Why are You Anti-Gun?

[anonymous44]

So why are you anti gun?

1) Victim of gun violence?
2) Know a victim of gun violence?
3) Never held a gun before and are scared of them?
4) Other. Please specify.

[auntAgonist]

1. I'm not Anti Gun

I'm Auntie Agonist :)

seriously though. It's the irresponsible gun users that bother me more than anything. Guns getting into the wrong hands. "Accidents" don't just happen. y'know?

auntie.

[JaneDoughnut]

4. Me either

I don't see any reason for people to be walking around with Uzis, but I think we have a right to carry guns for protection or hunting. Maybe that's just me being Southern.
If we let the Feds restrict or abolish the 2nd amendment, it will be that much easier to restrict or abolish the 1st, 5th, etc...

[iverglas]

26. an award early in the week

"If we let the Feds restrict or abolish the
2nd amendment, it will be that much easier
to restrict or abolish the 1st, 5th, etc..."



"Ever have an argument where the opposition kept bringing up
extremely unlikely but horrific consequences that they say will
logically follow from accepting your position?"
http://winace.andkon.com/pics

[JaneDoughnut]

60. If only I could act so superior...

Your insults might be appropriate if we weren't up against such a frightening administration right now. But it's quite clear that they'll limit any rights they can get away with. So why give them the precedent?

[Jackie97]

68. I understand.

Being against the most psychopathic administration in American history does make one have a different attitude. I do think it's easier to judge when one is on the outside looking in than when one is on the inside not completely knowing what the hell to do.

I have to admit that I'm thinking some very rational ideas right now such as "It's not wise for the right to have guns, and not the left". People for progress in American history have often carried guns to defend themselves against right winged extremists. That's our history. I'd actually like to see the gun disappear. However, as long as guns are so easy to get, I think people from both sides of the political issues need to consider carrying one. It's just not wise to let all the right wingers carry the guns in this country.

I think I should also add that a cop once told me that most cops were conservatives. Many in the military are right winged. The way I see it, a lot of the world is telling us to leave the guns in the hands of the right wingers by making some of the suggestions that they do about guns. A heck of this problem could be solved if more leftists would join the police force. I don't think they can join the military right now though (because a lot of the left don't see the war as very leftist). Seriously, instead of spitting on authority, join it. Become one of them, and create a country where the left isn't faced with the possible problem of chosing between more gun deaths nationally and internationally and letting the right wingers (who love to promote war, undermind voting rights, etc) have almost sole ownership of guns.

Just my two cents. Sorry if I said a bunch of unrelated stuff. I guess I'm saying that I share the "fear" right now (even though my fear has calmed down a heck of a lot since the election).

However, iverglas is right.

Consider this. Which side is trying to restrict first amendment rights so much? It's the side that's so much for so called second amendment rights. They are going to try to restrict our rights either which way it goes. It really doesn't matter how the left approaches the gun issue, the right will still try to take away certain constitutional rights.

[iverglas]

61. no need to act anything

Just making sense will be adequate.

(intended as a response to the subsequent post, of course ... just in case it appeared not to make sense ...)

[Goldmund]

2. Innane questions

This is push-polling (other than the 'Other' option). You are clearly suggesting that one can be anti-gun only for subjective reasons, and that if they only got over their personal traumas they would support guns just like you.

[iverglas]

8. even better

"This is push-polling (other than the 'Other' option). You are clearly suggesting that one can be anti-gun only for subjective reasons, and that if they only got over their personal traumas they would support guns just like you."

It contains the premise that someone, somewhere, is "anti-" an inanimate object. I mean, that's what we're always being told firearms are, hereabouts. And just as ridiculously, by necessary implication, that one can be "pro-" an inanimate object. Silliness.

I'm not pro-abortion, because I'm not opposed to or in favour of medical procedures. I'm in favour of people not being prevented from making and acting on their own decisions in such matters. I'm in favour of women not being prevented from exercising their rights to life and liberty in the manner they think best in a matter that is none of anyone else's business.

I'm neither pro-firearms nor anti-firearms, because I'm not opposed to or in favour of objects. I'm in favour of the way in which people act on their decisions in relation to firearms being subject to regulation that does not interfere with the exercise of their rights (by which I do not mean the "right" to possess a firearm, I mean real rights) in the manner in which they think best, beyond what is necessary and justified to achieve societal objectives relating to the safety of others.

Amazingly enough, the safety of others, and not merely their own interests, is something that is of concern to people who favour restrictions on the possession of firearms. That is, they are pretty demonstrably *less* likely to have these kinds of "subjective" reasons for their position than someone who opposes such restrictions is to base his/her position on entirely self-centred considerations.

[goju]

41. And next.....

Next you will tell us to stop shooting off our mouths too. What other rights do you find threatening to the collective security? Its remarkable how much you and John Ashcroft have in common.

I realize you live in Canada and enjoy fewer rights than we Americans so I probably should remind you that rights are by nature "self centered".

"I'm in favour of women not being prevented from exercising their rights to life and liberty in the manner they think best in a matter that is none of anyone else's business."

Really, you can make a blanket assertion that abortion affects NO BODY but the pregnant woman? Good luck with that one.

[iverglas]

48. your point?

Other than the one on top of your dear little head?

Really, you can make a blanket assertion that abortion affects NO BODY but the pregnant woman? Good luck with that one.

No luck needed, just reality and recognition thereof.

(One might note that we do all know that I didn't say "no body", I said "nobody". "Nobody" actually means "no person", not "no body", although it derives from the archaic use of "body" to mean "person". What's a body to do when faced with such anti-democratic equivocation, eh?)

I realize you live in Canada and enjoy fewer rights than we Americans ...

I haven't got an answer yet ... can you tell me where to find a "free speech zone <sic>" up here? Maybe you can tell me how a prison inmate in the US went about casting a vote in the recent elections, and we can compare that to how it's done in Canada. Where would I apply for a licence in your state if I wished to marry a person of my own sex?

Your Prez is paying us a call at the end of the month. Keep an eye out for rights in action. Although ... I don't doubt that your Prez will insist on a little restriction being imposed on our rights while he's in the vicinity as a condition of honouring us with his prezence.

... so I probably should remind you that rights are by nature "self centered".

You could try telling me that, but you'd be pretty much flat out wrong, of course.

"Rights" are the expression of our recognition of and respect for others' interests. That's kinda the whole point of 'em.

What you do in the exercise of them might indeed be self-centred. That was kinda my whole point.

What other rights do you find threatening to the collective security?

Ah, loaded question on top of equivocation. We're just full of it today, aren't we?

Since I don't find ANY rights "threatening to the collective security", the premise in your question is false, and the only correct answer to it is "mu".

Certainly some exercises of rights may be contrary to the public interest in security, and in some of those cases the danger to that security may justify restrictions on the exercise of the right.

Shouted "fire" in a crowded theatre lately? Told lies in court? Threatened to kill any heads of state? Tried to advertise your snake oil as a cure for cancer? Broadcast your thougths on radio frequencies without a licence? What's that you say? It's illegal to do those things?? And here I thought that no law shall be made abridging the freedom of speech ...

Next you will tell us to stop shooting off our mouths too.

That would undoubtedly be a pointless exercise. Nonetheless, I'm perfectly entitled to do it if I like. Freedom of speech, y'know?

[Jackie97]

74. Canadians don't have anything Americans don't....

except....

Universal healthcare.

More safety (partially because of more gun control laws).

A security system that both protects them from terrorism and allows them to still have their civil rights.

The right to keep abortion between a woman and her doctor. The freedom for people outside of the woman emotionally affected by the abortion to deal with their problem in their own way. In other words, Canadians have the freedom of dealing with their own problems without government intervention.

Less hatred and xenophobia as a culture. Oh darn, I guess that shows Americans to have more of something, doesn't it?

Can you focus more on the topic at hand without attacking a person's nationality?

Oh, and I just wanted to add that I can not believe that you just compared somebody to one of America's biggest fascists (Ashcroft) just because she dared to suggest that there should be limits the right to own one of the most dangerous weapons on the streets.

[Worst Username Ever]

3. pro-gun control is different than anti-gun.

Just like pro-choice is different than pro-abortion. I am a gun owner (HK USP-40, Ruger 10/22, various black powder) but I support the 7 day wating period and wouldn't mind more extensive background checks. I also support the assault rifle ban, except it was so watered down it hardly did anything anyway.

[Billy Ruffian]

10. Worst, what utility is a waiting period

when you already own several firearms, at least two of which are semi-automatic?

We have the instant background check in place, that shows that you're not prohibited from owning firearms. Where's the utility in a waiting period.

A right delayed is a right denied.

And you do realize that the AWB simply banned semi-automatic rifles that looked like their fully automatic counterparts?

And you do realize that many bolt-action and semi-automatic hunting rifles are far more powerful and accurate than the weapons that were banned based upon the way they looked?

[TX-RAT]

13. Why do you think theres a waiting period?

[Billy Ruffian]

36. Worst Username ever wrote:

I support the 7 day wating period and wouldn't mind more extensive background checks.

I think there are waiting periods in CA and NJ. Haven't looked up for all the states with waiting periods for purchase.

NC sortof has a waiting period for handguns. You have to get a pistol purchase permit from your county sheriff, or have a CCW permit. All sheriffs have to do the NCIC background check to issue the purchase permit. Once you have a permit, you can buy a handgun whenever you want. If you don't have a permit, you're talking a multiday wait.

[slackmaster]

45. It's 10 days in California

Whether you already own a firearm or not.

:dunce:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

59. Agreed, but

I, and I suspect many other advocates of gun control, are actively anti-gun, not just pro-gun control.

In answer to the original question: 3 technically applies to me (it's true, but it's not why I'm anti-gun), and add "disgusted" to "scared". I find that there is something ineffably horrible about guns, to do with the way that they bring home to you that someone has sat down and thought through the most efficient way of building a machine to kill people. Interestingly, swords, older firearms, bows and so-forth don't have the same emotional effect on me. I suspect it has more to do with my personal psychology than with the nature of guns.

This, however, is a purely emotional position and of course not a reason to ban gun ownership. There are lots of other things that disgust or frighten me but that I don't want to ban.

The reason I single out guns is because guns are responsible for a large number of deaths in the US every year, and I think it's fairly clear if you compare the number of shootings and gun-related deaths in the US with those in countries with stricter gun control that restricting guns would reduce the frequency of both accidental and deliberate shootings.

If guns are outlawed, not even most outlaws will have guns.

It's simple utilitarianism: the suffering caused to people who want to own guns is massively outweighed by the benefit to people who don't get shot.

Gun control is one of the (many) reasons I'm greatful I live in the UK, not the US.

[MemphisTiger]

5. I'm anti-morons owning guns

[fugue]

6. We have thousands of gun-related deaths each year

Most countries with gun control have less than 100 per year.

You do the math.

[DoNotRefill]

19. fugue...

those same countries also have much lower overall homicide rates than the US does.

Guns aren't the cause of the US murder rate. We kill far more people than the rest of the so-called "civilized" world does without guns. Americans just like to kill people, I guess. The method is immaterial.

[iverglas]

20. it's so simple

"those same countries also have much lower overall homicide rates than the US does."

... except ... it isn't.

Remember ... shit, the CFC seems to be reorganizing its site, and has taken this page down since I looked at it yesterday. Here's google's cache:
http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:NQi-u3JjlLsJ:www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/research/other_docs/notes/canus/default.asp+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
(emphasis in the original)

A much higher proportion of homicides in the United States involve firearms. For 1987-96, on average, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada.

Firearm homicide rates are 8.1 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 for Canada.

Handgun homicide rates are 15.3 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 for Canada. Handguns were involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.

Rates for non-firearm homicides are nearly 2 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1989-95, the average non-firearm homicide rate was 3.1 per 100,000 people in the U.S., compared to 1.6 per 100,000 for Canada.

(Slightly old data, but the relative situation really hasn't changed much.)

Almost exactly 2/3 of US homicides were firearms homicides.
Almost exactly 1/3 of Cdn homicides were firearms homicides.

So it isn't quite as simple as a statement about comparative overall homicide rates would make it.

One could argue all century about whether the extra people in the US who killed people with firearms would have done it with something else if they didn't have firearms.

But the facts are, whether the opponents of firearms control want to acknowledge them or not:

- homicide is commonly an impulsive act, and having the means handy to commit it easily and with low risk to one's self *does* increase the likelihood of it being committed;

- firearms are more lethal than other/no weapons, and so when someone does attempt to kill someone, or attacks someone violently with no particular intent, the likelihood of death occurring *is* higher when a firearm is used.

One more interesting tidbit:

Between 1987 and 1996, firearm homicide rates increased in the United States but decreased in Canada. During this period, the overall homicide rates decreased in both the U.S. and Canada — 11% and 13% respectively. The U.S. firearm homicide rates increased 2%, compared to a 7% decrease in Canada.

Hmm. Were there sea changes in the cultures of the two countries during that period ... in opposite directions? Even if there were, why did the *overall* rate of homicide not rise in the US?

What did change in Canada that might have had an effect during the period from 1987 to 1996 was firearms law. 1977 and 1991 were when major new restrictions were put in place.

Can't think of much else that would distinguish Canada from the US, in terms of factors likely to increase or decrease firearms homicide rates over the period in question ...

[DoNotRefill]

28. And in the US...

"What did change in Canada that might have had an effect during the period from 1987 to 1996 was firearms law. 1977 and 1991 were when major new restrictions were put in place."

There were major restrictions put in place nationally in 1968, 1986, 1989, and 1994 in the US. There were scores of state and local laws put in place during that time period (IIRC, DC implemented their law in 1976 or '77, and their gun crime went through the roof.)

BTW, just as an aside, what effect do you think Canada's gun control policy has on the reporting of figures? In other words, do you think that Canadian governmental policy makes their statisticians more or less interested in finding at least a correlation between gun control and decreased crime?

I'm not sure how much of the crack epidemic y'all caught North of the Border, but most people here believe that the crack epidemic was what fueled the surge in crime in the 1980's-early 1990's here.

[iverglas]

31. the real question would be ...

In other words, do you think that Canadian governmental policy makes their statisticians more or less interested in finding at least a correlation between gun control and decreased crime?

... what you're talking about. I mean, have you seen statistical studies in Canada that would suggest that Cdn govt statisticians have any interest at all in their results? The only discussion of stats and their connection to legislation that I've seen here was regarding the stats last year about armed robbery. The site I cited in the post you replied to above didn't claim any correlation, I don't think.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/030724/d030724a.htm

The robbery rate declined 3% in 2002, continuing a downward trend. About half of the almost 27,000 robberies were committed with a weapon. The rate of robberies involving a firearm has dropped by two-thirds since 1992. Robberies committed with a firearm now account for one in every eight robberies.

No ... come to think of it, the comment I'm thinking of was by an independent academic, quoted in the Globe and Mail I believe. He cautiously said that there might be a connection, as I recall. I'd look it up in the archives, but I can't.

But aha -- it was in my bookmarks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=2463#2524

"There is no way of knowing what is truly causing robbers to abandon their guns, Prof. Gabor said, but the national Firearms Act that was passed in December of 1995 <and various other possible causes that he also mentioned> may have had an effect."

-- and, as I commented at the time,

It all pretty much boiled down to "speaking as an expert, I can't tell you what the cause is, but I can tell you what some causes, as suggested by some people, might be".

Now of course there have been studies done to attempt to determine the effect of firearms control legislation. By the Justice Dept, not Stats Can. Here's one for you (well, the executive summary, all that seems to be on line) that I cited in that thread:

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/eval/reports/96/armes/summary.html

A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF
THE IMPACTS OF THE 1977
FIREARMS CONTROL LEGISLATION

Programme Evaluation Section

October, 1996
(2nd Edition)

... Synopsis of Findings

As with any large scale study, it is difficult to provide a synopsis of findings. In this particular case, a summary of the findings can be somewhat misleading, because the results from the different analytical models are, at times, contradictory. As a result, we strongly recommend a reading of the entire report in order to gain a comprehensive sense of the findings. In this regard, we note that anyone looking for a straightforward answer to the question "has gun control met its objectives?" will be disappointed. There is not a simple "yes" or "no" response.

Initially, an exploratory analysis of the data showed a number of different patterns, some of which are inconsistent. With regard to homicides, the exploratory analysis suggested that the trends in both total and firearms homicides at the national level have been declining steadily since between 1975 and 1978 depending upon the specific region examined. However, in all regions of Canada, there has been a steady decline in fiream homicides since the 1977 legislation was implemented.

With regard to suicides, the time series steadily declines after 1978 both nationally and in Western Canada and Ontario. For firearm suicides, there is a distinct change from an increasing trend prior to 1978 to a decreasing trend since 1978.

Nationally, robberies have increased steadily during the period between 1974 and 1993. However, robberies with firearms have declined over the same period. In general, the use of firearms has continued to decrease, reaching an historic low of approximately 25 per cent of all robberies in recent years.

The next stage of analysis involved more rigorous statistical analysis of these time series. The ARIMA time series modelling produced a number of different results some of which were inconsistent. For example, the models indicated that the 1977 legislation may have had a statistically significant impact on homicides involving firearms when viewed at a national level and in Ontario. But, the same patterns were not evident in other regions.

With regard to suicides, the models suggested that the legislation had a delayed impact (i.e., modelling the legislative impacts for 1979 with the introduction of the FAC system) in patterns of suicides in Ontario, Western Canada and for Canada as a whole. Firearms accidents show a similar pattern. The analysis suggests that nationally, the legislation has had a delayed impact. Similarly, the models suggest that the legislation has reduced the rate of firearms accidents in Western Canada. But, the same patterns were not evident in other regions.

Taken together, the results of the exploratory and time series analyses suggest that the 1977 legislative amendments have had some impacts. However, the results of this stage of investigation demonstrated the need to construct structural models which could assess the simultaneous impacts of gun control, social and economic factors, and other influences.

In response, structural models were constructed for this study to incorporate into the analysis social, demographic, economic and institutional variables, as well as a measure for the introduction of the gun control legislation. In constructing and testing these models, we found two primary sources of estimation error: multicollinearity and aggregation bias. Using currently available data and analytical techniques, any statistical analyses of legislative initiatives including gun control will be subject to these same phenomenon.

Having noted this, the structural models constructed for this evaluation suggest that the 1977 amendments have reduced the rate of homicides in Canada by approximately 55 per year. However, these models do not demonstrate a clear effect with regard to the incidence of suicides involving firearms. This finding is in conflict with the prevailing literature which suggests that there is a relationship between firearms availability and suicides using firearms.

The models also show a relationship between the 1977 amendments and the incidence of accidental deaths involving firearms, although the model presents a number of inconsistencies. Further, we also note that we were unable to collect data regarding firearms safety courses for inclusion in the model. In terms of criminal misuse, we were unable to obtain consistent data over a long enough period of time to undertake structural estimates of the impact of the gun control legislation on the incidence of robberies involving firearms.

One of the most significant findings was that although this study was comprehensive and very detailed, the lack of available data limited the analysis and as a result the evaluation findings. And, in this regard, it is strongly recommended that the ground work and planning for the evaluations of the 1991 and 1995 legislative amendments be done now in order to ensure, to the extent possible, that the necessary data are available.

Bunch o' bootlickers, I'd say.

Really ... just because politicians in the US interfere in the collection and analysis of data that is crucial for informed policy-making, you shouldn't believe that this is common practice the world over.


"There were major restrictions put in place nationally in 1968, 1986, 1989, and 1994 in the US. There were scores of state and local laws put in place during that time period (IIRC, DC implemented their law in 1976 or '77, and their gun crime went through the roof.)"

Indeed. But you folks didn't actually do anything to take handguns out of circulation. (And pullease don't be pulling this silly stunt of citing the laws in a municipality that isn't surrounded by a moat as proof of the ineffectiveness of laws. I'm talking about laws that actually work, i.e. that make it supremely difficult to GET a handgun, not that punish people found in unlawful possession of one.)

Handguns really are the tool of choice when you're setting out to rob someone. That's why the Canadian stats on robbery with firearm are so ... interesting.


"I'm not sure how much of the crack epidemic y'all caught North of the Border, but most people here believe that the crack epidemic was what fueled the surge in crime in the 1980's-early 1990's here."

But a crackhead without a handgun really isn't quite so problematic.

[Wickerman]

42. You question the integrity of statisticians?

No basis for doing so, but because the numbers don't line up to your expectations you question the HONOR of the stat guys? Come on, this isn't Mary Lott here, this is a bunch of programme evaluators in Canada. Those guys, next to the Aussie, are legendary for their rigidness in data efficacy.

I may not know a lot about guns but I do know quite a damn lot about international stat as a discipline and I dare say you owe Canada one fuck of a big apology.

good to see you back, DNR - :hi:

[iverglas]

44. didn't know that!

"... this is a bunch of programme evaluators in Canada. Those guys, next to the Aussie, are legendary for their rigidness in data efficacy."

A nation of bureaucrats! What you say makes sense, given stuff that I do know. While Bush's armies are all over the world shooting at people to bring them freedom, ours are out there with calculators and clipboards evaluating measures taken to improve access to the justice system by vulnerable clienteles in states that have experienced genocide. For one small instance I've been in contact with.

Seriously. We're heavily involved in international aid activities to "strengthen the rule of law", and the "institutional capacities" of courts and the legal profession and legal training facilities, all over the world. And this involves a whole lot of program* evaluation. Unfortunately, few Canadians themselves have ever heard of this kind of work.

Next, not second, to the Aussies -- right?

(* and what's this "programme" you say? You been hanging out too close to the border again?)

[Wickerman]

47. lol

I threw programme in just for you.

Yes, they have tremendous reputations worldwide. The English ain't bad, either. Funny, when, as you say, you have a nation of bureaucrats, you do spend countless reams of paper defending the work you do - you also spend many hours looking to improve those programmes (:7).

Anecdotally, I've had the pleasure of working with both Aussies and Canadians and not only are they most stract researchers I have seen, they have the most fun. Never, ever, if you value your marriage and your kidneys go out for work for a "quick drink" after work with a Cannuck (and certainly not an Aussie) evaluator.

[iverglas]

49. good grief, they have these:

http://www.evaluationcanada.ca/

and europeanevaluation.org
and evaluation.org.uk
and aes.asn.au for Australasia
and eval.org for the USAmericans
and seval.ch/en/index.cfm for the Swiss
... and that's just the first page of results for society evaluation.

But I'll bet you knew that.

I've actually had to look up evaluation stuff twice today for two completely separate and completely unrelated bits of work, entirely apart from our discussions here. I'm beginning to suspect that they're taking over the world.

[Wickerman]

51. my, you are savvy

I should go ahead and delete your post as you appear to be hot on the world domination plan. Damn you, damn you all to hell. We thought we were successfully flying under the radar.

[fugue]

24. Sorry, but I've seen the data

Guns make killing easier and therefore more frequent. If you lose control and stab someone with a common kitchen knife, odds are they'll live. You lose control and shoot them, and odds are they'll die. Most guns, if they shoot anyone, shoot their owner or someone in their owner's family.

One of the reasons I'm looking to leave this country is its sick love affair with guns.

[DoNotRefill]

30. You're partially right.

"Most guns, if they shoot anyone, shoot their owner or someone in their owner's family."

Right. Of course, 2/3 of the people who are killed annually by guns are deliberate suicides. If we had a rational "Death with dignity" policy, I think it likely that most of that 2/3 of firearms deaths would go away.

Personally, I have no problem with people committing suicide. I think they have a right to end their own life.

[Dora]

7. J'accuse!

I'm not anti-gun.

In fact, I'd like a gun right now, and I'd like to pay a visit to the home of the grandfather who was "watching" his grandchildren here in the Austin area the other day. His two-year-old grandson shot himself in the head. Didn't kill himself, "just" fractured his skull.

That's one lucky grandpa.

[Lautremont]

9. I'll answer your question with a question:

What do you suppose would be the worst thing that would happen if every gun in the world suddenly became unable to fire?

[Billy Ruffian]

11. If every gun became unable to fire

Home invasions would increase, rapes would increase, robberies would increase.

Firearms can be a very effective self-defense tool

[Goldmund]

16. LOL

[Worst Username Ever]

22. That is truly hilarious

[Lautremont]

46. Armed robbery would decrease.

Children accidentally shooting themselves or others would decrease. Highway sniping would decrease. School shootings would decrease. Gang shootings would decrease. All of these things would decrease to zero, in fact.

I don't think it's possible to say the world is better with guns than it would be without, but as guns aren't going to stop shooting anytime soon I guess it doesn't matter.

[Bullseye10]

75. Exactly!

Criminals are cowards, they really prefer unarmed victims.

[mosin]

12. "Laws of physics"

I suspect we'd be screwed because the laws of physics had been suspended or the Earth had been depleted of all oxygen.

[slackmaster]

14. The last time that condition (no guns) existed was about the year 1340

Wonderful times for ordinary people, to be sure!

No police, the Feudal system, no Democracy. Famine, plague, and pestilence everywhere. Rampant crime. Education only for the aristocracy and the clergy.

Yeah baby, bring back the Dark Ages!

:dunce:

[Goldmund]

15. Yes... Guns have fed us and educated our children!

[slackmaster]

17. Not really what I said or meant

But the Dark Ages is the only available real-world model we have for a gun-free Utopia.

[Goldmund]

18. It's also the only available real-world model we have for an AIDS-free...

...utopia.

[iverglas]

21. ta

Well done. ;)

[slackmaster]

25. Good comeback reply but far from accurate

I am old enough to remember living in the AIDS-free Utopia as a sexually active adult. It ended officially in 1982. The biggest fear people faced from sexual contact was incurable genital herpes - "The gift that keeps on giving", we called it. AIDS radically changed the calculus for sexual encounters, and the procedures for collecting and testing blood and serum at blood banks. If you were free of symptoms for six months or so you could be almost completely certain you were free of STDs.

It's likely that a real cure for AIDS will be found in our lifetimes. Until then everyone who gets it will die of it, or have their lives extended by drug therapies. An AIDS-free world is possible, a gun-free world is just a fantasy. The technology to make them cannot be eradicated. Even if you could un-invent guns there is no conceivable way to eliminate every possible situation in which they are used for legitimate, even positive purposes.

[Goldmund]

32. True, if you take it literally

But what I meant was that the relationship between the existence of guns and the progress of the world in the last 700 years is merely incidental, not causal. I couldn't think of another incidental negative thing that has existed for the same period of time guns have and that also could not be causally related to the world's progress -- so I thought I'd sacrifice the literal accuracy of my statement for the smart-assedness. :)

Of course, my aim wasn't to prove any point of mine, but simply to point out that the connection you draw -- between the invention of guns and the global progress of the last millenium -- isn't legitimate, that's all.

[slackmaster]

34. Development of manufacturing and metallurgy closely tied to guns

Remember learning about Eli Whitney and interchangeable parts when you were a young school kid?

I became interested in guns because they represent some of the best workmanship, metallurgy, and production technology of whenever they were manufactured. I have a rifle that is over 100 years old that if placed in a new stock could be passed easily to a naive buyer as newly manufactured - until he or she noticed the date "1900" stamped in the receiver ring. It shoots a modern caliber that is still in use for both military and civilian purposes.

Of course, my aim wasn't to prove any point of mine, but simply to point out that the connection you draw -- between the invention of guns and the global progress of the last millenium -- isn't legitimate, that's all.

Now you're being a bit too literal - My actual point was that neither the elimination of guns nor knowing the results of that pipedream are possible. A lot has changed since 1340, and for better or worse guns are inextricably linked with our industrial, social, and political history. The question of what would happen if guns suddenly stopped working was not just rhetorical, it was IMO ridiculous.

[Goldmund]

35. Touche.

[iverglas]

27. still not getting a point

Care to make one?

[slackmaster]

29. See reply #25

:nuke:

[anonymous44]

23. every criminal would start using a sword

[Goldmund]

33. ...and every self-defender would as well.

[anonymous44]

37. and then

there would be an outcry against swords and other sharp objects and we would have to ban them too.

... and then everyone would start throwing stones. so we would have to ban blunt objects too

...and then there would be nothing. we would have to ban ourselves.

[Goldmund]

38. I shoot, therefore I am

[Bad Words]

52. Your sharp object legislation

is quick becoming reality in England and Australia.

[anonymous44]

54. lmao hahahah

wow can't say that i'm surprised.
so will they have to have a permit to buy a knife?
perhaps a waiting period?say 10 days?

[Van23]

40. Or, more likely,

sawed off long guns. This would be much worse because the energy produced by shotguns and rifles is much more devastating than handguns.

[Van23]

39. I've renounced my anti-gun position.

It just doesn't hold water. Guns save MANY MANY more lives than they take.

www.liberalswithguns.com

[Scout]

43. I'm anti-assholes with guns. eom

[Nicky Scarfo]

58. So you're anti-me? How disappointing. nt

[Scout]

62. are you an asshole?

if you are an asshole and you have a gun, then yes, I'm against you having the gun.

[Slowhand16]

50. Why would

one need a gun? Self defense? I don't think so. America (and the world) is dangerous enough without me owning a gun...

[slackmaster]

53. If you think you would not be safe with a gun then don't buy one

:hi:

My collection poses no threat whatsoever to anyone.

[Slowhand16]

55. Hi.

A collection is cool... It is the rebel flag waving, bible thumping, gun owners that scare me. Nice to meet ya! :hi:

[Billy Ruffian]

63. You don't think a gun is effective for self defense?

Try this:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1741

There are reliable estimates from the US Justice Dept. that there are well over 600,000 defensive gun uses every year.

That estimate is on the low side. Other estimates go as high as 2.5 million.

[Endangered Specie]

56. Im not really sure anymore.

I still believe in heavy regulation to keep them off illegal markets and away from criminals.

[Nicky Scarfo]

57. Because I'm from a white middle-class suburb and I want to save to world

Also, guns scare me, and I think killing is wrong. I believe all the lies the bourgeois bleeding-heart politicians have been feeding me for why they really want the state to disarm the working-class. That and I think killing animals is wrong and everyone should go vegan and recycle their soy milk cartons.

[Krs216]

64. I am anti-gun

I have never been shot, shot at or otherwise on the receiving end of a machine designed solely for the taking of a life. Logic dictates that a machine designed solely to kill, is inherently bad.

[Billy Ruffian]

65. So a tool is a bad thing?

krs216 writes
Logic dictates that a machine designed solely to kill, is inherently bad.

So, if a police officer shoots a criminal to prevent a rape or murder, that's bad?

So if a Secret Service agent shoots an assailant that was trying to kill the big dog, that's bad?

So, if a woman shoots an attacking rapist, that's bad?

[iverglas]

73. wah wah wah

So, if a police officer shoots a criminal to prevent a rape or murder, that's bad? ... So, if a woman shoots an attacking rapist, that's bad?

Are you a woman?

Remember the advice all your teachers used to give you back in elementary school?

WRITE ABOUT WHAT YOU KNOW.

In more modern and sophisticated parlance, it goes DO NOT APPROPRIATE ANOTHER'S VOICE. Do not presume to speak for other people. Do not exploit other people for your own ends.

The fixation on the sexual assault of women that some people around here evidently suffer from certainly makes one question a lot of things ... either that, or provides answers to a lot of questions.

[goju]

70. Until you get hungry

Then it aint so bad.

[Pert_UK]

66. I'm not anti gun....I just don't want largely unfettered access to them.

I don't believe that US laws are sufficient or sufficiently well-enforced to prevent (or at least significantly reduce) the chances of firearms being misused by their legal owners.

I believe that (especially in the US) guns and gun ownership are often treated in a far too trivial way, and not enough respect is shown towards the responsibilities and obligations of gun ownership.

I don't believe that ownership of firearms is a "right", it's a privilege that too many take for granted. Even if it is a "right", too many exercise it without thought or care, simply because they can.

IMHO there needs to be some concrete barrier between weapons such as firearms and those without the training & attitude to use them safely. People should be asked to give a legitimate reason (over and above "I'm an angry American") for owning a firearm. There should also be firearms tracking, so that gub owners have a legal obligation to account for the whereabout of any firearms they have purchased and guns can be traced back to their supposed owners.

Oh what the hell....I just hate you for your freedoms, don't I?

[Blue_Tires]

72. quality post

agree with every word

[Pert_UK]

80. Thank you! (Does victory lap of building).....

:toast:

P.

[iverglas]

82. oops

My brain was expecting to see "victory dance" ... so it saw "does victory lap dance" ...

[Bullseye10]

76. I'm not anti 1st amendment, We just shouldn't let ____(fill in the blank)

Slippery Slope! All of the bill of rights or none!

[Pert_UK]

81. OK, I'll bite........

Had an argument with somebody on Fark about this the other day...

I'm not anti "free speech", but I don't believe that you should be allowed to verbally abuse someone in racist terms or solely because of their colour / ethnic background.

Some fellow Farkers were outraged that a Brit football fan had been arrested and fined for making "monkey noises" at a black footballer. I thought it was fantastic that UK society (and sport) is taking such a strong step against racism.

And incidentally, even if I did agree that it made sense to talk about gun ownership being an inherent right, you'd never get me agreeing that the 2nd Amendment gives completely unrestricted access to any weapons to anybody, regardless of their mental state, criminal history, age, proven irresponsibility etc.

P.

[cattleman22]

85. You advocate for an Amendment to repeal the 2nd? n/t

[Jackie97]

67. Pro-gun control is not anti-gun.

And I personally take issue with any accusation that states otherwise.

I'm very pro-gun control for two reasons.

1) All rights need to come with limits, or they'll interfere with others. For example, freedom of speech stops when one threatens the life of the president because it puts him in danger. Likewise, unlimited gun rights causes a lot of irresponsible people to have a gun. As a result, a lot of gun related deaths happen every year.

2) It's just plain common sense when I research it.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fifc.htm

"Of the victims of nonfatal violent crime who faced an assailant armed with a firearm, 3% suffered gunshot wounds.
An estimated 57,500 nonfatal gunshot wounds from assaults were treated in hospital emergency departments from June 1992 through May 1993. Over half of these victims were black males; a quarter were black males age 15-24.
The firearm injury rate for police officers declined in the early 1980s and began climbing again after 1987, but has not exceeded the peak reached in 1980-81."

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

"According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2003, 449,150 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.


Incidents involving a firearm represented 7% of the 4.9 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault.


The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 67% of the 16,503 murders in 2003 were committed with firearms."

Now, you all can argue that these people would have ended up dead even without the use of a gun. Here's the problem with that argument. It's just flat out easier to shoot somebody from afar than to come right up on them and stab them, hit them over the head, etc. That's why so many of these cases of violence are caused by guns. I think that many people against gun control agree with this argument. Otherwise, why would they make the argument of "All the gun laws do is keep me from protecting myself"? If it's just as easy to kill somebody without a gun, then why do anti-gun laws keep a person from protecting themselves as well?

Let's look at other countries and compare.

Australia.

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

"The Australian rate of gun death per 100,000 population remains one-fifth that of the United States."

"Twelve days after 35 people were shot dead by a single gunman in Tasmania, Australia's state and federal governments agreed to enact wide-ranging new gun control laws to curb firearm-related death and injury. Between July 1996 and August 1998, the new restrictions were brought into force. Since that time, key indicators for gun-related death and crime have shown encouraging results.

Firearm-Related Homicide

"There was a decrease of almost 30% in the number of homicides by firearms from 1997 to 1998."

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/FAQ.html#2.%20The%20New%20System%20is%20Working

"Firearms violence is declining with stricter controls on firearms. Since 1989, firearm deaths have declined from 1,367 to 1,037 in 1997 the lowest number and rate in 28 years and the number of firearms homicide remains lower than the average of 200 per year during the 1990s. Click here for more information on Firearms Misuse. Criminology Professor Neil Boyd from Simon Fraser University, has concluded that there is more evidence to support the efficacy of gun control legislation in reducing death and injury than there is for most other legislative interventions. But further improvements are possible. Motor vehicle fatalities have also declined significantly since the early 1970's but efforts continue to make the roads safer."

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html#access

"The link between accessibility to firearms and death rates has been suggested in a number of studies. One study which examined the link between gun ownership rates and firearm deaths within Canadian provinces, the United States, England/Wales and Australia concluded that 92% of the variance in death rates was explained by access to firearms in those areas. Another review of 13 countries showed that there was a strong correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates and suicide rates. No evidence of substitution was found."

I suppose the last two links were biased, but I think that they make sense when combined with my first argument for gun control.

[Deja Q]

69. I am anti-frivolous-use-and-worship-of-guns,

In the world in which we've created for ourselves, self defense is necessary.

But what the fuck are fully automatic and assault weapons doing being sold to who knows where?

[slackmaster]

71. Fully automatic weapons have been regulated since 1934

You can't legally buy one without a federal background check, a signoff from your local chief law enforcement officer, and a $200 transfer tax. That's all assuming you live in a state that allows citizens to own them.

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/nfa/index.htm

...and assault weapons...

There are no more assault weapons. On September 13 they turned back into semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns.

[LinuxUser]

79. Urban legend alert!

Have you ever been in a gun store? Ask them if they have any full-automatic anything available. 99% likely they will say "no we don't." 1% likely they will say "yes we are a license machinegun dealer." In that 1% case, say "I would like to buy a machinegun", and hand them your credit card. They will laugh at you. If you ask politely and they have some time to kill, they will explain to you the regulations that apply to machineguns. It will probably take them about an hour to explain the ways that a civilian can get access to a machinegun, the paperwork and background checks and waiting involved, and how much they cost. That is, if they are available in your state at all. You'll need to submit fingerprints to the FBI, do a background check, get a signature from the chief of police, on and on and on.

Legal machineguns aren't really "available" in the US.

[slackmaster]

84. But never let facts interfere with a heartfelt anti-gun brain fart

:argh:

[election_2004]

77. I'm not...

I believe there should be reasonable gun control provisions, but the government has no right to tax gunowners or confiscate weapons.

And, due to recent political events, for the first time in my life I'm seriously considering training to use and own a firearm.

I'm not going to let myself become a Stepford Citizen.

[LinuxUser]

78. Good!

I'm glad to hear that you are seriously considering training to use and own a firearm. Training is the right first step. Go for it! It's fun, too.

[flamin blue state]

88. You people are crazy

Guns have one purpose, to kill. What in the world are you doing with death devices? I thought those of us on the left had more common sense and civility than that.

[Roland of Gilead]

91. All Power Stems From the Barrel of a Gun

If you don't take responsibility for yourself, JUST WHO DO YOU EXPECT TO DO IT FOR YOU? I am sick and tired of those of us on the left who have decided that someone else can just be responsible for their safety and their property. Not only that, but because you are afaraid to take responsibility for yourself, you have decided that I must be incapable of it too. Common sense tells me that men are not civil, and if I expected them to be, I would be putting myself at each one's mercy. Like you do. Hope that works out for you.
Thankfully the law doesn't let you speak for me, it lets you speak for you. Don't tell me what to do, and I won't tell you what to do. And since I am the one that is armed, seems to me I'm in a better position to be giving orders.

[flamin blue state]

83. The Average person is not responsible enough

I don't think the average man or woman is responsible enough to have children! Why should we let them handle guns like they are toys so our kids can get shot? Makes no sense to me. Guns have one purpose, to kill. I must be crazy, but I don't think killing is good. Therefore, guns are not good either.

[MrSandman]

86. And you give them license to operate motor vehicles???nt

[flamin blue state]

89. At least they have to pass tests

To operate a vehicle, you have to pass a written and competency test. They should do the same with guns and knives. No, scratch that. We should ban guns altogether.

[Columbia]

87. I'm confused

Are you arguing for eugenics or gun control? :shrug:

[Left in IL]

90. Freedom means the right to choose

That includes poor choices. There are very few fatal firearms accidents in the US, something like 1500 per year. Nearly all firarms deaths are a result of criminal actions (poor choices) Around 80% of those making such poor choices are on parole or probation, showing a history of making poor choices. Shouldn't we be penalizing the people who are making the poor choices, rather than the 180 million gun owners who can make good choices.

As far as guns only having one purpose, you are incorrect, they can also be used to threaten force. This is why the police carry them, and rarely shoot them.