Shooting Rekindles Issues of Gun Rights and Restrictions

rkzenrage • Apr 18, 2007 4:11 pm
Shooting Rekindles Issues of Gun Rights and Restrictions

This is an idiotic argument, guns are not allowed on campus. If there were armed people on campus he would have been shot and there would have been fewer dead.
A TRUE shame this was not the case. :(
If it had been harder to purchase guns he would have done what the Columbine kids did and just illegally purchased them... that whole "it's illegal" thing does not weigh heavily on a mass-murders conscience, ya' know.
I wonder if the people who make these kinds of arguments know how silly they sound?:eyebrow:
Hime • Apr 18, 2007 4:25 pm
I am SO SICK of hearing people say that no one should be allowed to have a gun, especially when these people are able-bodied men. I know too many women who have been raped, stalked or assaulted to believe that a just government would just tell them "oh, go take a self-defense class."

I do believe on restrictions on gun ownership such as background checks, waiting periods, safety training, etc. And I don't believe civilians should be allowed to have crazy stuff like AKs. But every time somebody gets shot there's all this "OMG no one should have a gun!" and that rubs me the wrong way.
rkzenrage • Apr 18, 2007 4:32 pm
Why not AKs? I had one, it is not a very powerful weapon, what I own now is far more powerful.
Good beginner gun over-all though. What is your issue with em'?
The "men/women" language in your post concerns me.
glatt • Apr 18, 2007 4:42 pm
some dude named jsm on the internets wrote:
Many people will use this terrible tragedy as an excuse to put through a political agenda other than my own. This tawdry abuse of human suffering for political gain sickens me to the core of my being. Those people who have different political views from me ought to be ashamed of themselves for thinking of cheap partisan point-scoring at a time like this. In any case, what this tragedy really shows us is that, so far from putting into practice political views other than my own, it is precisely my political agenda which ought to be advanced.

Not only are my political views vindicated by this terrible tragedy, but also the status of my profession. Furthermore, it is only in the context of a national and international tragedy like this that we are reminded of the very special status of my hobby, and its particular claim to legislative protection. My religious and spiritual views also have much to teach us about the appropriate reaction to these truly terrible events.


I'm right and you're wrong.
TheMercenary • Apr 18, 2007 4:48 pm
rkzenrage;334867 wrote:
Why not AKs? I had one, it is not a very powerful weapon, what I own now is far more powerful.
Good beginner gun over-all though. What is your issue with em'?
The "men/women" language in your post concerns me.

The "ugly gun" issue rises to the surface every time something like this happens. Typical. I have a few SKS's, they are fun to shoot. Events such as the shootings at VT just give the gun-grabbers foder to pedal their nonsense.
Hime • Apr 18, 2007 4:52 pm
TheMercenary;334875 wrote:
The "ugly gun" issue rises to the surface every time something like this happens. Typical. I have a few SKS's, they are fun to shoot. Events such as the shootings at VT just give the gun-grabbers foder to pedal their nonsense.


People should not have guns because they are "fun," they should have them if and because they need them. I don't believe that anyone really needs a fully automatic rifle, who isn't fighting in a war.

And RK, why shouldn't I refer to men and women? This is a feminist issue. People I have argued about this with in the past have said that women being raped is preferable to the risk of shootings, and I believe that that is a concern for those of us who seek to eliminate/reduce sexual assault.
TheMercenary • Apr 18, 2007 5:00 pm
Hime;334877 wrote:
People should not have guns because they are "fun," they should have them if and because they need them. I don't believe that anyone really needs a fully automatic rifle, who isn't fighting in a war.

And RK, why shouldn't I refer to men and women? This is a feminist issue. People I have argued about this with in the past have said that women being raped is preferable to the risk of shootings, and I believe that that is a concern for those of us who seek to eliminate/reduce sexual assault.

Well I would disagree with you on the first point, because shooting them is actually great fun and a fun hobby. There are many people who shoot just for the shear joy of it. I don't know if you are not familiar with the laws in the US about ownership of "fully automatic rifles", but it is a very difficult thing to do. Don't be fooled by the press or anyone else telling you that if you own an AK/AK variant/ or SKS implies that the rifle is fully automatic, because they are not. They are all semi-automatic. A huge difference.
rkzenrage • Apr 18, 2007 5:18 pm
glatt;334873 wrote:
I'm right and you're wrong.

I didn't write the article, reduce the writer's IQ or social savvy.

What is wrong with shooting guns for fun?

This is in no way a feminist issue. Guns have no sex, anyone can pull a trigger at will for fun or self protection. We often forget that men need that just as much as women. I happen to be very close to a man who has been raped.
Self-defense is self-defense.

The class 3 permit really just takes patience, been thinking about it and going to Knob Creek.
If you are worried about an AK you really don't want to be near my next Christmas present, Barrett M468 assault rifle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIZpCLvXsoM
Hime • Apr 18, 2007 5:24 pm
TheMercenary;334880 wrote:
Well I would disagree with you on the first point, because shooting them is actually great fun and a fun hobby. There are many people who shoot just for the shear joy of it. I don't know if you are not familiar with the laws in the US about ownership of "fully automatic rifles", but it is a very difficult thing to do. Don't be fooled by the press or anyone else telling you that if you own an AK/AK variant/ or SKS implies that the rifle is fully automatic, because they are not. They are all semi-automatic. A huge difference.


I know. I have shot guns before, when visiting my fiance's family in Tennessee. His stepfather and uncle are hunters. It was a lot of fun, but I don't believe that the fun is worth the risk of accidents in most cases. I think that people should have guns, if they have them, for practical reasons (hunting and self-defense).
Cloud • Apr 18, 2007 5:24 pm
I'd rather see it rekindle awareness of young people at risk.
Spexxvet • Apr 18, 2007 5:26 pm
rkzenrage;334858 wrote:
...This is an idiotic argument, guns are not allowed on campus...

Is it objectively "idiotic", or do you just disagree with it. Show your work.
glatt • Apr 18, 2007 5:30 pm
rkzenrage;334888 wrote:
I didn't write the article, reduce the writer's IQ or social savvy.


I was joking, rephrasing what I had quoted from elsewhere on the internet.
Hime • Apr 18, 2007 5:34 pm
rkzenrage;334888 wrote:
I didn't write the article, reduce the writer's IQ or social savvy.

What is wrong with shooting guns for fun?

This is in no way a feminist issue. Guns have no sex, anyone can pull a trigger at will for fun or self protection. We often forget that men need that just as much as women. I happen to be very close to a man who has been raped.
Self-defense is self-defense.

The full-auto permit really just takes patience, been thinking about it and going to Knob Creek.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIZpCLvXsoM


Most feminists are also concerned with preventing sexual assaults against men. Feminism is not just about protecting women, it is about preventing sex and gender from being used to oppress people. When someone uses their sexual organs to perpetrate an assault on a defenseless person of any gender, that is against the philosophy of feminism.
rkzenrage • Apr 18, 2007 5:43 pm
Hime;334891 wrote:
I know. I have shot guns before, when visiting my fiance's family in Tennessee. His stepfather and uncle are hunters. It was a lot of fun, but I don't believe that the fun is worth the risk of accidents in most cases. I think that people should have guns, if they have them, for practical reasons (hunting and self-defense).


So, you think it is your place to remove target shooting, the cross country skiing with shooting, trap and others from the Olympics and all other shooting sports from the world?
What an elitist.
Hime • Apr 18, 2007 5:52 pm
rkzenrage;334904 wrote:
So, you think it is your place to remove target shooting, the cross country skiing with shooting, trap and others from the Olympics and all other shooting sports from the world?
What an elitist.


I don't understand how pointing out that something is dangerous makes me an elitist. I'm sure driving drunk is fun, too.

And of course it isn't "my place," I'm just saying on the internet that I think that's how it should be.
rkzenrage • Apr 18, 2007 5:58 pm
You are comparing skeet shooting & target shooting to drunk driving? Seriously?
Hime • Apr 18, 2007 6:10 pm
rkzenrage;334915 wrote:
You are comparing skeet shooting & target shooting to drunk driving? Seriously?


I'm saying that both are dangerous.

Honestly, I really don't think we disagree that much. I'm not calling for any new restrictions or laws, just saying that I don't personally feel that people should have a gun just for fun if they don't have a serious use for it.

For God's sake, the main reason I posted was to agree that it's stupid when people respond to this kind of tragedy with a knee-jerk "nobody should have guns!"
rkzenrage • Apr 18, 2007 6:16 pm
You are not being specific. You are not making your point.
What is wrong with it? What is wrong with having a gun to target practice and shoot skeet with, specifically?
If they enjoy it, find it to be a social activity they find beneficial and something they are good at, why not.
I can tell you, that it is something that I have done for many years, and I have never seen anyone shot. So, it is not dangerous when done by sober, responsible people.
What is your definition of "serious"?
piercehawkeye45 • Apr 18, 2007 6:26 pm
I'm sorry, but this argument will not work.

There is no way you can prevent this from happening even if you are allowed to have guns on campus. Do you know how big these campuses are? You would need over 500 people with guns to even get close to stopping this. Then what would happen if a shootout occured and students got caught in the crossfire? Since it was in a building, it would take to long to get there and what would happen if the guy with the gun got shot and now this killer has even more ammunition?

The chances of someone stopping this by legalizing guns on campus is one in a million.

The only way to prevent this is to make tougher restrictions on getting handguns. This guy was obviously mentally sick to begin with and should never have been sold a gun in the first place.
rkzenrage • Apr 18, 2007 6:33 pm
Again, Columbine... it was illegal for them to own, posses or carry handguns and for guns to be carried on the campus they did the shootings on as well as this campus we are discussing. You point is invalid.
Making it harder for citizens to posses handguns legally is just punishing innocent people for the crimes of criminals which have NOTHING to do with them.
Red herring to try to get your agenda validated.

Funny, you state earlier in your post that you would not stop it from happening, then that you should stop selling handguns... feel-good politics is just stealing from taxpayers and freedom.
Ibby • Apr 18, 2007 6:40 pm
Hime;334897 wrote:
Most feminists are also concerned with preventing sexual assaults against men. Feminism is not just about protecting women, it is about preventing sex and gender from being used to oppress people. When someone uses their sexual organs to perpetrate an assault on a defenseless person of any gender, that is against the philosophy of feminism.


Yes, cause a philosophy called FEMINism sounds really gender-neutral and equal to me.

Feminism is just as bad as Misogyny. Feminism holds women over men. (I'll admit that I'm somewhat guilty of thinking women are better, but thats only cause they dont try to act all macho, which I loathe... not actually because of any like, inherent things.)

Everything and everyone should be utterly gender-neutral if you ask me. Gender should never be any sort of issue whatsoever (unless you're about to hop in bed with someone, but even then... I'm against it!). Holding men and women to a different standard is discriminatory and stupid, always.


(Realism? What's that?)
piercehawkeye45 • Apr 18, 2007 7:15 pm
rkzenrage;334930 wrote:
Again, Columbine... it was illegal for them to own, posses or carry handguns and for guns to be carried on the campus they did the shootings on as well as this campus we are discussing. You point is invalid.

C'mon, you use argument tactics like that and call my argument invalid? I never said I want to ban guns but if you want to put words in my mouth fine, it just makes you look bad. This guy (VT) just went out and bought some guns, doesn't it seem a little to easy to get something that only reason of being made is to kill? It obviously won't stop all crime but it will make it a lot harder to get guns for malevolent reasons. For prevention, a stun gun shaped like a real gun that makes a gun shot noise when fired will accomplish the same thing.

Making it harder for citizens to posses handguns legally is just punishing innocent people for the crimes of criminals which have NOTHING to do with them.
Red herring to try to get your agenda validated.

That is life. I think I should I am responsible enough to drink and carry firearms but there are people that aren’t' responsible enough to do those things. I really have no problem with it but when they start putting other people in danger is when you have to draw the line.

Funny, you state earlier in your post that you would not stop it from happening, then that you should stop selling handguns... feel-good politics is just stealing from taxpayers and freedom.

If someone wants to shoot up a school they will do it no matter what but it could prevent it from happening.

Also, how do tough restrictions on getting guns affect your freedom? You can still get them if you put in the work and show that you are mentally healthy enough and responsible to own one. The ban on campuses should stay no matter what. The majority of campuses are extremely safe and they do have more than just "learn self-defense" to protect you if you don't feel comfortable walking alone including escorts and stations that call police immediately.
rkzenrage • Apr 18, 2007 8:43 pm
Ok, be specific, what do you want to happen?
How are you going to stop criminals from using guns while protecting legal gun owners rights?
TheMercenary • Apr 18, 2007 8:45 pm
Hime;334891 wrote:
I know. I have shot guns before, when visiting my fiance's family in Tennessee. His stepfather and uncle are hunters. It was a lot of fun, but I don't believe that the fun is worth the risk of accidents in most cases. I think that people should have guns, if they have them, for practical reasons (hunting and self-defense).
There are many more gun owners than there are accidents. Accidents are rare when compared to the number of gun owners.
Aliantha • Apr 18, 2007 9:53 pm
Ibram, feminism in the sense it was created for DOES NOT hold women over men in any way. You might need to do a little more research on the topic.

Edit: That being said, there will always be people who misrepresent themselves as feminists when what they really are is something similar to what you've suggested.
piercehawkeye45 • Apr 18, 2007 10:38 pm
rkzenrage;334969 wrote:
Ok, be specific, what do you want to happen?
How are you going to stop criminals from using guns while protecting legal gun owners rights?

I want a training course and a test, just like to be able to get a drivers license.

You have to wait two weeks after you buy a gun before you can receive it.

You have to renew it every year up to three then it comes every third year with a short renewal course.

No previous criminal activity, within reason, to be able to own a gun.

I'm not set on these I'm just throwing down some suggestions.
rkzenrage • Apr 18, 2007 10:59 pm
Ok, I have no issue with reasonable training. Three days is fine for a waiting period, more than that will cause logistic problems with people who move around a lot or have busy schedules, have shooting events that call for new guns. Renewal for what? You already can't buy a gun with a violent felony or violent mental illness.
TheMercenary • Apr 18, 2007 11:06 pm
piercehawkeye45;335026 wrote:
I want a training course and a test, just like to be able to get a drivers license.

You have to wait two weeks after you buy a gun before you can receive it.

You have to renew it every year up to three then it comes every third year with a short renewal course.

No previous criminal activity, within reason, to be able to own a gun.

I'm not set on these I'm just throwing down some suggestions.

Driving a car is a privilege, owning a gun is a Right. Like it or not that is the way the law goes. A waiting period would not be effective in preventing events like that which went on at VT. It was completely pre-meditated. The waiting period would only prevent crimes of passion and in some documented cases have prevented women from protecting themselves from an impending murder by an estranged husband or boy friend. Courses are available, but you can make people take a course for something they have a right to own, however you can do so for privileges. It would be difficult to standardize the testing without making it a joke, pretty much as the driving tests are today. You pretty much have to be an idiot not to be able to pass one.
rkzenrage • Apr 18, 2007 11:11 pm
Showing proficiency at a shooting gallery and a written exam should exempt someone from training.
Ibby • Apr 18, 2007 11:20 pm
The two options are as follows:
Control guns more tightly and risk denying them to those that sorely need them, or
Control guns more loosely and risk giving them to people who will use them for ill.


While I loathe guns and personally, emotionally, non-rationally want them to be completely controlled in every way...

I have to go with the second one. I believe in always picking the freedom over the control. Just as I'd rather a thousand criminals go free than one innocent be put in prison, I'd rather a thousand criminals buy guns than one person in need of one be denied it.
[COLOR="Silver"]
...Okay maybe thats a little extreme, if it was a thousand-to-one ratio I might be in stronger favor of control, but its more the opposite, isn't it?[/COLOR]
rkzenrage • Apr 18, 2007 11:51 pm
Exactly, don't like guns... don't buy them.
piercehawkeye45 • Apr 19, 2007 12:52 am
How is driving a privilege and owning a gun a right? Driving actually has a purpose that can not be successfully duplicated in another way while there are other ways to protect yourself. Both guns and cars can be good when used correctly or horrific when used incorrectly. If you get into it, guns are much worse than cars. The main purpose of a car is transportation while the main, and only, purpose of a gun is to kill, whether for protection or not. So it is your right for everyone to possess something thats main purpose is to kill but it is a privilege to use something that can transport people but can result in injury and death if used incorrectly? I find this kind of backwards.

Who says it is your right to own a gun anyways? I'm sorry but the founding fathers is not a valid source. The times were so much different back then you can't even begin to compare. There weren't 31,000 fatal injuries from firearms in one year. There weren't semi-automatic handguns back then. An average joe could buy a weapon that could actually stand up to a well trained army. Not to mention the fact that dueling was a common practice back then and the founding fathers, Jefferson at least, were racist.

"Ibram" wrote:
The two options are as follows:
Control guns more tightly and risk denying them to those that sorely need them, or
Control guns more loosely and risk giving them to people who will use them for ill.


While I loathe guns and personally, emotionally, non-rationally want them to be completely controlled in every way...

I have to go with the second one. I believe in always picking the freedom over the control. Just as I'd rather a thousand criminals go free than one innocent be put in prison, I'd rather a thousand criminals buy guns than one person in need of one be denied it.

Who sorely needs a gun? There are other ways to protect yourself and you could easily make very effective methods of protecting yourself without a gun out on the streets. If you instate restrictions the people who want guns can still get them, it just makes them harder to get.

Freedom is a funny thing because a freedom can affect two different people two completely different ways. Is it my right to drink and drive? Yes it is, but our society has decided to give up that freedom to protect innocent people. Is it my right to own someone else? Who says I can't? Society does so we take away that freedom to own someone else.
rkzenrage • Apr 19, 2007 12:57 am
The constitution says owning a gun is a right.
I have "sorely needed a gun" many times. Who said streets? "back then" is irrelevant to the technology, the right is not.
Driving a car is a privilege based on ability, access and conduct. It is the law.
piercehawkeye45 • Apr 19, 2007 1:02 am
Because the law and consititution is always right.....
I already said why I don't think the consititution is not valid for this argument, no reply?

Did you soley needed a gun or some form of protection?

I expect massive hatred and rage from this but I am starting to believe that owning a gun is not about freedom but power.
rkzenrage • Apr 19, 2007 1:06 am
If you don't agree with the foundation of the US then it does not matter, you should not argue at all about our laws and way of life.
No, they are good for shooting hobbies as well. I have had two jobs where I used a side-arm.
Freedom and power are the same thing... that is the idea, to be empowered.
Power is not a bad thing, unless one lives in fear of others, disliking other's ability to say, write, do as they like.
The opposite of the power of freedom is fear of self and others.
piercehawkeye45 • Apr 19, 2007 1:25 am
The opposite of the power of freedom is fear of self and others.

Isn't this why many people buy guns in the first place. A fear of being attacked or robbed?

Power is not a bad thing, unless one lives in fear of others

Once again, this is why I don't like the power that comes with guns.

No, they are good for shooting hobbies as well. I have had two jobs where I used a side-arm.

Please go on. Owning a gun for a job is much different than owning a gun for personal reasons.
rkzenrage • Apr 19, 2007 2:12 am
Not fear, we just don't want not to be able to defend ourselves. Not the same as fear at all. It could be, but the two are not and, in no way have to be the same thing. I have rarely met anyone that stated they had a weapon because they feared.

Most, whom are not compulsive, do not go through the process of deciding if they are afraid of being robbed today while locking their doors. It is just a precaution. Not out of fear, just necessity.
Some are just more cautious or in different situations than others. They have guns, mace, more locks, etc. That is all.

While some are content to practice the common option when they differ with another, do not participate in an activity.
Some decide that is not enough... they think they must FORCE everyone to be like them.
Why? I don't know. I am a fairly secure individual and of the first ilk. If I don't like something I just don't do it.

If you don't like the power that comes with guns... don't buy one. Problem solved. Though I don't get it... s-like saying you don't like a college education.
No, owning one for personal reasons and one for a job is no different. I have been in both situations more than once and know.
I am correct.

It is just a tool, a piece of metal, that is all it is, all it will ever be, all it can be. Job, no job, hobby, protection, art, etc... just a tool, nothing more. Never bad, never good, nothing other than a metal tool.
TheMercenary • Apr 19, 2007 8:18 am
piercehawkeye45;335075 wrote:
Because the law and consititution is always right.....
I already said why I don't think the consititution is not valid for this argument, no reply?


You don't get to cherry pick what you want from the Bill of Rights. So you don't think the Constitution is valid for this agrument? Give us a break. This is about the Constitutional right. The courts have continually upheld this right, as recently as March 2007:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17538139/
Spexxvet • Apr 19, 2007 9:41 am
If there is someone with a gun accosting you, are you more or less likely to get shot, if you are also armed?
Spexxvet • Apr 19, 2007 9:55 am
rkzenrage;334969 wrote:
...How are you going to stop criminals from using guns while protecting legal gun owners rights?


Personal force fields
Cutting off the trigger finger of anyone who uses a gun illegally
Giant magnets
Chris Rock's "expensive bullets" plan
Employing criminals with more than a "subsistence income" to reduce the motivation to commit crime.
Reduce the wealth gap
Legalize drugs
elSicomoro • Apr 19, 2007 9:58 am
The right to bear arms is an important one, and I support it strongly. But like anything, I think our rights have limits. But I don't know where the cut-off line should be.
Hime • Apr 19, 2007 12:36 pm
Ibram;334932 wrote:
Yes, cause a philosophy called FEMINism sounds really gender-neutral and equal to me.

Feminism is just as bad as Misogyny. Feminism holds women over men. (I'll admit that I'm somewhat guilty of thinking women are better, but thats only cause they dont try to act all macho, which I loathe... not actually because of any like, inherent things.)

Everything and everyone should be utterly gender-neutral if you ask me. Gender should never be any sort of issue whatsoever (unless you're about to hop in bed with someone, but even then... I'm against it!). Holding men and women to a different standard is discriminatory and stupid, always.


(Realism? What's that?)


Ibram, feminism is about equality. It's about trying to create a world where NO ONE is harassed, oppressed or assaulted because of their gender or sexuality. Meaning that women shouldn't have to be sex objects and men shouldn't have to be macho warriors, either. Unless they want to be.

The idea that feminism is about female supremacy is one that has been created by the reactionary elements in the media. Always better to get these things from the source.
rkzenrage • Apr 19, 2007 12:58 pm
Spexxvet;335182 wrote:
If there is someone with a gun accosting you, are you more or less likely to get shot, if you are also armed?


Situational. If you do not have a gun, you are always at a disadvantage.
However, not the case if you are armed.
glatt • Apr 19, 2007 1:26 pm
rkzenrage;335294 wrote:
Situational. If you do not have a gun, you are always at a disadvantage.


This doesn't make any sense at all. Is it situational, or are you always at a disadvantage without a gun? If you are always, regardless of the situation, at a disadvantage without a gun, then it isn't situational.
rkzenrage • Apr 19, 2007 2:54 pm
That is not what I wrote at all.
It is situational. Sometimes you may be at a disadvantage or you may be able to kill the offender... it depends on the situation.
If you do not have a gun, you will NEVER be able to protect yourself from someone with a gun.
How did you read what you wrote out of my post?
glatt • Apr 19, 2007 3:14 pm
rkzenrage;335346 wrote:
That is not what I wrote at all.
It is situational. Sometimes ....


You said "always". You even put it in bold. Do you know what "always" means? Now you are saying "sometimes" and "it depends on the situation." Which is it?
Beestie • Apr 19, 2007 3:24 pm
The debate isn't and never has been about why we should be able to own guns. There are a lot of people - reasonable, normal, Constitution-loving citizens- that are just never going to be comfortable with that right. On that, we just have to find a way to get along.

There are an endless number of anecdotal justifications supporting gun ownership and for undermining it. Its not about who can whip out the bestest, mostest ones for the side they like.
rkzenrage • Apr 19, 2007 3:25 pm
Can you read at all?
I said if you do [COLOR="Red"]not [/COLOR]have a gun you are always at a disadvantage against someone with a gun.

If you have a gun you may be able to kill the perp.

I would much rather be in the latter category.


Beestie... then they should not buy a gun, problem solved.
cklabyrinth • Apr 19, 2007 11:32 pm
rkzenrage;335358 wrote:
Can you read at all?
I said if you do [COLOR="Red"]not [/COLOR]have a gun you are always at a disadvantage against someone with a gun.



Here are a few instances where your "always" categorical imperative can be debunked: if the person with the gun is blind, mentally challenged, asleep, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated.

I honestly don't see the use for personal handguns for protection when there are non-lethal alternatives readily available.
rkzenrage • Apr 20, 2007 10:53 am
cklabyrinth;335511 wrote:
Here are a few instances where your "always" categorical imperative can be debunked: if the person with the gun is blind, mentally challenged, asleep, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated.

I honestly don't see the use for personal handguns for protection when there are non-lethal alternatives readily available.


Name one that is as effective as a gun at distance. BTW, I am one of the three-to-five percent that can withstand a standard commercial tazer. If you had tried me before I became too ill I would have broken your neck. When I was a bouncer it was the fastest way to meet Mr. Floor in a hurry.

I have, repeatedly, stated that if you do not like guns that you should not buy one.
Spexxvet • Apr 20, 2007 12:24 pm
rkzenrage;335346 wrote:
...
It is situational. Sometimes you may be at a disadvantage or you may be able to kill the offender... it depends on the situation.
If you do not have a gun, you will NEVER be able to protect yourself from someone with a gun...

The question was about the likelihood of getting shot, not about being at a disadvantage or being the victim of a crime. Simply getting shot.

If someone wants to kill you, they will shoot you pre-emptively. You'll have no chance to "protect"yourself with your gun unless you have your weapon ready, safety off, identify the threat, and are faster on the draw than your attacker. If your attacker wants anything else, why would they kill you if you're unarmed? Unless, of course, you pose a threat to him by packing heat.
rkzenrage • Apr 20, 2007 12:36 pm
Have you been in the situation? I have, you always don't get hit the first time. They don't always shoot you and back down when they realize you have similar force and they may die (most often scenario). Also, it is not always human, I have been charged by animals and had to save my life with my side-arm, more than once.
No choice, no chance for hesitation and no other option available other than a side-arm (a rifle would not have been possible in the situation). Many would have wanted me to die in that instance.
Also, you don't always wait for them to shoot first.

Again, don't like em', don't buy em'.
SadistSecret • Apr 20, 2007 12:45 pm
This is why I think we should all go back to using swords and shields and things like that.
piercehawkeye45 • Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
rkzenrage;335656 wrote:
I have, repeatedly, stated that if you do not like guns that you should not buy one.

I have no problem with guns, I just don't like irresponsible people with guns. Not buying a gun doesn't help me keep me and everyone around me safe.
rkzenrage • Apr 20, 2007 2:25 pm
Oh, so we are talking about you forcing your opinions on others and turning them into rules?
If you are uncomfortable with a gun, you not buying one is, absolutely, keeping those around you safe.
rkzenrage • Apr 20, 2007 2:28 pm
SadistSecret;335760 wrote:
This is why I think we should all go back to using swords and shields and things like that.


Sure, as long as you are ok with getting rid of all technology that is capable of making a gun as well.
Say good-bye to your car and surgery.
Because I can make a gun and would as soon as mine was stolen by the fascists if it came to that.
It is quite simple and my family has the plans, the milling equipment, the brass and loading materials for a lifetime for all of us... as well as plenty to sell and trade to live off-of.
cklabyrinth • Apr 20, 2007 7:16 pm
rkzenrage;335656 wrote:
Name one that is as effective as a gun at distance. BTW, I am one of the three-to-five percent that can withstand a standard commercial tazer. If you had tried me before I became too ill I would have broken your neck. When I was a bouncer it was the fastest way to meet Mr. Floor in a hurry.

I have, repeatedly, stated that if you do not like guns that you should not buy one.



Wait, so you're going to post this, then a few posts later write that if someone fires a gun at you, it's not guaranteed that you'll be hit? Which is it. . . weapons like tazers are useless because guns are so much more effective at range, or chances are your assailant won't hit you anyway, so having a concealed gun is going to enhance your odds of survival in the event the guy misses his first shot and you're able to shoot him before he manages to fire a second shot? If this were the case, guns wouldn't be needed for protection, would they? If it's not, then what good is having a gun going to be if you're unexpectedly attacked?

Either way, the only way I'd try tazering you if I carried one for personal protection is if you seemed to be a threat to me. So, what's that have to do with you having been a bouncer or you breaking my neck?

I don't like guns and I don't buy them. That doesn't make me feel any better about the fact that it's exceedingly easy for just about anyone to buy a gun, and in some cases (if I've read this right about the incident in Virginia) be able to walk out with it without waiting for a background check. I'd be crazy to stay in places where I feel a sidearm or other weapon might be necessary to protect myself. That has nothing to do with my opinion of guns or if I buy them or not.
rkzenrage • Apr 20, 2007 8:54 pm
You never know where you may need a side arm.

Either way, the only way I'd try tazering you if I carried one for personal protection is if you seemed to be a threat to me. So, what's that have to do with you having been a bouncer or you breaking my neck?

This makes no sense to me... perhaps it is your wording.

Again for VT. It as illegal for him to carry a gun where he was carrying it. Illustrating that guns laws are ineffective. Columbine, also, clearly showed that.
People who want to commit mass murder, VERY illegal, don't care about laws.

Taxers have very limited range. I am talking about non-lethal weapons that you can use that compare to a gun.
Undertoad • Apr 20, 2007 9:55 pm
Image
TheMercenary • Apr 20, 2007 10:00 pm
Maybe he was actually a Negro??
Aliantha • Apr 21, 2007 1:24 am
I agree with UT on this one. I don't think you can only blame guns for the tragedy. It's a societal issue and considering the fact that it keeps happening, it really needs to be looked at.
Undertoad • Apr 21, 2007 11:07 am
According to CNN, Cho started to act strangely at age 8.

His classmates knew him as the boy who never spoke.
elSicomoro • Apr 21, 2007 11:17 am
Cho may have blown up anyway, but I can't help but wonder...if kids were a little less harsh and this particular kid had assimilated better into American culture, maybe we wouldn't be talking about this.
Clodfobble • Apr 21, 2007 11:36 am
Undertoad wrote:
Cho started to act strangely at age 8.


Wasn't that when he came to the US? Is is because of the culture shock, or just because they can't interview any of his Korean elementary schoolmates?
duck_duck • Apr 21, 2007 3:20 pm
I haven't been able to assimilate into american culture but I'm not about to rampage either. This man had something deeper wrong with him then just being made fun of by his schoolmates.
Clodfobble • Apr 21, 2007 5:48 pm
duck duck wrote:
I haven't been able to assimilate into american culture but I'm not about to rampage either.


Well at least your English is flawless, right?
duck_duck • Apr 21, 2007 5:56 pm
Clodfobble;336240 wrote:
Well at least your English is flawless, right?

That is because I've been learning english since I can remember. Many many people in hong kong are fluent in it. In fact my old school had most of it's instruction in english. I think it is still considered one of the official languages there.
piercehawkeye45 • Apr 21, 2007 9:20 pm
rkzenrage;335801 wrote:
Oh, so we are talking about you forcing your opinions on others and turning them into rules?

So what, you want anarchy? Actually anarchy does have rules but I won't get into it and just use the stereotypical term since I don't know another word that would describe it. Living in a society means that you will give up freedoms and in turn the state will, hopefully, help you. It is like a contract, if you don’t do this and this we will do this and this. I am not for a complete ban on guns anyways.

"rkzenrage" wrote:
If you are uncomfortable with a gun, you not buying one is, absolutely, keeping those around you safe.

How so? I am not uncomfortable with a gun and I still haven't completely gotten rid of the idea of owning one myself, it is just that I know a lot of stupid people that don't think before they make decisions and I really don't want them with a tool that is made specifically for killing. For the record, I am not scared of guns or whatever that stupid -phobia is called, I am just scared of some people that are behind the gun using it in ways that put people in harm.
piercehawkeye45 • Apr 21, 2007 9:26 pm
TheMercenary;335929 wrote:
Maybe he was actually a Negro??

What?

"sycamore" wrote:
Cho may have blown up anyway, but I can't help but wonder...if kids were a little less harsh and this particular kid had assimilated better into American culture, maybe we wouldn't be talking about this.

I would like to think so.

"duck_duck" wrote:
I haven't been able to assimilate into american culture but I'm not about to rampage either. This man had something deeper wrong with him then just being made fun of by his schoolmates.

You can't put all outcasts in the same group. All of them go through it at different times of their lives with different intensities go home to different support and each have a different ways of handling it.
rkzenrage • Apr 21, 2007 10:04 pm
Anarchy has rules? LOL!

What people keep ignoring is that we are FAR less violent and use guns FAR LESS now than ever before in the US. We just have too much news with nothing to do but over report, nationally, local news stories and focusing on the negative aspects of our nation. You could not get a news service to report on anything positive by holding one of these guns to their heads.
duck_duck • Apr 21, 2007 10:09 pm
piercehawkeye45;336285 wrote:

You can't put all outcasts in the same group. All of them go through it at different times of their lives with different intensities go home to different support and each have a different ways of handling it.

In other words he had something deeper wrong with him. I just can't buy into the blame everybody else for the actions of a nut theory.
Beestie • Apr 22, 2007 12:28 am
Undertoad;336162 wrote:
According to CNN, Cho started to act strangely at age 8. His classmates knew him as the boy who never spoke.
I read the Washington Post story about him this morning. He was acting strange since the day he was born. His mother knew there was something wrong with him (not that she ever dreamed it was this wrong but she knew he was damaged goods even as a toddler).
Beestie • Apr 22, 2007 12:32 am
And speaking of gun rights, here's an interesting story I saw today...

Armed Miss America 1944 Stops Intruder

Had she not been armed, however, the headline might have gone something like this:

[COLOR=Blue]Miss America 1944 Found Murdered in Home[/COLOR].
bluecuracao • Apr 22, 2007 4:23 am
Well, glad she didn't actually shoot the guy, or we might be reading:

[COLOR=Blue]Miss America 1944 On Trial for Murder[/COLOR].
TheMercenary • Apr 22, 2007 7:42 am
Beestie;336329 wrote:
I read the Washington Post story about him this morning. He was acting strange since the day he was born. His mother knew there was something wrong with him (not that she ever dreamed it was this wrong but she knew he was damaged goods even as a toddler).


Maybe they should have put him in prison soon after his birth.
Beestie • Apr 22, 2007 9:18 am
bluecuracao;336358 wrote:
Well, glad she didn't actually shoot the guy, or we might be reading: [COLOR=blue]Miss America 1944 On Trial for Murder[/COLOR].
Not if I was on the jury. But I know there are some who would convict an 84 year old for killing someone that broke into her house to either steal her blind or worse. Just not me.
piercehawkeye45 • Apr 22, 2007 12:18 pm
rkzenrage;336293 wrote:
Anarchy has rules? LOL!

Yeah, it has very strong social norms which are far more powerful than any law. True anarchy would actually have a very low crime rate but no one trys to understand it.

"rkzenrage" wrote:
What people keep ignoring is that we are FAR less violent and use guns FAR LESS now than ever before in the US. We just have too much news with nothing to do but over report, nationally, local news stories and focusing on the negative aspects of our nation. You could not get a news service to report on anything positive by holding one of these guns to their heads.

Do you have anything to back this up with even if you could back it up?

"duck_duck" wrote:
In other words he had something deeper wrong with him. I just can't buy into the blame everybody else for the actions of a nut theory.

Its a combination. That means it isn't just one persons fault.
TheMercenary • Apr 22, 2007 12:42 pm
piercehawkeye45;336462 wrote:
True anarchy would actually have a very low crime rate but no one trys to understand it.


Do you have anything to back this up with even if you could back it up? I would really like to hear about it. Profess...
piercehawkeye45 • Apr 22, 2007 4:46 pm
Because anarchy is a very left-winged society. It is not a "strongest man wins" thing like most people think of, everyone is considered equal.

For example, if you need a house, the community will work together to build you a house and then in return you will be expected to help out other people within the community. There is very little personal possession since everyone gets what they need so there is no need to steal.

And most anarchists aren't the ones that are fighting police in the streets but are trying to get control of unions.

I didn't do a great job at explaining it since I don't know everything about it but this is some the basic beliefs of most forms of anarchy, yes there is more than one. The term of anarchy has been dragged in the mud and most people don’t do anything to find out what it really is.
TheMercenary • Apr 22, 2007 7:00 pm
piercehawkeye45;336520 wrote:
The term of anarchy has been dragged in the mud and most people don’t do anything to find out what it really is.

I would certainly agree with that. Many younger people seemed to have grasped on a few points of interest of the philosophy such as anti-capitalism or the lack of a central state of authority. Take a look at the WTO protests and I think most people can get a snapshot of what the anarchists of today believe. I would submit the majority holds views which are not very close to the myriad of anarchist philosophies of the classical sense. JMHO.
piercehawkeye45 • Apr 22, 2007 8:13 pm
Those people aren't true anarchists and many of them are just doing it for the title but not all are but I and don't think it is the majority either because many of them work behind the scenes. Anarchism is a beautiful theory and even though I disagree with some points of it, I still hate to see it as just a rebellious "you can't tell me what to do" phase. Those type of people wouldn't fit in to that society just as they don't in our society.
cklabyrinth • Apr 22, 2007 8:32 pm
One of the things that's appealing to me about (true) communism is that after the third generation or so, the governmental constructs would disintegrate and it'd evolve into pure anarchy--the whole circular political spectrum thing.

It's too bad neither will likely ever be realized.
JayMcGee • Apr 22, 2007 8:33 pm
piercehawkeye45;336520 wrote:
Because anarchy is a very left-winged society. It is not a "strongest man wins" thing like most people think of, everyone is considered equal.

For example, if you need a house, the community will work together to build you a house and then in return you will be expected to help out other people within the community. There is very little personal possession since everyone gets what they need so there is no need to steal.



mmmm..... that's Socialism.

but then again, as that's a dirty word where you are.....
piercehawkeye45 • Apr 22, 2007 8:45 pm
JayMcGee;336589 wrote:
mmmm..... that's Socialism.

but then again, as that's a dirty word where you are.....

They are close but not the same. They are both stateless but one does not have any established rulers.
TheMercenary • Apr 23, 2007 10:16 am
piercehawkeye45;336597 wrote:
They are close but not the same. They are both stateless but one does not have any established rulers.


Socialism is not stateless... not even close.
piercehawkeye45 • Apr 23, 2007 12:37 pm
My bad, Communism is, supposedly, stateless. Got those two confused for a second.

The American school system doesn't do shit to teach us anything about economics and other philosophies so I haven't sorted all of them out yet.
TheMercenary • Apr 23, 2007 12:50 pm
piercehawkeye45;336733 wrote:
My bad, Communism is, supposedly, stateless. Got those two confused for a second.

The American school system doesn't do shit to teach us anything about economics and other philosophies so I haven't sorted all of them out yet.
You are not alone. 99% of the communists/socialists can't either... :D
TheMercenary • Apr 23, 2007 1:37 pm
ACTION: Now that Congress is moving to restrict YOUR rights in response to the VA Tech shootings, please make sure to take the following three actions after you read this alert:

1. Urge your Representative to OPPOSE HR 297, the Dingell-McCarthy legislation that is designed to take the Brady Law to new heights, turning it into a law on steroids which could one day keep even YOU from buying a gun. (Contact information and a draft letter to your Representative are provided below.)

2. Gin up the e-mail alert systems in your state and forward this e-mail to as many gun owners as you can.

3. Please stand with Gun Owners of America -- at http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm -- and help us to continue this fight, as right now, we are combating this latest onslaught ALONE in our nation's capital. GOA spokesmen spent all of last week doing radio and TV debates, interviews for newswires, and opinion editorials for newspapers. This week, we begin the battle in Congress to defeat legislation that could block millions of additional, honest gun owners from buying firearms.


Monday, April 23, 2007

The biggest gun battle of the year is about to erupt on Capitol Hill.
Fueled by the recent Virginia Tech shootings, an odd coalition is forming to help expand the number of honest people who now won't be able to buy a gun.

The legislation has been introduced by none other than the Queen of Gun Control herself, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). But she has picked up a key ally, as the bill (HR 297) is being pushed by a powerful gun group in Washington, DC.

On Friday, The Washington Post reported on the strange coalition.
"With the Virginia Tech shootings resurrecting calls for tighter gun controls," the Post said, "the National Rifle Association has begun negotiations with senior Democrats over legislation to bolster the national background-check system."

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), who was once on the NRA Board of Directors but resigned when he supported and voted for the Clinton semi-auto ban in 1994, is reported to be "leading talks with the powerful gun lobby in hopes of producing a deal [soon]," Democratic aides and lawmakers told the newspaper.

Rep. McCarthy admitted to the Post that her "crusades" for more gun control have made her voice "toxic" in gun circles. "So Dingell is handling negotiations with the NRA," the newspaper reported.
"Dingell is also in talks with Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (Wis.), the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee."

Despite all this bad news, the Post article does go on to explain that there are some potential pitfalls.

First, you will remember that this is the bill you helped kill last year, when an avalanche of postcards was dumped on Congressional desks by thousands upon thousands of GOA activists. That's why the Post says there is one huge obstacle -- the members of Gun Owners of America.

"The NRA must balance its desire to respond to the worst mass shooting by a lone gunman in the nation's history with its competition with the more strident Gun Owners of America, which opposes any restriction on gun purchases," the Post reported.

SO WHAT DOES HR 297 DO?

Well, the rest of this alert will answer this question. This alert is long, but it is important to read it in its entirety. We need to "arm" ourselves with the facts so that we can keep pro-gun Congressmen from being duped into supporting a bill that, as of now, is being unanimously cosponsored by representatives sporting an "F-"
rating by GOA.

HR 297 provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the states to send more names to the FBI for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS]. If you are thinking, "Oh, I've never committed a felony, so this bill won't affect me," then you had better think again. If this bill becomes law, you and your adult children will come closer to losing your gun rights than ever before.

Are you, or is anyone in your family, a veteran who has suffered from Post Traumatic Stress? If so, then you (and they) can probably kiss your gun rights goodbye. In 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system. These military veterans -- who are some of the most honorable citizens in our society -- can no longer buy a gun. Why? What was their heinous "crime"?

Their "crime" was suffering from stress-related symptoms that often follow our decent men and women who have served their country overseas and fought the enemy in close combat. For all their patriotism, the Clinton administration deemed them as mentally "incompetent," sent their names for inclusion in the NICS system, and they are now prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4).

HR 297 would make sure that more of these names are included in the NICS system.

But, of course, Representatives Dingell and McCarthy tell us that we need HR 297 to stop future Seung-Hui Chos from getting a gun and to prevent our nation from seeing another shooting like we had on Virginia Tech. Oh really?

Then why, after passing all of their gun control, do countries like Canada and Germany still have school shootings? Even the infamous schoolyard massacre which occurred in Ireland in 1997 took place in a country that, at that time, had far more stringent gun controls than we do.

Where has gun control made people safer? Certainly not in Washington, DC, nor in Great Britain, nor in any other place that has enacted a draconian gun ban.

IMPORTANT TALKING POINTS FOR CAPITOL HILL

Regarding Cho's evil actions last Monday at Virginia Tech, your Representative needs to understand three things:

1. If a criminal is a danger to himself and society, then he should not be on the street. If he is, then there's no law (or background check for that matter) that will stop him from getting a gun and acting out the evil that is in his heart. (Remember that Washington, DC and England have not stopped bad guys from getting guns!) So why wasn't Cho in the criminal justice system? Why was he allowed to intermix with other college students? The justice system frequently passes off thugs to psychologists who then let them slip through their fingers and back into society -- where they are free to rape, rob and murder.

2. Background checks DO NOT ULTIMATELY STOP criminals and mental wackos from getting guns. This means that people who are initially denied firearms at a gun store can still buy one illegally and commit murder if they are so inclined -- such as Benjamin Smith did in 1999 (when he left the gun store where he was denied a firearm, bought guns on the street, and then committed his racist rampage less than a week later).

NOTE: In the first five years that the Brady Law was in existence, there were reportedly only three illegal gun buyers who were sent to jail. That is why in 1997, a training manual produced by Handgun Control, Inc., guided its activists in how to answer a question regarding the low number of convictions under the Brady Law. The manual basically says, when you are asked why so few people are being sent to jail under Brady, just ignore the question and go on the attack. [See http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm -- GOF's Gun Control Fact Sheet.]

3. Background checks threaten to prevent INNOCENT Americans like you from exercising your right to own a gun for self-defense. No doubt you are familiar with the countless number of times that the NICS system has erroneously blocked honest Americans from buying a gun, or have heard about the times that the NICS computer system has crashed for days at a time, thus preventing all sales nationwide -- and effectively shutting down every weekend gun show.

Perhaps the most pernicious way of denying the rights of law-abiding gun owners is to continuously add more and more gun owners' names onto the roles of prohibited persons. Clinton did this with many military veterans in 1999. And Congress did this in 1996, when Sen.
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) successfully pushed a gun ban for people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or merely yelling at a family member. Because of the Lautenberg gun ban, millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans can never again own guns for self-defense. HR 297 will make it easier for the FBI to find out who these people are and to deny firearms to them.

GOA has documented other problems with this bill in the past. In our January alert on HR 297 we pointed out how this bill will easily lend itself to bureaucratic "fishing expeditions" into your private records, including your financial, employment, and hospital records.

HR 297 takes us the wrong direction. The anti-gun Rep. Dingell is trying to sell the bill to the gun owning public as an improvement in the Brady Law. But don't be fooled! The best improvement would be to repeal the law and end the "gun free zones" that keep everyone defenseless and disarmed -- except for the bad guys.


CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative the pre-written e-mail message below. And, you can call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
Clodfobble • Apr 23, 2007 1:48 pm
Are you, or is anyone in your family, a veteran who has suffered from Post Traumatic Stress?... Their "crime" was suffering from stress-related symptoms that often follow our decent men and women who have served their country overseas and fought the enemy in close combat. For all their patriotism, the Clinton administration deemed them as mentally "incompetent," sent their names for inclusion in the NICS system, and they are now prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4).


Cry me a river. PTSD is a mental disorder. If you have a mental disorder or a history of mental disorder, I don't see why you should have full rights to owning a gun. I'm sorry if it's somehow insulting to tell these people that their mental disorder is--gasp--a mental disorder, but it is. Certainly not their fault for having it, but it's not a schizophrenic's fault that he has schizophrenia either.
TheMercenary • Apr 23, 2007 2:44 pm
Clodfobble;336760 wrote:
Cry me a river. PTSD is a mental disorder. If you have a mental disorder or a history of mental disorder, I don't see why you should have full rights to owning a gun. I'm sorry if it's somehow insulting to tell these people that their mental disorder is--gasp--a mental disorder, but it is. Certainly not their fault for having it, but it's not a schizophrenic's fault that he has schizophrenia either.


My only comment is that it is an over used diagnosis.
HungLikeJesus • Apr 23, 2007 4:05 pm
While reading this thread I began to wonder about where firearms fell in the list of leading causes of death in the US. This table compares causes in 1990 and 2000: http://www.csdp.org/research/1238.pdf (page 3)[INDENT]Actual Cause No. (%) in 1990* No. (%) in 2000
Tobacco 400 000 (19) 435 000 (18.1)
Poor diet and physical inactivity 300 000 (14) 400 000 (16.6)
Alcohol consumption 100 000 (5) 85 000 (3.5)
Microbial agents 90 000 (4) 75 000 (3.1)
Toxic agents 60 000 (3) 55 000 (2.3)
Motor vehicle 25 000 (1) 43 000 (1.8)
Firearms 35 000 (2) 29 000 (1.2)
Sexual behavior 30 000 (1) 20 000 (0.8)
Illicit drug use 20 000 (<1) 17 000 (0.7)
Total 1 060 000 (50) 1 159 000 (48.2)
*Data are from McGinnis and Foege.1 The percentages are for all deaths.
[/INDENT]Sorry about the format, I couldn't figure out how to make the table appear correctly. The first column is cause, the second column is number of deaths from that cause in 1990 then the (percentage), followed by the same information in 2000.

Note that firearms deaths decreased by almost 20% in that time, while motor vehicle deaths increased by over 70%, despite advances in vehicle design and safety (ABS, air bags, traction control, etc.).

This site has leading cause of death data broken down by age group: http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html and includes a table of accidental deaths.

The point of all this is just to try to get some perspective on firearm deaths in the US, relative to all other causes. Note that tobacco and poor diet contribute about 30 times more to the death rate than do firearms. In terms of accidental deaths, firearms rank fairly low, but in terms of intentional deaths (of which I have not seen statistics) I would assume they would rank fairly high.

Edit: The text of the first paper indicates that "In 2000, 16586 deaths were due to intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms (ICD-10 codes X72-X74). Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms (ICD-10 codes X93-X95) resulted in 10801 deaths. Unintentional discharge of firearms (ICD-10 codes W32-W34) resulted in 776 deaths, while discharge of firearms, undetermined intent (ICD-10 codes Y22-Y24), resulted in 230 deaths. The remaining 270 deaths were due to legal intervention (ICD-10 code Y35)."
bluecuracao • Apr 23, 2007 4:55 pm
Beestie;336441 wrote:
Not if I was on the jury. But I know there are some who would convict an 84 year old for killing someone that broke into her house to either steal her blind or worse. Just not me.


I wouldn't convict her either, or even want her to go to trial...but she'd probably have to, if she hadn't been such a good shot.
rkzenrage • Apr 25, 2007 1:07 am
[YOUTUBE]kWeTEXSV7ts[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]Po8ywLD3f-k[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]psEjU550xmw[/YOUTUBE]
rkzenrage • Apr 25, 2007 5:42 pm
PHYSICIANS:

a. The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.

b. Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000.

c. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171

(statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)

NOW THINK ABOUT THIS...

GUNS:

a. The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.

b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.

c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Remember: "Guns don't kill people, doctors do!"

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!!!!!!

Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention. It's a vicious cycle.
piercehawkeye45 • Apr 25, 2007 6:15 pm
This doesn't have anything to do with the argument. Does a parent cry any harder if his or her kid dies from malpractice then from a bullet? They are still deaths and if we can lower any death number for reasonable reasons than it is worth doing.

These numbers are skewed anyways. Physicians perform a lot more operations than guns shoot bullets a year. Most cases that physicians are performing surgery; something can go wrong and kill someone. Most cases where someone fires a gun, they are in no danger to anyone else.

Also, accidental gunshot deaths aren't what we should concentrate on but homicidal gunshot deaths.

Once again, the point of doctors is to save and help people while the points of guns are to kill people.
cklabyrinth • Apr 25, 2007 6:22 pm
Those statistics assume a lot. For instance, that the only deaths where guns are involved are accidental. Surely you'd agree this is not the case.

Also, is that the number of guns, or the number of gun owners? My stepfather owns at least 100 guns and his is a small collection compared to some.

It's also assumed every single one of those 80,000,000 gun owners--if this is indeed what they meant--uses the guns regularly. But I'm sure you would also agree that a percentage of gun owners own them for show and novelty with no intent to ever use them, if they even own ammunition for the guns.

If people could buy doctors, load them with ammunition, and fire them at animals for sport or at people, that quote would have a lot more credence. As it stands, I have to think to myself, "Why the hell did this get posted?"
wolf • Apr 25, 2007 8:36 pm
Gun control is racist.
xoxoxoBruce • Apr 26, 2007 12:20 am
piercehawkeye45;337485 wrote:
This doesn't have anything to do with the argument. ~snip~ the point of doctors is to save and help people while the points of guns are to kill people.
Duh.. it's a joke. look at the numbers, they're bogus.
TheMercenary • Apr 26, 2007 3:41 pm
Congressional Leaders Moving To Pass Gun Control Without A Vote!
-- McCarthy bill would treat gun owners even worse than terrorists

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm

"Another gun rights group, the Gun Owners of America, is adamantly opposed to the [McCarthy-Dingell] legislation. It said the measure would allow the government to trample privacy rights by compiling reams of personal information and potentially bar mentally stable people from buying guns." -- Associated Press, April 24, 2007

Thursday, April 26, 2007

This is going to be a knock-down, drag-out fight. GOA continues to stand alone in the trenches, defending the rights of gun owners around the country. It's not going to be easy.

Gun control supporters want to pass gun control within the next couple of weeks. And that's why, even if you took action earlier this week, you need to do so once again.

All the gun haters (who have been keeping silent for a while) are now coming out of the closet and into the open. Take the notoriously anti-gun senator from New York -- Chuck Schumer. He has been very, very excited this week. Recent events have given him a platform, and the excuse, to push legislation that he had sponsored years ago -- legislation that never got through Congress.

You see, Senator Chuck Schumer has been, in past years, the Senate sponsor of the McCarthy bill (HR 297). And the recent murders at Virginia Tech have given Senator Schumer the pretext he has been looking for. Appearing on the Bill O'Reilly show earlier this week, Schumer did his best to make a reasonable-sounding pitch for more gun control.

He told O'Reilly on Monday that while he and Rep. McCarthy had previously worked together on this legislation, he now wants Congress to take up HR 297 quickly. "The Brady Law is a reasonable limitation," Schumer said. "Some might disagree with me, but I think certain kinds of licensing and registration is a reasonable limitation. We do it for cars."

Get the picture? First, he wants the Brady Law strengthened with the McCarthy-Dingell-Schumer legislation. Then it's off to pass more gun control -- treating guns like cars, where all gun owners are licensed and where bureaucrats will have a wonderful confiscation list.

In the O'Reilly interview, Schumer showed his hand when he revealed the strategy for this bill. Because it could become such a hot potato -- thanks to your efforts -- Senator Schumer is pushing to get this bill passed by Unanimous Consent in the Senate, which basically means that the bill would get passed WITHOUT A VOTE.

This is a perfect way to pass gun control without anyone getting blamed... or so they think. We need to tell every Senator that if this bill passes without a vote, then we hold ALL OF THEM responsible. (Be looking for a future GOA alert aimed at your
Senators.)

On the House side, the Associated Press reported this past Monday that "House Democratic leaders are working with the National Rifle Association to bolster existing laws blocking" certain prohibited persons from buying guns. Of course, there are at least three problems with this approach:

1. It's morally and constitutionally wrong to require law-abiding citizens to first prove their innocence to the government before they can exercise their rights -- whether it's Second Amendment rights, First Amendment rights, or any other right. Doing that gives bureaucrats the opportunity to abuse their power and illegitimately prevent honest gun owners from buying guns.

2. Bureaucrats have already used the Brady Law to illegitimately deny the Second Amendment rights of innocent Americans. Americans have been prevented from buying guns because of outstanding traffic tickets, because of errors, because the NICS computer system has crashed -- and don't forget returning veterans because of combat-related stress. You give an anti-gun bureaucrat an inch, he'll take a mile -- which we have already seen as GOA has documented numerous instances of the abuses mentioned above.

3. Finally, all the background checks in the world will NOT stop bad guys from getting firearms. As we mentioned in the previous alert, severe restrictions in Washington, DC, England, Canada, Germany and other places have not stopped evil people from using guns to commit murder. (Correction: In our previous alert, we incorrectly identified Ireland as the location of the infamous schoolyard massacre. In fact, it took place in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996 -- a country which at the time had even more stringent laws than we have
here.)

McCARTHY BILL TREATING GUN OWNERS WORSE THAN TERRORISTS

HR 297 would require the states to turn over mountains of personal data (on people like you) to the FBI -- any information which according to the Attorney General, in his or her unilateral discretion, would be useful in ascertaining who is or is not a "prohibited person."

Liberal support for this bill points out an interesting hypocrisy in their loyalties: For six years, congressional Democrats have complained about the Bush administration's efforts to obtain personal information on suspected terrorists WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.

And yet, this bill would allow the FBI to obtain massive amounts of information -- information which dwarfs any records obtained from warrantless searches (or wiretaps) that have been conducted by the Bush Administration on known or suspected terrorists operating in the country.

In fact, HR 297 would allow the FBI to get this information on honest Americans (like you) even though the required data is much more private and personal than any information obtained thus far by the Bush administration on terrorists.

And all of these personal records would be obtained by the FBI with no warrant or judicial or Congressional oversight whatsoever!!!

Get the picture? Spying on terrorists is bad... but spying on honest gun owners is good. After all, this horrific intrusion on the private lives of all Americans is presumed to be "okay"
because it's
only being used to bash guns, not to go after terrorists and criminals who are trying to kill us.

As indicated in earlier alerts, this information could include your medical, psychological, financial, education, employment, traffic, state tax records and more. We don't even know the full extent of what could be included because HR 297 -- which can be viewed at http://thomas.loc.gov by typing in the bill number -- is so open-ended. It requires states to provide the NICS system with ALL RECORDS that the Attorney General believes will help the FBI determine who is and who is not a prohibited person. Certainly, an anti-gun AG like Janet Reno would want as many types of records in the system as possible.

The provision that would probably lead to the greatest number of 'fishing expeditions' is that related to illegal aliens. Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill requires all "relevant" data related to who is in this country illegally. But what records pertaining to illegal aliens from the states would be relevant? Perhaps a better question would be, what records are not relevant?

ACTION:

1. Please take a moment to communicate your opposition to HR 297 -- even if you already sent your Representative a note earlier this week. We have provided a new letter (below) which provides updated information relating to the battle we are fighting.

House leaders are talking about bringing up this bill soon. And Sen.
Schumer (in his interview with O'Reilly) even hinted at the fact that the bill could come up WITHOUT the ability to offer pro-gun amendments -- such as a repeal of the DC gun ban or reciprocity for concealed carry holders -- provisions that could potentially serve as killer amendments.

Also -- oh yeah, this is going to upset you -- Senator Schumer told O'Reilly, "I got to tell you, a lot of NRA people, they support this." Can you believe that? Senator Schumer is claiming to speak for you! That's why it's so important that you once again tell your congressman that Schumer is wrong... that you're a supporter of gun rights who OPPOSES the anti-gun McCarthy-Dingell bill.

2. Please circulate this e-mail and forward it to as many gun owners as you can.

CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative the pre-written e-mail message below. And, you can call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
piercehawkeye45 • Apr 26, 2007 4:39 pm
I'm tired of hearing everyone complain that people are using the VTech tragedy to support their political agenda. Both sides are doing it and Republicans have done it just as many times as Democrats have. Both sides are hypocritical and blind to it.