, let's say your 115lb fiancee (hopefully you are the fiance in this equation) has a fun and the attacker has one too, except he's already pulled his.  Since you fiancee has been taught to rely on her gun, except now she can't draw it without being blown away, and hasn't been taught any other way to deal with the situation, she is now dead and the attacker has two guns.  Congratulations.  

P.S.  Tae Bo is an exercise video, not self defense.  :P


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:50 AM on April 25, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 10:50 AM on April 25, 2006 :
Ok, let's say your 115lb fiancee (hopefully you are the fiance in this equation) has a fun and the attacker has one too, except he's already pulled his.  Since you fiancee has been taught to rely on her gun, except now she can't draw it without being blown away, and hasn't been taught any other way to deal with the situation, she is now dead and the attacker has two guns.  Congratulations.  

P.S.  Tae Bo is an exercise video, not self defense.  :P


Yeah, thats great.  Lets take the worst possible situation, and use it as an example for all situations, and lets get rid of all logic while we are at it.  

The truth is that attackers frequently don't have guns, and when they do you can frequently defend yourself against them by paying attention to your surroundings (responsibility and thought, its a strange concept for you I know).  Besides, any responsible adult knows to comply with an attacker where it is possible.  If I was carrying and someon pulled a gun or knife and demanded my wallet, I would give it to them and give them a chance to leave peacefully.  Unfortunately, peaceful resolution isn't always an option and defense is sometimes necessary for survival.

 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 10:56 AM on April 25, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, compliance works so well.  How many times have you seen people killed after they complied?  Attackers want compliance so that they can commit the crime without wasting time.  After the crime is commited and they are ready to flee, then they can kill you to remove witnesses.  Compliance worked real well for 9/11 as well.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:08 AM on April 25, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 11:08 AM on April 25, 2006 :
Yes, compliance works so well.  How many times have you seen people killed after they complied?  Attackers want compliance so that they can commit the crime without wasting time.  After the crime is commited and they are ready to flee, then they can kill you to remove witnesses.  Compliance worked real well for 9/11 as well.



So people can't defend themselves, and they can't comply.  Wow, you are a genius.  

There are situations in which compliance works, and there are situations in which it doesn't, necessitating self defense.  A responsible citizen plans for their own self defense, yet is not willing to take a life merely to protect personal property.  It is up to them to gauge the situation, and make the appropriate action.  In some situations, there is nothing you can do, such as when someone has a gun pointed directly at your face before you know whats happening.  In other situations preparation, knowledge, training, and careful consideration of your options WILL increase your chances of survival.
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 12:11 PM on April 25, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, and notice none of those options you listed require the use of a gun.  Precisely my point.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:49 PM on April 25, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 12:49 PM on April 25, 2006 :
Yes, and notice none of those options you listed require the use of a gun.  Precisely my point.


Self defense sometimes does require a gun.  Especially for women.

I, personally, would feel comfortable defending myself with my hands against someone with a knife or bat, depending on the size of the attacker.  Also, that would be after giving them a chance to retreat peacefully.  However, in other situations a gun would greatly increase the safety of the victim.


 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 2:33 PM on April 25, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, imagine you are a criminal with a gun.  You intend to rob, but not kill anyone.  However, your victim pulls a gun.  If they didn't have a gun you would let them go, but now it is your life or theirs.  Guess which one you pick.

If the attacker intends to kill, they will kill you whether or not you have a gun.  If they do not, you greatly increase your chances of being killed by having a gun.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:00 PM on April 25, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 4:00 PM on April 25, 2006 :
Ok, imagine you are a criminal with a gun.  You intend to rob, but not kill anyone.  However, your victim pulls a gun.  If they didn't have a gun you would let them go, but now it is your life or theirs.  Guess which one you pick.

If the attacker intends to kill, they will kill you whether or not you have a gun.  If they do not, you greatly increase your chances of being killed by having a gun.  



That is one situation among many, and you do not even account for the hundreds of variables within that situation.  

What if the attacker has a knife, and the woman has a gun?

What if the attacker is unarmed, and was going to depend solely on his strength to over power the woman, and the woman has a gun?

What if the attacker has a gun, and intends to rape and kill, yet in forcing her into some alley or something, he takes his eyes off her or lets the gun point at the ground?  She then has an opportunity to defend herself if she has chosen to carry a concealed weapon.

What if the attacker has a gun, and doesn't intend to kill but only rape, doesn't the woman have a right to defend herself, taking into account that it may be more dangerous?  In other words, doesn't the woman have the right to weigh risk versus reward and choose whether to comply and be raped (taking the chance that the attacker doesn't intend to kill), or take her chances defending herself?




It is extremely interesting to me how someone can be so delusional as to convince themself that a gun absolutely never makes someone safer.  Yet studies show that American citizens successfully use guns to defend themselves at least 800,000 times each year; some put the number as high as 2,000,000 times each year.  Even assuming you are right, banning guns still isn't justified unless you can show that it would reduce crime.  Statistics from other countries show that it causes violent crime to increase drastically.

(Edited by florida3006 4/25/2006 at 5:03 PM).
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 5:02 PM on April 25, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've never said I wanted to ban guns.  Where did you read that?  I'm simply pointing out that guns do more harm than good.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:16 PM on April 25, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sobering thought....

The FBI's "Crime in the United States" estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.

People with guns are twice as deadly as people without guns.

President Bill Clinton said, “I would close the gun show loophole, because the Brady bill has worked superbly. It’s given us a 35 percent drop in gun crime and a 31 year low in the homicide rate, and kept a half a million people — felons, fugitives, stalkers, from getting handguns.”  California, which has had at least a five-day waiting period for handgun purchases since 1965, experienced a greater decrease in its homicide rate (17.5%), in 1998, than the rest of the nation (7.4%).

there are 30,000 gun deaths in the country each year, with children nine times more likely to die in a gun accident than anywhere else in the civilized world,




-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:35 PM on April 25, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 5:35 PM on April 25, 2006 :
Sobering thought....

The FBI's "Crime in the United States" estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.

People with guns are twice as deadly as people without guns.


Thats a false conclusion, the variables are not mutually exclusive.  In other words, you cannot assume that all criminals have the same intent and that the ones with guns end up committing murder twice as often.  I would submit that a criminal with the intent to commit murder is more likely to get a gun than one who doesn't have than intent.


Quote from EMyers at 5:35 PM on April 25, 2006 :
President Bill Clinton said, “I would close the gun show loophole, because the Brady bill has worked superbly. It’s given us a 35 percent drop in gun crime and a 31 year low in the homicide rate, and kept a half a million people — felons, fugitives, stalkers, from getting handguns.”  California, which has had at least a five-day waiting period for handgun purchases since 1965, experienced a greater decrease in its homicide rate (17.5%), in 1998, than the rest of the nation (7.4%).

there are 30,000 gun deaths in the country each year, with children nine times more likely to die in a gun accident than anywhere else in the civilized world,


Quoting Bill Clinton or the Brady Campaign on gun control is the equivalent of quoting George Bush on WMDs.

The Brady Bill had such an enormous effect on crime, that when the Brady Bill Lapsed in September 2004 crime dropped for the first time in two years.  Makes perfect sense.
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 5:46 PM on April 25, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

PS - Its interesting how you just changed the topic.  Why don't you admit that there are situations in which a citizen is safer if they have a concealed weapon?
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 6:00 PM on April 25, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's easy.  There are situations where it is safer to NOT be wearing a seatbelt than it would be to be wearing a seatbelt.  However, since these are in the minority, I would be remiss and irresponsible to condone such behavior based on the outside chance that you might do more harm than good by following safety precautions.  

P.S.  I answered your "interesting" conclusion and then, separately, I posted an "interesting" sidenote.  Still can't find the post where I said I wanted to ban guns.  I'm sure you've got it bookmarked though.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:05 PM on April 25, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That analogy isn't exactly accurate.  It would be accurate if, while in the midst of a car accident, you could gauge whether it would be safer to have you seatbelt on or off and respond accordingly.  

 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 10:55 PM on April 25, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you are saying that during a gun fight you can safely gauge whether or not you should've brought your gun?  I don't think so.  The point is, more times than not, you are safer NOT having a gun.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:24 AM on April 26, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 09:24 AM on April 26, 2006 :
So you are saying that during a gun fight you can safely gauge whether or not you should've brought your gun?  I don't think so.  The point is, more times than not, you are safer NOT having a gun.


Why don't you try exerting your brain before you type?  We are not talking exclusively about 'gun fights,' in the same way that we are not talking exclusively about your biased hypos where a criminal always has a gun leveled at your head and there is absolutely nothing you can do.


In the event that someone is car jacked or mugged, they can gauge whether it is safer to comply or defend themselves depending on many many variables.  These variables would include what weapon the attacker has, his size, your surroundings...etc.  You can also comply first and then still have the option of self defense if the attacker doesn't leave peacefully.  If you get to the point where the attacker knows about your concealed weapon and you have not drawn it, i.e. they are stripping you, you probably should have already drawn it.


 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 11:32 PM on April 26, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

hypos?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 04:16 AM on April 27, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 04:16 AM on April 27, 2006 :
hypos?


hypotheticals.


 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 10:04 AM on April 27, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

while dealing in hypos, you guys have no chance of reaching any agreement.  you can always come up with more hypos which support your side!  how many people every year are killed after drawing their gun?  how many people per year are killed by guns?  how many crimes per year are committed with guns?  how many people's lives are spared per year because they drew their gun?  how many crimes are stopped per year by armed civilians?  EMyers, if guns are a problem but shouldnt be banned, what should be done?  florida, are you saying that there should be no regulation whatsoever of any kind of gun?  if not, then what kinds of regulation should there be?
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 12:43 AM on April 28, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I see absolutely no need to ban hunting weapons.  People need food.  I've yet to see ANYONE go hunting elk with a concealable handgun.  I've yet to see anyone go hunting pheasant with an automatic rifle (really, you need to become a better shot if you need one of these).  Guns are not for protection.  Armor is for protection.  Kevlar is for protection.  Guns are designed to kill.  And they are not designed to kill animals.  Period.  All Americans (non-felons) should be allowed to own a rifle.  No American really needs to own more than one.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:01 AM on April 28, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mythrandir at 12:43 AM on April 28, 2006 :
 florida, are you saying that there should be no regulation whatsoever of any kind of gun?  if not, then what kinds of regulation should there be?


Law abiding citizens should be able to OWN semi-automatic guns with relatively no restriction.  Felons should not be able to own guns, and under current laws they cannot.  I support any law which holds a person criminally liable for providing a gun to a felon.  I support any law which holds a person criminally liable for providing a gun to a child without parental supervision.  I support mandatory background checks at the time of purchasing any firearm, whether retail or at a gun show.  I do not support any gun owner registry.  I do not support any restriction on ammo capacity.  I do not support any restriction based on the features of a gun, other than the mode in which it despenses ammunition.  Folding stocks, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs do not kill people.  How many civilians in the last 200 years do you think have been killed with a bayonet on the end of a rifle?  Yet this is how 'assault weapons' are defined.



 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 4:03 PM on April 28, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 09:01 AM on April 28, 2006 :
I see absolutely no need to ban hunting weapons.  People need food.  I've yet to see ANYONE go hunting elk with a concealable handgun.  I've yet to see anyone go hunting pheasant with an automatic rifle (really, you need to become a better shot if you need one of these).  Guns are not for protection.  Armor is for protection.  Kevlar is for protection.  Guns are designed to kill.  And they are not designed to kill animals.  Period.  All Americans (non-felons) should be allowed to own a rifle.  No American really needs to own more than one.



This is the absolute absurdity of the anti-gun community.  They argue against guns, yet they do not have even a basic understanding of basic gun laws that are currently in existence.  They argue against guns, yet they do not take the time to have even a basic understanding of different types of guns.  Emyers, you are truly wasting our fucking time, because you are too lazy to even become informed before you post your opinions.  I have absolutely no tolerance for laziness, go read up on the subject before you come here.  

The second amendment, and civilian gun ownership in general has nothing to do with hunting, first of all.  Second, food supply is peripheral to hunting, at best.  Third, AUTOMATIC RIFLES ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO CIVILIANS IN ANY JURISDICTION IN THIS COUNTRY.  The FBI and the ATF regulate automatic rifles, and the hassle and background checks involved in obtaining are so extensive the relatively no one in this entire country owns an automatic rifle.  I honestly cannot believe that you would come here and waste everyones time without even understanding the basic laws that are currently in existence.  You say you support people's rights to hunt, yet hunters do not need more than one rifle?  This shows that you have absolutely no knowledge of hunting, or the way a gun works.  Guns shoot these things called bullets.  Different guns shoot different bullets, and different bullets are good for different things.  You could not hunt squirrel or rabit with the same rifle you use to hunt deer, and you could not ethically hunt elk or caribo with the same rifle that you use to hunt deer (by ethically, I mean in terms of concern for the animal).  Further, you cannot hunt birds with the same guns that you hunt land animals.  Do you even know the difference between a shotgun and a rifle?  Even beyond the types of ammo, different guns are good for different things.  A bolt action rifle is needed for long range hunting, a semi-automatic shotgun is needed for pheasant or qual hunting, a semi-automatic or lever action rifle is ideal for hunting land animals in dense woods....

your belief that civilian gun ownership is based in hunting shows you are absolutely ignorant to the entire argument behind civilian gun ownership.  Your belief that hunting entails only one rifle shows that you are also ignorant as to even basic ideas of hunting.  Your belief that anyone owns an automatic rifle, much less goes hunting with one, shows that you are completely uninformed about existing gun laws.

you are too lazy to inform yourself, yet you come here and voice your ill-informed opinion.  pathetic.

(Edited by florida3006 4/28/2006 at 4:22 PM).
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 4:17 PM on April 28, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How many civilians in the last 200 years do you think have been killed with a bayonet on the end of a rifle?

In the U.S.?  Thankfully, I can't think of many.  In third world countries?  You'd be surprised.  I think the reaons they are banned is that there is absolutely no reason to have one outside of war.  I think if you saw someone walking around downtown Manhattan with a rifle with a bayonet on it, you'd have to wonder what he was planning on using itt for.  Come to think of it, you'd probably be a little curious if he was hunting ducks with one too...


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:21 PM on April 28, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 4:21 PM on April 28, 2006 :
 I think the reaons they are banned is that there is absolutely no reason to have one outside of war.  



Luckily for me, and the entire country, your uninformed 'thoughts' are irrelevant.


 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 4:38 PM on April 28, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow, I didn't know you knew of a good reason to carry around a rifle with a bayonet on it.  Enlighten us.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:02 PM on April 28, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't need a folding stock, laser sight, or bayonett lug on my rifle.  You do not need a HD 40" flat panel TV.  There are millions of things that people don't need.
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 5:37 PM on April 28, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How very erudite of you.  No civilian in the U.S. has been killed by a M109A6 Paladin 155mm self propelled Howitzer either.  Let's start stocking those at Target.  Get a clue.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:39 PM on April 28, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 5:39 PM on April 28, 2006 :
How very erudite of you.  No civilian in the U.S. has been killed by a M109A6 Paladin 155mm self propelled Howitzer either.  Let's start stocking those at Target.  Get a clue.


Do you think it is relevant that bayonets are readily available and Howitzers aren't?  



 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 9:07 PM on April 28, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do I think ease of access should have any bearing on legality?  Hardly.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 9:30 PM on April 28, 2006 | IP
tempestv

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

how many sports cars, powerful gaming computers, xboxes, gallons of alcohol, pounds of high fat food, ect, are sold every year? are any of them really needed? in fact, cars, alcohol, and heart disease each kill more people every year than guns. heart disease, which is often caused by excessive fat in one's diet, killed 725000 americans in 1997, while firearm related homicides killed 15,690. yet, I have never seen or heard of "steak control"
EMyers, have you ever even once shot a gun?
try it before attacking the activity, you might find it a fun hobby.

as for bayonets, we aren't talking about walking anywhere with a bayonet affixed on a rifle. what was limited was the bayonet lug- the mounting bracket that holds the bayonet on the rifle. since they are present on military weapons which are (in gun control activist's minds) more deadly, then the bayonet lug must also be a real deadly piece of the gun huh?

I doubt that even if Howitzers were avalable, that they would ever be used to kill anybody. for one, they would be damn expensive, so your average street punk isn't going to be getting ahold of one. second, it really isn't an ideal murder weapon, considering the time it takes to set up, aim, the cost of the rounds, and exessive complexity of setting up the whole system. I can see some bank robber telling the teller "give me the money or I will call an artillery strike on the bank" the chances of a howitzer being used for crime are pretty much none. the people that would buy such a device would be wealthy (due to the cost of the device) gun enthusiasts wanting to have fun fireing a gun with a bore of six inches. I bet it would be a hell of a lot of fun. just pull it out in some field where it can't hurt any thing and shoot a couple rounds off. as long as everyone acts responsably, there is little danger.

as for if you are safer armed or not in mugging or whatever, According to data from 1979 to 1987 by the department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey, and printed in  "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws" by John Lott, while resistence to an attacker is generally associated with higher probabilities of serious injury to the victim, the probablity of serious injury from an attack is 2,5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. A women resisting with a gun is four times less likely to be seriously injured than if she resists with out a gun. men will also benifit, although the benefit is not as great. for a man, not resisting an attacker is 1.4 times more likely to get him hurt than resisting with a gun, while unarmed resistance is 1.5 times more likely to result in serious injury than armed resistance. you can come up with all the hypothetical situations you want, and maybe some of them have happened. however, the numbers show that standing passively is more likely to get a person hurt than pulling a gun on their attacker.
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 3:11 PM on April 29, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

tempestv, yes, I've fired an M-16 before.  I find no hobby in it.  What precisely is the point of having a bayonet lug on a gun with no bayonet?  Why would someone want a bayonet lug on their rifle?  I agree, I've never heard of someone being murdered with filet mignon.  As for "steak control", I'm sure your local vegan will take care of that aspect.  And if you'd taken the time to read the entire post, you'd realize that the Howitzer comment was aimed at the absurdity of legalizing something just because no civilian in the U.S. had been killed by one recently.  I assume you read the post so I'm rather unsure of what your point is supposed to be.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 8:36 PM on April 29, 2006 | IP
tempestv

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

so you think that the vegan that tells me that I can't eat meat either is right?

so howitzers, which are not marketed to civilians, and large enough to make it difficult to produce, store, or use illegaly, and which eve if made legal, would be very costly, making it out of reach of most people's pocket books, if only considering the cost of the metal used to make the gun in terms of scrap, which also fire large 6" shells (read expensive- a .50 BMG round costs up to three dollars a round, and a .700 nitro round, costs $100 dollars a round, and either of them are less than a sixth of the size of a 155mm shell) is a good comparison to a device that in reality is nothing more than a heavy spear, an 8 pound stick with a knife attached to it, a device that is attached or included on most every $200 sks, as well as a number of other former military weapons for sale around the country.

it is true that a bayonet really has no pratical purpose outside of war. however it is designed into a miraid of useful devices such as barrels, flash hiders, muzzle brakes, ect, which would require tooling and design changes for it's exclusion, yet does not get in the way in any way, and does not cause crime. it is beleved that the appendix is an organ that isn't really needed by humans anymore, that it was needed farther back in the evolutionary cycle, yet people don't have it removed just because it isn't needed anymore. it is the same thing with a bayonet lug- why should a gun manufaturer pay money to have tooling replaced to remove this feature if there are no problems with it being there?

I should also note that I beleve that if some person with a lot of extra cash wants to spend it on a pretty much useless multi million dollar gun that fires shells costing several hundred dollars each, and fire it off far away from other people where it can't hurt any thing, I really don't see the problem.  

I don't beleve that weapons access should be limited. even powerful weapons such as cannons, explosives, and weapons defined as destructive devices should be legal, with out a $200 regisration tax, although destructive devices should require a license to get ahold of. I know from experence that people that want to see something go boom are going to build their own bombs anyways, but it is possable that the easy access to professinal explosives would cause some of these people to go through the licensing and safety training necissary to procure "the good stuff" easily. in addition, these professinal devices are generally safer than pipe bombs cooked up in someone's basement, and far easier to track if used in a crime.
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 11:05 PM on April 29, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

so you think that the vegan that tells me that I can't eat meat either is right?


No, that's not what I said.  You said you'd never heard of steak control.  I said your local vegan could probably take care of that.  Talk to them for a few moments and I'm sure they'll bring it up.  chuckle.

so howitzers...

The point was made that things that haven't recently been used to kill civilians should be legal.  The howitzer reference pointed out the absurdity of that stance.  I thought that was clear.

I don't beleve that weapons access should be limited. even powerful weapons such as cannons, explosives, and weapons defined as destructive devices should be legal, with out a $200 regisration tax, although destructive devices should require a license to get ahold of.  

Not sure I've heard of a non-destructive weapon, but ok.  I'm sure that anyone who can afford a cannon can afford a $200 registration tax.  Not sure what they'd need it for.  Look, caribou, grab the M61A1 quick.  

I know from experence that people that want to see something go boom are going to build their own bombs anyways, but it is possable that the easy access to professinal explosives would cause some of these people to go through the licensing and safety training necissary to procure "the good stuff" easily. in addition, these professinal devices are generally safer than pipe bombs cooked up in someone's basement, and far easier to track if used in a crime.

What makes you think that legalizing an item will make people go through the licensing and safety training?  I can legally get a gun now.  If I want to use it for illegal means, I'm not going to buy one through the proper channels and license it, now am I?  There are plenty of "professional" items available now.  Many in the hands of those who can't legally obtain them.  How easy do you think it is for local law enforcement to track these?  No, really.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:52 PM on April 29, 2006 | IP
tempestv

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

and the vegan that tells everyone that we need to stop access to fatty foods such as steak is regarded as a nutcase by most people (from the sound of it, yourself included.) yet heart disease kills more than twenty times more people a year than firearms (assuming 35000 gun deaths a year) as such, I find if rather odd that while you laugh at the guy saying we need the goverment to step in to fight fat, yet you think that the goverment should step in to fight guns. who is the real nutjob?

And I thouht that it was clear that a several ton vehical towed extreamly expensive cannon that isn't sold to civilians has little to do with a simple, cheap, readly avalable edged weapon, many thousands of which are sold every singal year, which can be bought for less than $200 including the firearm to mount it on, and is basicly based on the spear, which is one of the oldest offensive weapons ever created. I guess I was wrong.

to clarify, when I say a weapon clasified as a distructive device, I mean those that are classified as such by the btaf- granade launchers, rockets, granades, large bore recoilless rifles, explosives, ect, and require a $200 tax stamp to transfer. I agree that anyone that can buy one of these weapons for the hell of it can probaly afford the tax on it.

again, to clarify, I am not talking about using explosives for crime or something. I am talking about some guys getting some explosives and setting them off in a field or whatever, just to see them explode for the fun of it. what I said was that if someone wants to get ahold of some bomb or something, then they will. if they can't get it legally, then they will buy it illegaly, or make it- I have seen enough sparkler bombs, pipe bombs, ect. to know that very powerful and dangerous explosive devices can be made at home. many of them are unstable and rather dangerous to build. what if the goverment told these people "here is a cheap and reasonably easy way of getting the safe, stable, and easy to use stuff, all you have to do is apply for a license, have no restrictions on your record, spend a day learning how to safely handle these explosives, and then you can buy the stuff to blow up, not go to the work and danger of building it your self. by the way, these store bought explosives have tracing agents in them so that if they should be used in crime, they can be traced back to you" while a day of training might not be a lot, it is more than most of these people get (none). in addition, it isn't going to make explosives easier to get at, should anyone want explosives for crime or otherwise, it would be pretty simple to build it themselves. what this would do is make it more likely that the explosives being detonated "for the fun of it" are more stable and less likely to hurt or kill someone.

all of this would have little if any impact on crime, because, as you so apptly put it, even if they can legally buy this kind of stuff, if they intend to use it illegally, then they will buy it illegally, or as I pointed out, in the case of explosives, make it themselves. therefor, such a program would only really be used for legal uses.

I gotta say though, I think you are on the right track as you have come to the realization that if a criminal can't buy a weapon legally, then they will buy it illeagally, which is one of the many reasons that the idea of gun control is flawed.
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 02:27 AM on April 30, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I gotta say though, I think you are on the right track as you have come to the realization that if a criminal can't buy a weapon legally, then they will buy it illeagally, which is one of the many reasons that the idea of gun control is flawed.


Ok, here I agree with the basic premise of your argument, but I'll tell you why I take a different view.  Anyone who can't get something legally will obtain it illegally if they want it bad enough.  This includes not only guns, but prostitution, drugs, slaves, heck even Cuban cigars.  All these things are banned or restricted for a reason.  The fact that anyone can obtain these ILLEGALLY is not justification to legalize them.  The reason things are made ILLEGAL is so that there is a mechanism in place to punish them when they are found doing it.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:10 AM on April 30, 2006 | IP
tempestv

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

true, true, but you are going to have to explain how any of the things on that list (other that the slaves) would not be more effective legalized and regulated by the goverment? stop attacking the people that are going to do this stuff no matter what, and rather, work on regulating it, so that it is safer for those that choose to partake in such things? I personally am not a fan of Victimless crimes of any kind. all they do is clog up the jails, so that we pay a lot  more money and the jails fill so that we can't use them to punish real crime.
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 12:36 PM on April 30, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Question is, if you know it is against the law, why choose to do it?  The main reason that victimless crimes exist is that there is a class of people out there who think the laws don't apply to them.  The laws are for the common people.  Speed limits?  Those are only for other people.  No Parking zone?  Surely that doesn't apply to me.  Needing a permit to drive?  I'll drive if I want to.  Me.  Me.  Me.  Me.  As long as people exist who think they are above such petty  things as obeying the law there must remain a mechanism for punishing them.  Personally, I'd prefer monetary fines myself, but those rich enough wouldn't care and those poor enough wouldn't be able to pay anyhow.  What's that leave?  Death or confinement.  :P  Or I guess we could do like some countries and start chopping off appendages of offenders, but that will never fly in the U.S. (and, no, I'm not condoning it, just making a point).


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 1:50 PM on April 30, 2006 | IP
tempestv

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 1:50 PM on April 30, 2006 :
Question is, if you know it is against the law, why choose to do it?  The main reason that victimless crimes exist is that there is a class of people out there who think the laws don't apply to them.  The laws are for the common people.  Speed limits?  Those are only for other people.  No Parking zone?  Surely that doesn't apply to me.  Needing a permit to drive?  I'll drive if I want to.  

the things that you mention are not victimless crimes.  victimless crimes are those which do not hurt other people. if some guy chooses to over dose on heroin and dies, it is very true that it is tragic, and in my opinion a very stupid thing to do. however, it is what he wanted to do, and it didn't hurt anyone else. now on the other hand, if he decides that  he needs to rob a gas station to pay for his habit, now there is a problem, and he should be put in jail. the thing is that because the jails are clogged with those that never did anything wrong, there is a good chance that he will spend a very short sentince for robbing the gas station, because they need to make room for some guy that works hard, and enjoys a little weed on the weekends. does this make any sense? if you are driving over the speed limit, it could go either way- if there is no one else on the road to hurt, and you go off the road and kill your self, it was your choice. if you lose control of your car, cross the line and hit another car head on, there is a problem. if you park in the fire lane or something, you are causing a hazard. permits are required in order to make sure that those commanding a two ton vehical at 65mph packing sixty times more energy than a bullet have the skills necissary to control that vehical. if they don't, then there could be a real hazard. a  victimless crime is defined as a crime where there is no victim or potential  victim. I thought that was clear from the term "victimless"
anyways back to gun control, I personally think that what is needed is gun education. for all those kids that shot themselves or a friend by accedent, rather than making sure that they never get ahold of a gun, I would rather that they get the chance to shoot a gun in a controled enviroment, and learn basic gun safety. it is true that if the kids never see a gun, then they wont shoot themselves, but lets leave the fairytale. there will always be children getting ahold of firearms. would you rather that those kids have been taught to treat every gun as if it is loaded, only point it at what you want to shoot, and keep your finger off the trigger at all times, as my father drilled into me from a young age, or would you rather that all they know about guns is what hollywood would like them to know? teach gun safety in schools. in areas where hunting is popular, teach hunter safety. at least  make it avalable, if not manditory. with that class, they get their gun license, which they have to have to buy guns, and would also have to have to carry them. "or at least someone in their party. this person would be responsable for guns and making sure that those without licenses act responsably. this way, someone with out a license could find out if they think it is fun enough to go get their own license.
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 4:01 PM on April 30, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1) I didn't think any of the crimes I listed had victims?  What victim was there in my No Parking zone incident?

2)  Jails are full of people who didn't do anything wrong?  How the heck did they get in there?  Break in?

3)  I'd rather that parents insure that children don't have access to firearms rather than teach how to handle one correctly.  That's like buying my 5 year old a hooker instead of teaching him about abstinence.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:15 PM on April 30, 2006 | IP
tempestv

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 5:15 PM on April 30, 2006 :
1) I didn't think any of the crimes I listed had victims?  What victim was there in my No Parking zone incident?

2)  Jails are full of people who didn't do anything wrong?  How the heck did they get in there?  Break in?

3)  I'd rather that parents insure that children don't have access to firearms rather than teach how to handle one correctly.  That's like buying my 5 year old a hooker instead of teaching him about abstinence.


1.) how about the person who's house burned down because you were parked in a fire lane?

2.) I have stated that I beleve that victimless crimes are not crimes, so some guy that decided to smoke some pot and didn't hurt someone shouldn't have to sit in jail, since he didn't cause any problems. unfortunatly, many jail cells are choked up with people that never hurt anyone or anything, so Murderers, rapists, and theives have shorter sentances to free up cells.

3.) so I'm glad that you have such a vibrant imagination to picture a place where all parents are careful enough that no child would ever hold a firearm. as much as I would like to limit a childs access to guns outside of a controled setting, I would rather be pratical and say that there is a pretty good chance that a child will at some point have someone hand them a gun. as  such, I would like the idea that that those children know the basic rules about guns that aren't taught in hollywood movies- read the following page:

http://www.agsfoundation.com/safety/r_universal.html#learn

Can you honestly say that you wouldn't want a child handed a gun by a friend to have learned the rules on that page? if so, I consider you sick. that is like teaching your son about abstinence or safe sex or what ever you beleve is best before he starts dating. I really don't see how that can be a bad idea.
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 6:36 PM on April 30, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What precisely is wrong with teaching my children to never play with a gun?  If some idiot tries to hand you one, don't take it.  Why not teach them some common sense.  The fact that I don't allow guns under my roof does NOT mean that I have not talked with both of my children about why I do not allow guns under my roof.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 7:14 PM on April 30, 2006 | IP
tempestv

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am glad you are such a good parent- can you say the same for everyone else?
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 7:47 PM on April 30, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And what would legalizing all firearms do to the parenting skills of others?  I'm not following your line of thought.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 7:52 PM on April 30, 2006 | IP
tempestv

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am saying teach gun safety in schools. the kind of gun doesn't matter, a M-16 is more deadly than a hunting rifle, and no matter what kind of gun it is, the person holding it should know the proper way of handling it, so that it never hurts someone.
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 7:56 PM on April 30, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sad thing is, you may be right.  I won't go so far as to say "the majority" but way too many parents don't bother to teach them much of anything anymore.  Sex education.  Social behavior.  There was a time when schools just had to teach the 3 Rs (not that I have anything against science, history, or other "skills" classes (workshop, auto, etc)) but these days teachers have to spend half their time teaching kids things that parents should be responsible for.  :P


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 8:23 PM on April 30, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 8:36 PM on April 29, 2006 :
 And if you'd taken the time to read the entire post, you'd realize that the Howitzer comment was aimed at the absurdity of legalizing something just because no civilian in the U.S. had been killed by one recently.  


you are too uninformed to even have an opinion on anything related to gun control.

I DID NOT BRING UP BAYONETS BECAUSE THEY WERE ILLEGAL.  Bayonets are legal, and they always have been.  The same is true for a bayonet lug.  The point was that 'assault weapon' was defined in the Brady Bill as any rifle having 2 or more 'military style' features such as a bayonet lug, folding stock, pistol grip, or flash supressor.  They were defined this way because an assault weapon is essentially exactly the same as a hunting rifle, they fire the same bullets, at the same speed, in the same way.  In other words, an assault weapon is exactly the same as a hunting rifle, it just looks scarier to limp-dick liberals like you.

Even for the ten years that the Brady Bill Assault Weapon Ban was in place, you could still buy the same gun and just put the bayonet lug and folding stock on as after-market accessories.

Do you understand now why your howitzer analogy is completely useless?  Howitzers are illegal and inaccessible, bayonets are not.
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 9:25 PM on April 30, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The point of bringing up bayonets was to illustrate how the anti-gun community is irrational, and tries to ban anything they feel threatened by regardless of it having any bearing on their actual safety.  For ten years you could not manufacture rifles in the United States that had bayonet lugs, folding stocks, or pistol grips.  These laws did not make anyone any safer, they merely restricted firearms for no real reason.  These laws were so effective, that when they lapsed in September 2004, crime actually dropped for the first time in two years.
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 9:36 PM on April 30, 2006 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.