[the saint]

helene_t, on Apr 18 2007, 11:49 AM, said:

The strong always dominate the weak. I don't see why it's better to have those strong in guns dominate, rather than those strong in number or in muscle strength. After all, the robber prepares himself for a robbery by making sure his gun is loaded and readily available. While the shopkeeper may be taken by surprise. And even if both will have equal power in either case, I suppose the robbery is more likely to end up with someone getting killed if both have a gun than if neither has a gun.

Its simple. If everyone has a gun at home, then the criminals will simply make sure thay have bigger and better weapons. So the homeowner and the public do the same. And so on. It becomes self-perpetuating.

Its braver to make a stand and try for an idealized world where nobody has any weapons. And don't give me this hunting claptrap either. Where is the pleasure in shooting defenceless animals? Its not big and its not clever.

[pclayton]

the saint, on Apr 18 2007, 08:52 AM, said:

helene_t, on Apr 18 2007, 11:49 AM, said:

The strong always dominate the weak. I don't see why it's better to have those strong in guns dominate, rather than those strong in number or in muscle strength. After all, the robber prepares himself for a robbery by making sure his gun is loaded and readily available. While the shopkeeper may be taken by surprise. And even if both will have equal power in either case, I suppose the robbery is more likely to end up with someone getting killed if both have a gun than if neither has a gun.

Its simple. If everyone has a gun at home, then the criminals will simply make sure thay have bigger and better weapons. So the homeowner and the public do the same. And so on. It becomes self-perpetuating.

Its braver to make a stand and try for an idealized world where nobody has any weapons. And don't give me this hunting claptrap either. Where is the pleasure in shooting defenceless animals? Its not big and its not clever.

I don't think so. A handgun versus a knife isn't the same as a handgun versus bigger handgun.

And don't tell me a burglar is going to break into my house with an Uzi, because he thinks I have a handgun. What will happen is the burglar doesn't come into my house, because of the inherent threat to his life.

The escalating weapon idea looks OK on paper, but doesn't hold water.

[pclayton]

Quote

Its braver to make a stand and try for an idealized world where nobody has any weapons

I'd rather hope for an idealized world where we don't pay taxes. I guess we all have our own idea of utopia

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Apr 18 2007, 12:00 PM, said:

What will happen is the burglar doesn't come into my house, because of the inherent threat to his life.

The burgler doesn't know who does and doesn't have a gun. It's not like there is a sign on your front door. The inherent threat won't work unless at least most people have guns, and some/many/most will never get them.

I don't believe any guns except hunting rifles should be legal. It's not just that they can (and do) kill people, but that's ALL they do. Knives and hunting rifles can kill people but serve a useful purpose*, and these are generally purposes for which no other tool would be nearly as adequate. They are also not nearly as deadly as handguns.

This whole debate boggles my mind. The only thing that can be gained by allowing people to own guns is protection against other people with guns. Well, if only these other people didn't have guns then!

And sorry Phil but I've never read a more ridiculous statement than

"As a footnote, anyone who fears concealed weapons more than a madman with nukes is completely off their rocker. "

How many people are killed in the U.S. every year from guns, most of which I believe were concealed? I don't know the exact number but I know it's been in 5 digits for years. How many get killed by nukes from a madman? Looks like none to me.

* I don't want to get into a debate about whether hunting is a 'useful purpose'. I don't do it, but it is an activity that many people view as worthwhile. If it could be shown that hunting was useless or not worthwhile or 'shouldnt' be done, then I wouldn't think hunting rifles should be legal either.

[pbleighton]

"Can't we just share our opinions? Its not like any of us have a life outside these forums where I need to be sifting through 'evidence' to support my views."

You made two blanket, unfavorable, confrontational and IMO ridiculous statements about all people who disagree with your views. Did you really expect not to be called on them?

Peter

[pbleighton]

Quote

And a handgun, semi-automatic, or automatic can't be used for the defense of the home? They can't be used for target practice?

These statements appear contradictory to me.

You misunderstood my post. Perhaps it is my fault. Let me explain.

I wasn't saying that handguns or semi-automatic or automatic weapons couldn't be used for defense of the home. I said that rifles and shotguns were adequate for this purpose.

Handguns are far more dangerous to society than rifles and shotguns, as they can be easily carried and concealed. Banning them will, in the long run (and I know it will be the long run) make society safer. Allowing the continued ownership of rifles and shotguns permits the continued use of guns for legitimate purposes.

Peter

[Gerben42]

I seem to have underestimated the difference between old Europe and the USA once more. I don't think I would want to live in the USA, the mentality is just way too different for me.

[pclayton]

pbleighton, on Apr 18 2007, 10:39 AM, said:

"Can't we just share our opinions? Its not like any of us have a life outside these forums where I need to be sifting through 'evidence' to support my views."

You made two blanket, unfavorable, confrontational and IMO ridiculous statements about all people who disagree with your views. Did you really expect not to be called on them?

Peter

And so have you Peter.

I would categorize the banning of all handguns as "blanket", wouldn't you?

Reading back, you essentially agreed with the only confrontational thing I have written.

I'm at a loss at what you feel is ridiculous.

[pbleighton]

Quote

"I seem to have underestimated the difference between old Europe and the USA once more. I don't think I would want to live in the USA, the mentality is just way too different for me."

Don't worry, Gerben, things aren't as different in real life as they are in the Forums

Peter

[pbleighton]

Quote

I would categorize the banning of all handguns as "blanket", wouldn't you?

I made a statement about legislation I proposed. I made no such statement about people who disagreed with me. You, OTOH, said:

1. You asked:

Quote

Are you more afraid of legalized concealed weapons or Iran building a nuclear bomb?

I responded:

Quote

Legalized concealed weapons, though Iran with the bomb is scary too.

You then replied:

Quote

As a footnote, anyone who fears concealed weapons more than a madman with nukes is completely off their rocker.

So I, and those who agree with me, are completely off my rocker. This is completely ridiculous.
2. You said:

Quote

The anti-gun crowd thinks that owning a gun is on par with wanting to use it.

This is completely ridiculous. We do not think this.

Peter

[pclayton]

Quote

The burgler doesn't know who does and doesn't have a gun. It's not like there is a sign on your front door. The inherent threat won't work unless at least most people have guns, and some/many/most will never get them.

Well, there's a cause and effect here. If homes aren't being burglarized, then people won't be buying guns (why should they?). However, if we have a localized upward trend of crime, and people start buying guns (and installing alarm systems, security lights, and getting large dogs), and burglaries are thwarted, then break-ins will become less common.

Quote

How many people are killed in the U.S. every year from guns, most of which I believe were concealed? I don't know the exact number but I know it's been in 5 digits for years. How many get killed by nukes from a madman? Looks like none to me.

Do we really need to have a major nuclear event for people to understand the threat? I'm fully aware that it hasn't happened yet. I would think losing 3,000 people in one morning would wake people up to the modern threat of terrorism.

Quote

This whole debate boggles my mind. The only thing that can be gained by allowing people to own guns is protection against other people with guns. Well, if only these other people didn't have guns then!

No problem here. If anyone can find a way to completely eradicate guns from society, and we can effectively defend ourselves with tasers, then I'm all for it. In the meantime, if someone feels the need to defend themselves against a known threat, then I don't think we should try to legislate ways to stop concealed weapons.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Apr 18 2007, 02:06 PM, said:

Well, there's a cause and effect here. If homes aren't being burglarized, then people won't be buying guns (why should they?). However, if we have a localized upward trend of crime, and people start buying guns (and installing alarm systems, security lights, and getting large dogs), and burglaries are thwarted, then break-ins will become less common.

You say it's true, but it's not. Everyone who has ever heard of a single person deciding not to be a burgler for the reason that they are worried a homeowner will kill them, raise your hands.

Alarm systems, security lights, large dogs. Great so you admit there is no need to risk killing people to defend ourselves!

Quote

Do we really need to have a major nuclear event for people to understand the threat? I'm fully aware that it hasn't happened yet. I would think losing 3,000 people in one morning would wake people up to the modern threat of terrorism.

You are speaking of the threat of something that could happen. I am speaking of something that has been, is, and will continue to happen. I went to a search engine and found two different websites claiming 40,000 people in the U.S. are killed by guns every year. If a nuclear threat coming true would kill 3,000 people, that is less than 1% of the people killed in 10 years (in just this country) by guns! And it hasn't happened anyway! And you aren't even speaking about considering these threats equally, you said anyone equally as scared of guns as of nukes is off their rocker. Unbelievable!

Quote

No problem here. If anyone can find a way to completely eradicate guns from society, and we can effectively defend ourselves with tasers, then I'm all for it. In the meantime, if someone feels the need to defend themselves against a known threat, then I don't think we should try to legislate ways to stop concealed weapons.

Great, so your solution to the fact we can't eradicate guns from society is to not try to eradicate guns from society.

[mike777]

1) Gun deaths in the USA are about 10-13,000 per year.
2) Americans annually drive off 500,000 home invasions per year according to the Center of Disease Control and Prevention study 1997
3) Quebec economist Pierre Lemieux studies show "mass killings were rare when guns were easily available, while they have been increasing as guns have become more controlled."
4) Dunblane Scotland 1996 mass murder of 17 occured despite far more restrictive gun laws than America.

As I said the mythology of America is much different from Europe when it comes to guns. But Europe is different from Africa and Asia.

[bid_em_up]

jdonn, on Apr 18 2007, 02:22 PM, said:

pclayton said:

Do we really need to have a major nuclear event for people to understand the threat? I'm fully aware that it hasn't happened yet. I would think losing 3,000 people in one morning would wake people up to the modern threat of terrorism.

You are speaking of the threat of something that could happen. I am speaking of something that has been, is, and will continue to happen. I went to a search engine and found two different websites claiming 40,000 people in the U.S. are killed by guns every year. If a nuclear threat coming true would kill 3,000 people, that is less than 1% of the people killed in 10 years (in just this country) by guns! And it hasn't happened anyway! And you aren't even speaking about considering these threats equally, you said anyone equally as scared of guns as of nukes is off their rocker. Unbelievable!

Phil was, I believe referring to the morning of 9/11, not a nuclear threat killing 3,000 people.

The total in 1 day for Hiroshima is estimated to be in the neighborhood of 140,000 people, and 74,000 for Nagasaki. And that was with only one bomb on each location. How many do you think could be killed by a lunatic with access to multiple nuclear weapons? 1 million? 10 million? The populations weren't as dense in 1945 in those cities, as they are now, in say, oh New York, LA, Tel Aviv, London or Paris.

His point, from my perspective, is that he is more concerned about a madman having access to nuclear weapons and isn't afraid to use them, than he is about being concerned with the average law-abiding joe owning a gun.

[mike777]

I do not have an internet quote but I do believe there have been far more mass murders by guns in Europe, Africa, Asia and South American than in North America during my lifetime.

As for nukes, as I have stated before I think everyone should be allowed to own their own personal nuke. Guns are debatable.

[jdonn]

mike777, on Apr 18 2007, 02:38 PM, said:

1) Gun deaths in the USA are about 10-13,000 per year.
2) Americans annually drive off 500,000 home invasions per year according to the Center of Disease Control and Prevention study 1997
3) Quebec economist Pierre Lemieux studies show "mass killings were rare when guns were easily available, while they have been increasing as guns have become more controlled."
4) Dunblane Scotland 1996 mass murder of 17 occured despite far more restrictive gun laws than America.

As I said the mythology of America is much different from Europe when it comes to guns. But Europe is different from Africa and Asia.

It's hard to tell when you are being serious and when you are kidding...

I went to ask.com and typed in how many people are killed in the U.S. by guns every year? Then I just scanned the results, having no idea how reliable any are. The numbers in order are

40,000
40,000
30,000
11,000 (five years ago)
34,500
90 a day (= 32,850)

I heard something like your statistics about 10 years ago. It seems like a lot more now, which leads me to believe it's growing still.

[jdonn]

bid_em_up, on Apr 18 2007, 02:43 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 18 2007, 02:22 PM, said:

pclayton said:

Do we really need to have a major nuclear event for people to understand the threat? I'm fully aware that it hasn't happened yet. I would think losing 3,000 people in one morning would wake people up to the modern threat of terrorism.

You are speaking of the threat of something that could happen. I am speaking of something that has been, is, and will continue to happen. I went to a search engine and found two different websites claiming 40,000 people in the U.S. are killed by guns every year. If a nuclear threat coming true would kill 3,000 people, that is less than 1% of the people killed in 10 years (in just this country) by guns! And it hasn't happened anyway! And you aren't even speaking about considering these threats equally, you said anyone equally as scared of guns as of nukes is off their rocker. Unbelievable!

Phil was, I believe referring to the morning of 9/11, not a nuclear threat killing 3,000 people.

The total in 1 day for Hiroshima is estimated to be in the neighborhood of 140,000 people, and 74,000 for Nagasaki. And that was with only one bomb on each location. How many do you think could be killed by a lunatic with access to multiple nuclear weapons? 1 million? 10 million? The populations weren't as dense in 1945 in those cities, as they are now, in say, oh New York, LA, Tel Aviv, London or Paris.

His point, from my perspective, is that he is more concerned about a madman having access to nuclear weapons and isn't afraid to use them, than he is about being concerned with the average law-abiding joe owning a gun.

Yes I see now what Phil meant. And I fail to see how he can claim I'm off my rocker to be more scared of something that in the last 57 years has killed millions of people than something that has killed no one in that time.

If nukes were legal to citizens in the U.S. then I would argue against that as well.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Apr 18 2007, 01:52 PM, said:

mike777, on Apr 18 2007, 02:38 PM, said:

It's hard to tell when you are being serious and when you are kidding...

There is an easy solution to that...

[bid_em_up]

jdonn, on Apr 18 2007, 02:52 PM, said:

mike777, on Apr 18 2007, 02:38 PM, said:

1) Gun deaths in the USA are about 10-13,000 per year.
2) Americans annually drive off 500,000 home invasions per year according to the Center of Disease Control and Prevention study 1997
3) Quebec economist Pierre Lemieux studies show "mass killings were rare when guns were easily available, while they have been increasing as guns have become more controlled."
4) Dunblane Scotland 1996 mass murder of 17 occured despite far more restrictive gun laws than America.

As I said the mythology of America is much different from Europe when it comes to guns. But Europe is different from Africa and Asia.

It's hard to tell when you are being serious and when you are kidding...

I went to ask.com and typed in how many people are killed in the U.S. by guns every year? Then I just scanned the results, having no idea how reliable any are. The numbers in order are

40,000
40,000
30,000
11,000 (five years ago)
34,500
90 a day (= 32,850)

I heard something like your statistics about 10 years ago. It seems like a lot more now, which leads me to believe it's growing still.

One number is the number of homicides committed by a firearm each year. The total provided by the CDC is 68350 for the years 1999-2004, which is about 11,500 per year.

The other number appears to be all deaths by firearm (accidental, suicide, homicide, other) which the CDC says is 177,000 for those 6 years. That averages to about 29,500/year.

[mike777]

http://www.doctorsagainsthandguninjury.org.../gun_injury.pdf

Sigh I have no idea where you guys get your facts...more suicides than homicides, are you counting suicides in your numbers?

Arend maybe if you just state facts rather than sarcasm I can learn something.

Here are some facts from the Center of Disease Control and Prevention.