1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gun Facts 5.1

Discussion in 'Opinions, Beliefs, & Points of View' started by Mikeintx, Aug 14, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member

  2. reefer madness

    reefer madness Account Closed

    Guns don't kill people. Guys with mustaches kill people.
  3. Axiom

    Axiom Account Closed

    bloody hell alot of info in there. Can't say Im going to read it, I hate statistics. But definatly, alot of info in there.

    Are we debating the statistics or the freedom to own weapons or the useage of weapons?:mellow:
  4. Amanda

    Amanda Well-Known Member

    I think the OP wants us to debate the right to own guns. Not their use, as we all know that already.

    Theres no point in that debate for our American friends, as their right to bear arms is covered by the 2nd ammendment.

    However, it would be an interesting debate in Canada, as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does give us, to quote Martin's Annotated Criminal Code (2003 Ed.) "7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice"
  5. shades

    shades Staff Alumni

    The link provided by the OP is is a B.S. treatise by Guy Smith who is an NRA activist. He is not a neutral player in the discussion of gun regulation.

    He is attempting to dispell "myths" that are not at the core of the gun control debate in the United States. Also, he does not go back far enough in his attempt to cover the history of the second ammendment.

    If you want the facts about the second ammendment, you should go to Wikipedia, which states the history clearly and factually.

    Also, the current debate in the U.S. regarding gun regulation has NOTHING TO DO WITH TAKING AWAY ANYBODY'S GUNS. There are no prominent members of the U.S. senate who advocate changing the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights. In fact, they are very clear in stating their support for same.

    The Congressional delegates and Senate members for gun regulation are only trying to establish additional SENSIBLE REGULATION. They want to make the laws for carrying an unlicensed weapon a littler tougher. They want to be able to set some standards and regulations regarding "gun shows" or "gun fares" where weapons can be obtained and/or exchanged fairly easily without regulation.

    NOBODY wants to take away your guns. The gun lobbys want you to think that there are senators and congressmen that want to take them away and THAT IS THE MYTH THAT NEEDS TO BE DEBUNKED!
  6. shades

    shades Staff Alumni

    double posted in error.
  7. Øyvind

    Øyvind Senior Member

    Guns don't kill people.
  8. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    It's true, there is a clear bias given that he's an NRA member, and while some of what he says is true, he falls into the same trap that many pro-gun activists do.

    For example, he focuses disproportionately on assault rifles as if they were the only gun on the market. Most crimes, as he himself mentioned, are perpetrated by handguns, but what about where those handguns were obtained? All too often you have people swapping guns in unregulated gun shows or selling them straight out of their homes (I've seen this myself, though I know anecdotal evidence is only so reliable). And since a person can often own several guns at once, no one would notice them selling one or two on the side.

    A lot of those figures are also half-truths, such as when he mentions the US not falling into the top 10 list of homocides worldwide; well of course not, most of those countries were poorer, more politically unstable, or comparaively underdeveloped. Compare the US to other rich nations on it's level of development and you find that we do in fact top the list of most violent, highest homocide incidence, etc. He did the same thing when mentioning how US guns don't contribute to crimes elsewhere in the world, then went on to use only Canada as a rebuttal. Well just because the Canadians don't have the issue doesn't dispel that other countries don't either.

    And as Shades astutely mention, the key word in Gun Control is CONTROL. People such as Smith need to understand that all weapons, like any potentially dangerous good, need to be regulated, and all too often you have tragic scenarios of massacres being perpetrated by people who were able to cheat the system.

    Besides does anyone really need several assault rifles, much less one, to defend themselves or engage in sports? Even hunters keep to a sensible limit, and many gun owners I speak to - including my own father - note how these rifles can actually be more dangerous to operate in such a scenario given their ability to break through non-concrete walls, possibly catching someone else.

    In the end I appreciate you sharing this opposite point of view Mike, it was ultimately interesting to read. I for one support gun owner ship, just within a reasonable limit.
  9. reefer madness

    reefer madness Account Closed

    It's the bill of rights. Not the bill of needs.
  10. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member

    Zurk I believe his heavy focus on assualt rifles was to counter the debate on whether or not obama was going to bring back the assualt rifle ban... unfortunately many people do not even know what an assualt rifle is. I have quite a few friends that own several hunting rifles that would be considered assualt rifles and I myself will be buying a few of these rifles next year.

    Your point about breaking through non-concrete walls can really apply to anything larger than a .22 so I am unsure how to respond to that.

    I also certainly see your point regarding gun shows, I have seen a few people that certainly looked like they were in gangs buying pistols off other people just walking around with them at gun shows. Cash deals, no background checks, etc. Granted the larger tables do not do this, there are still quite a few smaller ones that do.

    I am certainly not for complete non-regulation of weapons as I do not believe people should just be purchasing machine guns out of truck beds... but I believe "assualt rifles" should be legal and larger caliber weapons are acceptable. Just my opinion, YMMV.
  11. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    just managed to get some time to read it, i think its good, brings up good issues although does stumble into using emotive arguments at times when it should stay purely logical.
    I truly believe in the use of guns by citizens, figures speak for themselves and you wouldn't believe the hassle and stigma attached to guns here in the UK, i have friends who have fought in iraq, both times, my old neighbour was in vietnam, yet they still have to go through the same methods of aquiring a license as everyone else despite their training, there is no logic in that in my view.
    Fact is i can easily buy an illegal gun, without license. its harder to get a gun via the legit method, this only encourages the illegal method.
    I believe in regulation, not restriction of pretty much everything. I also believe in a policemans discretion, not having police officers as revenue collectors and encouraging them to work with the people as opposed to the methods they use now were they are deemed the enemy by law abiding citizens.
    If someone is using a gun safely and the gun is registered i believe it should be allowed, i follow common law- Do not Harm or cause Loss in any way and i believe that is fair to all and if i use a gun within those constraints there is no problem.

    Also whats with the emote of my chicken>:rooster:
  12. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    Yet if I need a whole lot of drugs or prostitutes, I'm certainly barred from it, among other 'needs.' There are a lot of rights people feel entitled to but shouldn't have for the sake of common sense. Does the right of free speech allow me to yell fire in a crowded movie theatre, or bomb on an airplane?

    And read closely and one can find that bills' wording applies gun ownership for the sake of maintaining a militia, i.e. before there was any established army or police force. No one owning guns today is out to maintain a militia to defend (well, in any seriousness anyway, not counting the paranoid and deranged).

    Of course the Supreme Court recently upheld that it does in fact pertain to gun ownership in general so I suppose that much is cut and dry (then again the ruling meant with regards to handguns, which are certainly reasonable).
  13. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    Well if there are level-headed guys like you supporting it, then I'm fine :p As I said, I too am fine with gun ownership, as are most Americans.

    My only concern is that this country is getting edgy enough as it is without all this talk about loosening gun control. Between people stocking up on guns and all this discussion about fighting the government, things just don't seem right for making guns easily available.

    But that's just my opinion as well.
  14. shades

    shades Staff Alumni

    It may say "right", but there are exclusions, and rightfully so. There are sensible limitations which vary from state to state reagrding age, felons, drug addicts, certain misdemeanors, and those who have been in psychiatric hospitals.

    Obviously, it was not meant to be taken literally. Otherwise, one would be able to purchase "arms" without any sensible limitation. You cannot legally purchase working or operational bazooka's, tanks, hand grenades, fighter planes or battleships.
  15. the fleet asleep

    the fleet asleep Well-Known Member

    agreed. in no way does the second amendment advocate ownership of guns for sport, nor does it advocate gun ownership for the sake of exercising your right to own one. the second amendment does not grant us the arbitrary right to own a gun under a "look at us, we're so free that we will allow you to own firearms. god bless freedom and god bless america" pretense. the second amendment was inserted to protect us.

    the founding fathers encouraged this arming of state militias because they knew that if the populace had no means of defending itself at the state level, the federal government could march in and impose its will. they knew that corruption was an inevitable part of any large governing body, and the second amendment was a means of letting the citizens of this country know that, not only did they have the obligation to defend our country against foreign invaders, but a right to defend themselves against their own government.

    of course, we all know that exercising this right the way it was intended this day and age would get you labeled as a terrorist, and we all know what our government is now allowed to do to people labeled as terrorists.

    all in all, its my opinion that people are all too happy to exercise their second amendment right, without having half a clue as to their second amendment responsibility. the founding fathers did not give us the right to own firearms so that we could take disneyworld or our local churches to court over not being able to carry one in either of those places. we werent given the right to own firearms so that we could arm ourselves before we went to walmart, just in case a crazy homeless guy tries to run off with one your bags. we were given the right to own firearms so that we could defend ourselves in case our federal government marched into our town and used force to tell us how to run it. now that the federal government already has the right to do that, and state militias set up to defend against an intrusive a hostile federal government would be prosecuted under the patriot act, its my opinion that the second amendment has been effectively voided. the whole point of the second amendment was to keep things from going as far as it already has, and american citizens dropped the ball.
  16. shades

    shades Staff Alumni

    NOWTHINK: Thank you for such an intelligent, logical and well thought post; especially the last paragraph. Obviously I agree with everything you've said and I'm not blowing smoke - you just stated your case without anger which I am sometimes unable to do. Well said!
  17. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member

    All of Alan's post are intelligent and well thought out.... Okay ill get off his D*** now ;)
  18. xan

    xan Chat Buddy

    It's funny it's called gun facts and yet all that it claims to tell you are myths, where's the facts? :tongue:
  19. ashes_away

    ashes_away Well-Known Member

    we invented guns to kill each other and now we have to debate if we should try to get rid of them all or give one to everyone for protection.See my response to the "evil" thread.
  20. thedeafmusician

    thedeafmusician Staff Alumni

    I'm Aussie, so the whole amendment stuff is a bit odd to me, but I still think that it's out of date. Your constitution or whatever you call it was made in different times. Circumstances have changed a LOT since then. The reason it was created was prolly so you lot could defend yourselves, should someone incredibly corrupt have taken over government. If you walked down the street carrying a gun nowadays, you'd probably be labeld a crim or a terrorist or something.

    Yes, guns are sometimes needed. I live in a rural area, most of our neighbours have rifle licenses for pests. That's it. They use guns to shoot rabbits and foxes, because some idiot decided to set a crate of them loose here some time back in the 1700s and they're destroying stuff. They dont use them on people. Times have changed.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.