This will be mines in less than 2 weeks

[Guard Dog]

I thought it was more like "take-a-jab-at-Eddo" than "knee-jerk liberal".

It was something we were discussing in another thread. But by all means, jab eddo too.

Edited February 5, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

More Gun Control is not the Answer

 

Great Op-Ed.

[alanschu]

See Alanschu? This is what I mean by knee-jerk liberal reactions around here.

It was something we were discussing in another thread.

 

I believe the term you used was something along the lines of not thinking for themselves. I hope you aren't so quick to label all that disagree with you.

Edited February 5, 2007 by alanschu

[mkreku]

Gun control INCREASES violent crime.

So I guess by handing out a gun to every man, woman and child in the world, violent crime would cease to exist!!

 

You can show exactly WHATEVER you want with statistics (especially if you only factor in what you want the numbers to tell), but the point is still standing: if you don't have a gun, you're less likely to shoot someone.

 

And what would you do if someone broke into your house and you had access to a gun? You'd immediately draw it, roll out into the living room, take out one crook from the hip, dive behind the couch and shoot the next intruder right between the eyes? I'm sure you would. Weapons only help escalate dangerous situations, they are not the solution to the problem.

[Guard Dog]

See Alanschu? This is what I mean by knee-jerk liberal reactions around here.

It was something we were discussing in another thread.

I believe the term you used was something along the lines of not thinking for themselves. I hope you aren't so quick to label all that disagree with you.

 

Nah, I apologized for that second part, it was uncalled for.

[Guard Dog]

Gun control INCREASES violent crime.

You can show exactly WHATEVER you want with statistics (especially if you only factor in what you want the numbers to tell), but the point is still standing: if you don't have a gun, you're less likely to shoot someone.

 

And if you HAVE one someone is a lot less likely to shoot you.

 

And what would you do if someone broke into your house and you had access to a gun? You'd immediately draw it, roll out into the living room, take out one crook from the hip, dive behind the couch and shoot the next intruder right between the eyes? I'm sure you would. Weapons only help escalate dangerous situations, they are not the solution to the problem.

That situation would be a hell of a lot more dangerous for me if they were armed and I was not. As for what I would do? Never been in that situation so I could not tell you. But I do know once they think you have a gun they will like as not clear out rather than try to fight you. If someone breaks into Eddo's house all he has to do is pull the slide on that pistol and they will hear it, and likely leave. It is also a fact, if you have a weapon you will seldom need to use it. Just having an intruder know you are armed is usually enough.

[Xard]

You gun crazy americans...

 

Nice weapon though

 

BOOM, HEADSHOT!

[alanschu]

Since I wasn't feeling well, woke up at around 11 PM (after sleeping all day), and have nothing better to do, I was bored and went here and here and had some fun.

 

 

After doing all of it, I realize that it doesn't really say anything, but since I did it, I figured I might as well post it. The number is the rate per 100,000 inhabitants of violent crime. The symbols are based on Gun Laws found at the CNN site, though there are some annotations I didn't bother, since I was getting lazy.

 

Alaska: 566.9 *

Alabama: 486.2 *

Arkansas: 445.3 *

Arizona: 531.7 *

California: 621.6 CON, AR

Colorado: 334.0 CON

Connecticut: 324.7 !%*

Delaware: 684.4 CON

Florida: 812.0 *

Georgia: 504.7 *

Hawaii: 243.8 !@%^*

Iowa: 266.4 %*

Idaho: 252.5 CON

Illinois: 656.8 Fooked up, see below

Indiana: 349.1 *

Kansas: 389.4 *, but not CON

Kentucky: 294.5 *

Louisiana: 681.1 CON

Massachussets: 476.1 #%&*, FC required for rifle purchase

Maryland: 786.6 *

Maine: 109.6 #%&*, FC required for rifle purchase

Michigan: 555.0 %^*

Minnesota: 280.8 %*

Missouri: 490.0 %, No concealed Handguns

Mississippi: 360.9 N/A for Handgun Permit

Montana: 240.6 CON

North Carolina: 497.6 %*

North Dakota: 81.4 CON

Nebraska: 327.6 %*, but no concealed Handguns

New Hampshire: 175.4 *

New Jersey: 383.8 ! with ID, #$ with ID, %&*

New Mexico: 757.9 Concealed Weapons Forbidden

Nevada: 524.2 CON

New York: 553.9 %^&* (New York City is all 8 !@#$%^&*)

Ohio: 334.1 Fooked up, see the CNN Link

Oklahoma: 497.8 *

Oregon: 350.7 CON

Pennsylvania: 420.0 *

Rhode Island: 297.7 *

South Carolina: 804.9 *

South Dakota: 166.8 CON

Tennessee: 707.2 *

Texas: 545.1 *

Utah: 255.7 CON

Virginia: 281.7 CON

Vermont: 113.5 (not a thing! Wow!)

District of Columbia: 1507.9 !@#$%^&*

Washington: 369.7 *

Wisconsin: 236.8 N/A for Handgun Permit

West Virginia: 316.5 *

Wyoming: 266.5 CON

 

! - Permit to Purchase Rifles

@ - Rifle Registration

# - Licensing Owner of Rifle

$ - Permit to Carry Rifle

 

%, ^, &, * Same as above, except applied to handguns.

 

CON - Registration required for a concealed weapon

AR - Assault Weapons must be registered

FC - Firearm Card Required to Purchase

 

 

Illinois: ID Card required to purchase any gun, Municipal Control throughout. Chicago requires registration

Edited February 5, 2007 by alanschu

[Hell Kitty]

If someone breaks into your home at night, what will you do?

 

What I have done is chase them away. My dad once caught someone who was trying to break into his home, and he chased them down the street, before tackling them and handing them over to the cops.

 

It's nice to live in a country where we don't live in seemingly constant fear of someone entering our home and murdering us. I don't know if America is really like that, but it's certainly the picture the pro gun crowd seems to paint.

 

And if you HAVE one someone is a lot less likely to shoot you.

 

Unless they're also armed, then they're gonna want to shoot you before you shoot them, being the typical murderous raping criminal that they are.

[Guard Dog]

Vermont: 113.5 (not a thing! Wow!)

 

Least restrictions, lowest crime.

 

But actually, this really needs to break down further to be useful. States do not ban handguns, counties and cities do. Broward County Florida has the toughest gun restrictions and the highest violent crime rate. And it is increasing as opposed to the majority of the rest of the state. See my previous post for the link.

[mkreku]

Vermont: 113.5 (not a thing! Wow!)

 

Least restrictions, lowest crime.

 

But actually, this really needs to break down further to be useful. States do not ban handguns, counties and cities do. Broward County Florida has the toughest gun restrictions and the highest violent crime rate. And it is increasing as opposed to the majority of the rest of the state. See my previous post for the link.

Maine: 109.6 #%&*, FC required for rifle purchase

 

Nope, Maine has it beat. Lots of restrictions.

 

It really doesn't matter in the USA anyhow anymore. Why? Because you have millions of weapons on the loose. That is the big difference between Sweden and USA. Once you have polluted your society with more guns than there are people, gun laws will have zero to none effect. Just like in any other war zone on earth.

[Dark_Raven]

 

Smith & Wesson's M&P the 9mm version

 

Ain't it a beauty? Only costed $600 with night sights included. For target shooting at range and house defense purposes only. Conceal carry is illegal in LA county.

That's a small gun you got there champ.

[alanschu]

Vermont: 113.5 (not a thing! Wow!)

 

Least restrictions, lowest crime.

 

 

The funny thing was that after doing this, I realized that the information was essentially useless, but I figured I'd post it specifically to see if anyone would draw any conclusions on it, even though I stated straight up that "After doing all of it, I realize that it doesn't really say anything, but since I did it, I figured I might as well post it." I wasn't expecting that it'd be you though :sad:

 

 

I figured it'd be the District of Columbia one that was brought up, but I guess not.

Edited February 5, 2007 by alanschu

[Sand]

My view is this:

 

A gun is a tool. Nothing more. If a criminal is going to rob someone, do some violence, or whatever he or she will do the crime with whatever tools he or she has available. If it is a gun, then so be it. If it is a knife, then so be it. If you want to stop crime then you need to go to the root of the problem, the motivation of the criminal to do the crime.

[Dark_Raven]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun is an inanimate object like a knife or a baseball. How it gets used rests in the individual holding it.

[Surreptishus]

What proportion of weapons used in violent crimes are registered to the respective offenders? I mean, are there statistics on this?

Edited February 5, 2007 by Surreptishus

[alanschu]

A gun is a tool. Nothing more. If a criminal is going to rob someone, do some violence, or whatever he or she will do the crime with whatever tools he or she has available. If it is a gun, then so be it. If it is a knife, then so be it. If you want to stop crime then you need to go to the root of the problem, the motivation of the criminal to do the crime.

 

That's too simplistic of a viewpoint. A gun is a very effective tool. Such an effective tool that it allows formations of scrawny weaklings decimate armies of muscular professional men-at-arms.

 

If you could snap your fingers and magically (I say magically because this IS impossible) make it so that it was impossible for every person that has any criminal intent from possessing a handgun, while still allowing those that do not have criminal intent to use handguns, you'd see a decrease in crime.

 

If I see a law-abiding citizen holding is .45 Colt 1911 and I am looking on robbing someone and all I have is a knife, I am not going to pick the guy with the pistol unless I can find a different way to get an advantage. Or I'd go for someone else that I feel is less capable of defending themselves.

 

As a different example, if I'm looking on breaking into a house, and I see that every house has a moat with piranhas swimming in them, lions guarding the lawn and so on, I'm probably not going to try to rob any of those houses, because the risk involved is way too high. Especially if I myself don't have a weapon to deal with them.

[Guard Dog]

My view is this:

 

A gun is a tool. Nothing more. If a criminal is going to rob someone, do some violence, or whatever he or she will do the crime with whatever tools he or she has available. If it is a gun, then so be it. If it is a knife, then so be it. If you want to stop crime then you need to go to the root of the problem, the motivation of the criminal to do the crime.

Oh my God, I agree with Sand about something.... is he becoming sane or am I going crazy? Or vice versa!

[alanschu]

What proportion of weapons used in violent crimes are registered to the respective offenders? I mean, are there statistics on this?

 

 

This is the "aweseome" thing about gun control.

[Sand]

Alanschu: Simplistic, yes, but it is the truth of it. If a criminal wants a gun he or she will find a way to gain a gun, regardless of the prohibiting laws. Gun laws are often in place to stop passion of the moment crimes.

 

Guard Dog: I am pretty sleepy right now so my mind is rather relaxed...

Edited February 5, 2007 by Sand

[Hell Kitty]

Hmm, the guy I chased away didn't have a gun, so why didn't he, say, take the axe form the garage before trying to enter my house? Or a saw or screwdriver, or smash me head with a potted plant or get a stick from the garden and ram it into my eye before stripping me naked and raping my bloody corpse? Because that's what criminals do, which is why we need guns to protect ourselves. He didn't have a gun to murder me, so why didn't he use some other implement? One of life's great mysteries.

[alanschu]

Simplistic, yes, but it is the truth of it. If a criminal wants a gun he or she will find a way to gain a gun, regardless of the prohibiting laws.

 

If it were the truth of it, then I wouldn't have called it a simplistic view. It wasn't "simplistic" in the Occam's Razor sense, but simplistic in that it's not wholistic.

 

 

A criminal can have all the desire to commit a crime he wants, but if he's less equipped than the other person, it's a stupid ass thing to do. If they break into a house and have a 100% chance of getting a fat score with no chance of getting caught, then they will do it. If breaking into a house means swimming across a piranha infested moat, dealing with lions in the front yard, the chances of them attempting the crime may be somewhat less than 100%.

 

If all the bad guys are armed with nothing but their fists, and all the good guys have guns and are trained in their use, only the most desperate of bad guys are going to try to do anything, because the odds are stacked against them.

 

 

Since I'd hate to see Godwin's Law not be correct, do you think that the Nazis would have been able to so effectively keep the Jews in line in concentration camps if they were only armed with knives. The gun has an increased ability to main and kill someone compared to a knife, especially in the hands of an assailant that is not particularly well trained in either. I don't know about you, but as an unarmed person, I'm more afraid of someone waving a gun in my face than I am of someone waving their fists in my face.

[Guard Dog]

Vermont: 113.5 (not a thing! Wow!)

 

Least restrictions, lowest crime.

 

 

The funny thing was that after doing this, I realized that the information was essentially useless, but I figured I'd post it specifically to see if anyone would draw any conclusions on it, even though I stated straight up that "After doing all of it, I realize that it doesn't really say anything, but since I did it, I figured I might as well post it." I wasn't expecting that it'd be you though :sad:

 

 

I figured it'd be the District of Columbia one that was brought up, but I guess not.

I pointed out, it really does not say anything because it does not break down to the individual municipalities. Take New York as an example. If you took the city out of the state's figures it would radically change the numbers and there are far fewer state restrictions than in NYC. And far less crime but that alone does not prove the point. The only point I'm trying to make is that in areas with higher levels of private legal gun ownership you have less crime. And the pages I linked do bear that out for Florida, to an extent. Since firearm ownership in FL is not tracked is is impossible to say if those counties do indeed have the highest private ownership but they do have the lowest restrictions and are 4 of the top 10 in registered handgun sales state wide.

 

But by pulling out Vermont and holding that as an example, I did invoke a fallacy of logic and you are right, I should know better.

Edited February 5, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

Since I'd hate to see Godwin's Law not be correct, do you think that the Nazis would have been able to so effectively keep the Jews in line in concentration camps if they were only armed with knives. The gun has an increased ability to main and kill someone compared to a knife, especially in the hands of an assailant that is not particularly well trained in either. I don't know about you, but as an unarmed person, I'm more afraid of someone waving a gun in my face than I am of someone waving their fists in my face.

Let me turn this around then, would the Nazis have been able to effectively keep the Jews in line in concentration camps if the Jews were armed to the teeth?

[Plano Skywalker]

as someone has already pointed out, part of the problem (at least in the U.S.) is our history.

U.S. history is all about guns and there are just too many out there for gun control to have any meaningful

effect.

 

I have never been mugged but I suspect I would give a robber my wallet even if I was packing heat.

Guns are to protect life.

 

Now there is something special about someone breaking into your home. Most states (IIRC) have a "no questions asked"

policy regarding shooting someone who is trespassing in your home. The idea that, regardless of why he is there, he is

a clear hazard to anyone who lives there.