| Author | Message | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1609 Registered: 1-2002 |
Sure, I will try. I read it about 6 months ago. It specifically cited FBI & DOJ data for a 5 year period, I believe. I will try to locate it & post a link, or the actual excerpt, here. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1677 Registered: 6-2001 |
Dave: I've looked high and low for the basis for your statistics, can you help me out? Art | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1603 Registered: 1-2002 |
None. This was specifically -->civilian<-- use. I neglected to mention that in my post--sorry. | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Member Username: Randall Post Number: 479 Registered: 1-2003 |
"Now, here's a "stat" backed up by FBI data: firearms are used approximately 1,500,000-2,000,000 times every year in the US to prevent a crime." Out of those 2 million times, how many time were the guns used by law enforcement personnel? | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1601 Registered: 1-2002 |
Thanks, Arlie! | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 1137 Registered: 5-2002 |
"Iraq proved that even if every house has a gun, they are of no use to defend against an army like the us." Not necessarily. Perhaps the population of Iraq knew that we were actually there to get rid of Saddam Hussein and actually were GLAD to have us there to get rid of him. Therefore, very little resistance. In contrast, look at the success of the Viet Cong. Jungle fighters who were poorly equipped compared to the American army, yet they WANTED to resist the American army, and held their ground. Dave hits an EXTREMELY crucial and critical point with his statement: "Now, here's a "stat" backed up by FBI data: firearms are used approximately 1,500,000-2,000,000 times every year in the US to prevent a crime. This does not mean they were fired; this just means used (shown/displayed/threatened to have/and fired)." The above statement is the EXACT type of information that the gun haters NEVER will admit to. In other words, most guns, when used for protection, create a NON-INCIDENT. Meaning, the would-be thief, robber, rapist, mugger, murderer takes one look at the gun and runs off. No shots fired, no person injured, NOTHING HAPPENS. How many police departments waste time filing reports when NOTHING HAPPENS. And more importantly, how many people waste time calling the police to report an incident when NOTHING HAPPENS? For every incident where a gun is fired to prevent a crime, there are probably 5 or 10 times where a gun is NEVER fired because the would-be criminal turns and runs away. This fact is very conveniently forgotton by the gun haters because there are no statistics to back it up. It's kind of like asking, "How many birds fly over your house every day?" According to available statistics, there are NO BIRDS flying over your house every day. Because that's what the AVAILABLE facts say. Because there are NO AVAILABLE facts to prove otherwise. | ||
| Sean F (Agracer)
Junior Member Username: Agracer Post Number: 135 Registered: 2-2003 |
"Statistics have also shown that in countries where a criminal is punished immensely for their crimes, crime goes down. That seems like a simpler and safer way to go, but it will never happen here." Well I can't say that I disagree with that, but do you know why it will never happen, don't you? Because there are too many attornies out there that think criminals have "rights" above and beyond Miranda. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1584 Registered: 1-2002 |
Art: "The only value for guns is crime prevention, but the stats show that if you have a gun, it will mostly likely be stolen or used against you in a violent crime." Wrong, wrong, wrong. This alleged "stat" is bandied about endlessly by the anti-Second-Amendment brigade WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANTIATION. Why? Because it makes a nice soundbite, and the media never ask these liars to prove their "stats". Now, here's a "stat" backed up by FBI data: firearms are used approximately 1,500,000-2,000,000 times every year in the US to prevent a crime. This does not mean they were fired; this just means used (shown/displayed/threatened to have/and fired). I am much more comfortable being judged by 12 than carried by 6. | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Member Username: Randall Post Number: 478 Registered: 1-2003 |
I'm all for having trials and finding out who is guilty, but once guilt is determined I'd like to see our penal system spiced up a bit to deal with people. I'd love to see some sort of physical punishment allowed that doesn't kill or cripple people. I don't think jail is best for all crimes, and fines don't effect the rich or the non-paying. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1656 Registered: 6-2001 |
Randll: Immediate punishment is difficult where you have what we call due process. It provides the right to trial, appeal, etc. The countries that we don't like, don't have due process as we understand it. It's part of the price we pay for a "free" society. It guarantees that very few get railroaded, that we can speak out mind, etc. The higher crime rate is in part a price we pay for those rights. However, other countries with due process have found ways to reduce crimes. By the way, I've seen those studies which indicate that crime drops with increased concealed weapons. I'm not sure that everyone thinks those numbers say the same thing. As I understand it, crime decreases as the citizenery gets older (the demographics argument). That aging process was, I believe reflected in those studies, and when factored in, the crime decrease was not statistically significant. Art | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Member Username: Randall Post Number: 475 Registered: 1-2003 |
Statistics have also shown that in countries where a criminal is punished immensely for their crimes, crime goes down. That seems like a simpler and safer way to go, but it will never happen here. | ||
| Sean F (Agracer)
Junior Member Username: Agracer Post Number: 132 Registered: 2-2003 |
Statistics have shown (at least I've read, don't have a link) that in states that pass concealed carry laws, violent crime goes down. "The problem with guns is that the wrong people get them. The solution is regulation to make sure that nut cases, et al don't get them." As a layer, in California no less, you of all people should be able to appreciate the numbers of laws in the books that are supposed to prevent these "nut jobs" from getting guns. Guess what, it doesn't happen. The only way would be to ban them, and that won't happen in my lifetime. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1654 Registered: 6-2001 |
Randall: We've been here before on this subject. The problem with guns is that the wrong people get them. The solution is regulation to make sure that nut cases, et al don't get them. A good many people who like guns are very anti regulation There is a strong discussion from both sides about the value of every house having weapons. Iraq proved that even if every house has a gun, they are of no use to defend against an army like the us. The only value for guns is crime prevention, but the stats show that if you have a gun, it will mostly likely be stolen or used against you in a violent crime. Art | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Member Username: Randall Post Number: 474 Registered: 1-2003 |
As far as someoneone breaking into a house, I would hope the owner has a shotgun and blows the guy away. If more burgalars would be caught in the act and executed on the spot, crime would go down. | ||
| Jonas Petersen (Karsten335)
Member Username: Karsten335 Post Number: 415 Registered: 11-2002 |
Terry, right back at ya. Nothing but respect. But I truly believe, that a strict ban of weapons would help you statistics. They rare you guns are, the less people gets killed by it. Guns aren't necessary. At least not here in Denmark. This is my only "agument" I don't knowe the word in englsig but it's "argument" in Denmark. And that's it. I can only tell you how it works here in DK, and it's all positive. | ||
| Terry Springer (Tspringer)
Member Username: Tspringer Post Number: 513 Registered: 4-2002 |
Jonas... I respect you opinion and applaud your willingness to express it and your command of the English language. However, you demonstrate the fact that you have no idea what America is all about and/or who Americans really are. Guns = Freedom. Freedom = Guns. This basic principle is core to what built this nation. Even if in todays modern culture the posession of firearms is not really a guaranty against an oppressive totalitarian type regime, it is representative of Americans total rejection of such a possibility. What the whole arguement about legal liability against gun manufacturers relative to non-defect based claims boils down to 2 simple things. First, its about money. Plain and simple greed. The lawyers want to get that dream payday and the gun manufacturers appear to have deep pockets. Second, its all part of the growing "cult of the victim" propogated throughout the US. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have built their entire careers inventing and exploiting this phenomenon. In the minds of those who support this philosophy, there simply is no personal responsibility. When loser thief "A" takes his illegally obtained gun and shoots citizen "B".... its not really the fault of the loser. You have to understand, you see. The loser came from a bad home. The Govt. did not do enough to see that he had every opportunity for a good education and success. The people of this nation abandoned him and did not live up to their obligation to ensure his happiness. The nation did not provide the opportunity for his true potential to shine. He is not at fault... he is a victim! The evil Gun manufacturers simply took advantage of his plight to turn a fast buck! Evil "Big Guns" must be stopped! We need more laws I tell you! IT makes me sick.... The fact that this type of moronic logic has so much mainstream support in the US is indicative of the nation moving away from the values that made it great. You know... those values like Gun Ownership and responsible use. | ||
| Jonas Petersen (Karsten335)
Member Username: Karsten335 Post Number: 413 Registered: 11-2002 |
quote: --------------- don't understand what your saying. A guy breaks into a house. The person living in the house pulls a gun from the nightstand and shoots the intruder. Without the Second Amendment, there would be no gun, and therefore, no defense against the intruder. How much more simple can the situation be in order to understand it? What person or organization has the moral right to tell somebody else that they cannot defend their own life? ----------------- Good point there, but there's a little thing you are missing to tell. If someone breaks into your house to steal something, and you wake up. The most likely scenario would be that the burglar flees the scene. Allmost every single time a burglar is robbing a house, he's more scared than you are. So shooting him wouldn't be necessary. And in those cases where he don't flee, how big is the chance that he has a gun? - Not big. Not here in DK at least. And it probably wouldn't be in the US if they had ban on weapons. A knife is a very good home defense, and can be very effective without killing. So can a gun, but the chance of killing him is much bigger. My 50 cent  | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 471 Registered: 2-2003 |
Art, thanks for the more in depth explanation. The key you brought up again is a defect. Yes, manufacturers should be held liable for defects. Out of all the lawsuits against gun manufacturers where someone harmed another, did all of them involve a defect in the gun? Or were they really defects in the person? My example really happened. The girl driving faster then she should have and used her tires in a manner other then intended, did break her noise or something minor, got arrested, and she successfully sued the manufacturer for damages. Comparative blame is great as long as common sense is used along with it. Sunny | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1641 Registered: 6-2001 |
Sunny and Arlie: You guys are missing the point. The world isn't totally black and white. Sure people make mistakes. However, when a design defect, i.e., something that makes the mistake even more damaging, then the person who contributes also has responsibility. In the law we call it comparative fault. That doctrine has been around for at least 50 years, and it is society's way of apportioning blame. The best example would be: I punch Arlie in the nose, breaking it. Arlie goes to the doctor, who screws up setting it, causing Arlie to look much worse that he would have if the doctor had fixed it properly. The docotr and I share responsibilty for his new looks, and the trier of fact can apportion our fault for this injury. To allow the doctor to escape liability for HIS screw up is like the doctor getting a get out of jail free card. Your example of the car is again too simplistic, what if the vehicle should have protected those inside, but didn't because it wasn't made to the industry standard. Shouldn't the manufacturer take some of the blame? Of course, and just because its a gun manufacturer shouldn't make any difference. Art | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 467 Registered: 2-2003 |
Art, You can't have it both ways. You can say that taking a gun and shooting it at the range and having a misfire or it blowing up on you causing you or others harm is the same as... Leaving out a loaded handgun, your kid finds it, and shoots your wife. You sue because the safety didn't work. The manufacturer, if the gun was maintained properly, could be at fault in the first case. In the second one, I'm sorry, they aren't. And I'm sad to hear the law actually could hold them liable. Its no different then some idiot going 150mph from LA to Las Vegas on H rated tires, one of them blows up, they cause a pile up with at least one fatality and they sue the manufacturer because they were using them other then as intended. If there are any more frivilous lawsuits or examples you can quote that don't involve death and dismemberment or cause harm to someone else, please let me know and I'll be your guinea pig, you can defend me and we'll both be richer. Ok? Sunny | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 1133 Registered: 5-2002 |
"Take a look at the cases cited by those folks, they aren't directly on point, their close but no cigar." I don't understand what your saying. A guy breaks into a house. The person living in the house pulls a gun from the nightstand and shoots the intruder. Without the Second Amendment, there would be no gun, and therefore, no defense against the intruder. How much more simple can the situation be in order to understand it? What person or organization has the moral right to tell somebody else that they cannot defend their own life? As for manufacturers being held liable for damages, I think they should only be held liable if the product malfunctions during its intended use. Nobody would hold a baseball bat manufacturer liable if somebody bashed somebody else's head in with the bat. But if the bat broke in half during a baseball game and the pieces hit an innocent spectator in the head, then perhaps that would be a valid case. But to say that a gun manufacturer should be held liable if the gun is used to kill somebody is just nonsense. If the gun explodes when fired at a shooting range due to manufacturing defects, then perhaps that would be a valid case. Remember over 10 years ago when some wacko crashed his Ford pick-up truck through the wall of a Luby's Cafeteria in Texas and proceded to shoot several people to death? The gun haters wanted to sue the gun maker. Strange that nobody wanted to sue Ford Motor Company because the guy used a Ford truck to plow a hole through the cafeteria wall. If he hadn't made it through the wall, he couldn't have shot anybody. Strange that people could excuse the misuse of a 3000 pound truck, but they couldn't excuse the misuse of a gun. Doesn't make any sense. People misuse trucks, people misuse baseball bats, and people misuse guns. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1626 Registered: 6-2001 |
Arlie: Learn to read: "directly on point" not on point. There is a difference. Take a look at the cases cited by those folks, they aren't directly on point, their close but no cigar. However, you guys seem to miss the point. The manufacturers are asking for a complete get out of jail pass. That isn't right, no matter what your beliefs are. What if the gun isn't manufactured to the right tolerance, and it blows up when you'er at the firing range. Their bill, they walk. Stupid huh! Stop not thinking, read the posts, think. Art | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 465 Registered: 2-2003 |
Holding the manufacturer liable is a load of ••••. I don't own a gun, I don't ever envision myself owning a gun, I know how to handle and dismantle a few models of assult rifles, but thats it. I could care less about them. My Grandfather passed away recently, but when he was put into a care faculity once his Alzheimers kicked in, he had a total of 21 guns around the house. His best friend wanted a few of them when they were dividing them amongst the close family who like, carry, and or own guns. He was not paying attention to where he was pointing the barrel and my Great Uncle said point that damn thing somewhere else, I'll only tell you this one time. Now, keep in mind, he's in his early 80's, a brilliant man, used to being with weapons and around weapons, but he can be a bit "foggy" sometimes. A couple days later, the same person nearly blew his foot off when he was moving the shotgun indoors in his house, and it was locked and loaded as my Grandfather kept most of his guns, and put a huge hole in the living room floor instead. What if he accidently put a huge hole in my Great Uncle instead a couple days prior? Prove to me where its the fault of the manufacturer. What does your gut tell you who is at fault? As a person with common sense. If someone tries to break into your house, slips and falls, cracks their head open and severely injures themself, and tries to sue you, how much accountability do you have? Why don't we sue automobile manufacturers and the liquor manufacturers when someone we know is killed by a drunk driver? Sunny | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 1131 Registered: 5-2002 |
"Yet somehow they believe that, waken in the middle of the night by an intruder, they are going to compose themselves enough to find their gun, stalk down the intruder and apprehend/shoot them?! Nonsense." Sorry Jack, but you're WRONG. It's not nonsense. If you were an NRA member and a subscriber to the American Rifleman magazine, you could read their monthly column called the Armed Citizen or something like that. In that column, they give brief reprints of newspaper articles from all across the country concerning people who HAVE shot burglars, rapists, attacking dogs, robbers, etc. Each article is referenced to the newspaper or publication that originally published the article, therefore, nobody can say that the stories are NRA fabrications. We had just such an incident here in North Little Rock, Arkansas a few months ago. Two guys tried to rob an oil company office after asking permission to use the restroom. They came out of the restroom waving guns and demanding cash. The oil company employees were faster on the draw. The end score: Two dead robbers and two live oil company employees. So you see, the Second Amendment does work. At least with the Right to Bear Arms, one has a fighting chance if one cares to exercise that right. And that is your RIGHT. The whining liberals who think that have a better idea for YOUR life, would love to take that RIGHT away from you. It's pretty obvious that they have an agenda against firearms. Those same whining liberals wouldn't ever attempt to take away any of the other amendments to the Bill of Rights. They really would be a laughing stock. Of course with landmark ideas like Oreo cookie lawsuits, they seem to be bent on self destructing their own integrity in due time. | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 860 Registered: 3-2002 |
Arlie, while alcohol, tobacco and gambling aren't guaranteed rights in this country (although you'll hear people swear they are), there are obviously laws dictating who can have access them, thus the comparison. To hear people mention growing up with the education and respect for weapons, as well as their elders, is refreshing. The gun owners I know all fall into this category, and are obviously responsible adult gun owners. As a broader social issue, I think the number of those who grow up respecting authority is rapidly diminishing, which definitely has an attachment to this issue. Finally, my "gun" friends and I throw this back and forth now and then, and the issue I get the biggest kick out of is when they bring up "protecting their family". Are there even any statistics available out there on successful family protections, thanks to a gun? I say it sarcastically because every time these guys come back from a hunting trip, there's numerous stories about the elk that popped up and startled them, or the bull they encountered at 30 yards, and missed, and so on. These are all very experienced hunters, in a known shooting environment, and time after time they choke. Yet somehow they believe that, waken in the middle of the night by an intruder, they are going to compose themselves enough to find their gun, stalk down the intruder and apprehend/shoot them?! Nonsense. The best I saw was an interview with guitarist Dave Navarro. He has a shotgun he keeps near the bed, with an aircraft landing light mounted on the barrel. If someone enters the house, the first shot he gets is with the light. If that doesn't scare the s**t out of him, he gets the trigger. | ||
| Terry Springer (Tspringer)
Member Username: Tspringer Post Number: 510 Registered: 4-2002 |
LOL Hey, I wouldnt dish out the diatribe if I couldnt take a little trash talk in reply! Besides, in chat boards the tongue is best left firmly placed in the cheek. :0 | ||
| Jack Habits (Ferraristuff)
Member Username: Ferraristuff Post Number: 588 Registered: 4-2003 |
Gosh Terry.... you don't sound brainwashed AT ALL.... (Please note my sarcastic voice!) Jack | ||
| Terry Springer (Tspringer)
Member Username: Tspringer Post Number: 507 Registered: 4-2002 |
"If weapons are banned completely, the criminals won't have them either." That is the single stupidist quote I have ever read on this site. In Denmark they have less violent crime because: 1. Everyone is frozen solid 9 months a year. 2. Nobody has any money to buy an illegal gun or have stolen because the Govt. takes all the money in taxes. 3. The population has been so brainwashed by socialist propaganda that they dont know what freedom really is and thus dont realise that it has been taken from them. In the USA today, there are over 200,000,000 guns. If the US Govt were to just outlaw guns and being trying to take them away from the citizens... it would be our second Civil War. An I would be one of those fighting. We have the closest thing to real "Freedom" in the USA. Freedom brings danger and risk. There is a tradeoff between "safty" and "freedom". The US Govt is hard at work to leverage the fear factor in many people to convince them to give up more freedom in order to gain increased perceived safty. This is a trap! Once a freedom is taken away, it is NEVER returned without massive violence. Guess how many violent crimes have been committed in the USA in the last 50 years with legally sold and obtained assault weapons and fully automatic machine guns? Thats right Comrade Stalin.... NONE. Just remember.... there was very little violent crime in East Germany too. Oh and to the point about gun control.... Im a total believer in gun control. I can usually put 10 rounds of 9mm in a 4 inch pattern at 30 yards. THATS the kind of gun control every American should support! | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 1128 Registered: 5-2002 |
Hey Art, what do you mean by "there are no other rulings? There are plenty of other rulings. The U.S. versus Emerson case would seem to outweigh the 9th circuit's decision. The 9th circuit's decision doesn't seem to be any more important than other decisions, so I don't think that the Second Amendment is currently "null and void" as Art would have us believe. Check out this link to the NRA website for all the info. http://www.nraila.org/articles.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=103 Some highlights from the NRA site: " Further, (3) the Silveira opinion was ill-advised and wrong, and the Ninth Circuit's prior Second Amendment cases should be reviewed. Judge Gould went further and positively embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment, further undermining Silveira and buttressing Emerson. These are further signs that the collective-rights construct within the federal judiciary is starting to crumble and that the individual-rights view is steadily gaining the recognition it deserves." Come on Art, tell the WHOLE truth about what those courts and judges are saying. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1614 Registered: 6-2001 |
Dave: The 9th circuit is also the largest circuit. It is over twice as large as any other circuit, and therefore it isn't any big surprise that it is overturned more than the other circuits. Percentage wise, I'm unsure if there is much difference. Those who attack the 9th circuit seem to forget that little point, it has the most volume by far, and therefore it would have the most cases overturned, based upon shear numbers. Lastly, Arlie: It is the law, since there are no other direct rulings. Since the 9th circuit has ruled, the other circuits while not bound, have to provide full faith and credit. Sometimes the courts do that and sometimes not. I wouldn't bet on it not being the law. Given the history of gun control, I suspect that the Supreme Court will avoid this issue for now, and therefore it will be the law in at least the Western USA. Lastly, as to the Ford overturn issue, we have comparative fault. That means that when someone has a degree of fault, the jury or judge can approtion the fault. Say the underinflation is determined to be 50% of the fault, but the design, tires, etc. are the balance, should those who have done wrong be allowed to escape liability? That is the entire point on the product liablity issue: you don't give someone a free pass if you can avoid it. Art | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 1127 Registered: 5-2002 |
Art said: "By the way, there is a 9th circuit case, which has been appealed to the Supreme Court (I don't know if it has been accepted) which provides that gun ownership ISN'T a constitutional right. If you want, I'll try to get you the cite. So as it stands, you don't have a constitutional right to carry weapons." Hey Art, you said that their "CASE" provides that gun ownership ISN'T a constitutional right. You mentioned nothing about their "CASE" being valid. So until their "CASE" is ruled in favor by the Supreme Court (fat chance) the Second Amendment is STILL IN EFFECT is it NOT???????? You're really getting desperate Art. Sean said: "I plan on teaching my kids all about fire arms, about safety, and about how to respect them and how dangerous they can be. Just like my dad taught me, and my dad's dad taught him. Guess what, WE NEVER TOUCHED MY DADS PISTOLS or rifle without him being present b/c he taught us about them. At my uncles ranch house, there was a gun rack inside the front door with several rifles. WE NEVER TOUCHED THEM WITHOUT PERMISSION!!!" Sean, your words should be written in stone for all to see, learn, and live by. I was taught the EXACT same things. My uncles had gun cabinets full of guns. Myself and DOZENS of my little cousins and other kids were taught to NEVER touch the guns without an adults permission. To violate that rule was UNTHINKABLE. More kids should be taught firearms safety. Too bad they are taught to always blame somebody else and hire a lawyer to sue anybody they can get a buck out of. | ||
| Dave Palmer (Blinder)
New member Username: Blinder Post Number: 1 Registered: 5-2003 |
Hello... new to this board... but I wanted to comment on Jonas Petersen's post regarding Denmark's total ban on guns. First, Denmark is Denmark and not the United States (yes, painfully obvious). Denmark does not have the same history and traditions as we do in the US, so therefor the laws in Denmark are for those that live in Denmark and would not be compatible with those of us who live in and are US citizens. Second, why do we, Americans, seem to be "gun nuts" anyway (that is the perception I see propogated throughout the world regarding our 2nd ammendment). Our 2nd ammendment was written so that we (the people) could defend our country from our government (should the need arise) and to defend our homes and property. We have a history and tradition of our *right* to keep and bear arms. That is a concept almost completely foreign to those *not* in the United States... that our country and our government are two very different entities. Our country is defined by the constitution, which in turn provides a framework for the government... and should that government ever get away from the people... well, the people will have the right to correct things, and the 2nd ammendment gives us (the people) the teeth to make that real. Now, I personally do not own a gun, nor do I have a desire to own one, but I cherish the right the constitution provides me with should I ever change my mind. I often wonder if leftists/liberals fear guns that if they would ever gain control of government that they would want to make sure there wouldn't be a threat of an uprising from those who do not wish to live under the failed policies of the left??? Or am I just paranoid? | ||
| Sean F (Agracer)
Junior Member Username: Agracer Post Number: 131 Registered: 2-2003 |
"I would be no different that the liability that Ford had, when some of its SUVs turned over, when on the Bridgestone Tires: usually the owner was running air pressures slightly under what was recommended." So I drive a top heavy vehicle with under inflated tires and turn a corner to fast or speed at 100mph down the freeway without wearing my seatbelt and get hurt when the tires blow and it tips over? How is that Fords fault? The only reason the "jury" (probably full of morons who were "selected" by the plantif and defense council after careful research on the part of the defense into the backrounds of each possible juror) sided with the family for 45% was because there was a small child in a wheelchair sucking on oxygen and eating through a straw staring them in the face all day and it tugged thier heart strings. Tell me that's not the truth and the rest of us will pull up our pants to avoid crap your spreading. It was not a "defective" design. Was there a better one? Maybe, but it was not "defective". The safty worked or the gun would have gone off when the kid was playing with it. Why was the weapon loaded with one "under the hammer" in the first place? Why was the weapon cocked and ready to fire while he was trying to unload it? Why did he try to unload it in front of the kid instead of going somewhere else? PS Art, don't take this as a personal attack. It's not meant to e. Obviously since we don't have all the "facts" in front of us it's impossible for us to say one way or the other. Besides which we're both biased in regards to the issues of gun control which affects our post. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1582 Registered: 1-2002 |
Art, the 9th Circuit's rulings ONLY apply in the 9th Circuit, i.e., the Granola State of Fruits Nuts and Flakes, aka the Socialist Republik of Kalifornia. The 9th Circuit is also, BY FAR, the MOST OVERTURNED circuit court in the US, and in US history. You neglected to mention that as well. These are the a$$clowns who also ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because God is mentioned (even though they themselves swear in witnesses on the bible & their swearing in oath includes the phrase "so help me God"), among many other certifiably LOONEY decisions those frootloops have come down with over the years. Hence, them being the most overturned in US history. Therefore, your statement is false. The US Constitution prevails, not the 9th Circuit. Nice try, though, counselor. Have a good weekend! | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1607 Registered: 6-2001 |
MikeB & Dave: As to the liability issue, the jury held that the design of the gun was defective. The jury did hold the family liable, i.e., 55% of the fault was laid at the family's doorstep. I think, but am not sure, that the defect was that you could not keep the safety on, when unloading the weapon. Other types of guns had devices that allowed that, and given that people aren't always perfect, this was held to be a defect for which the manufacturer was held liable. I would be no different that the liability that Ford had, when some of its SUVs turned over, when on the Bridgestone Tires: usually the owner was running air pressures slightly under what was recommended. In those instances a combination of errors, design defects all contributed to the injury. To allow someone to escape liability for something that they had done just because their a manufacturer isn't right, but that's what you're recommending. By the way, there is a 9th circuit case, which has been appealed to the Supreme Court (I don't know if it has been accepted) which provides that gun ownership ISN'T a constitutional right. If you want, I'll try to get you the cite. So as it stands, you don't have a constitutional right to carry weapons. Art | ||
| Sean F (Agracer)
Junior Member Username: Agracer Post Number: 129 Registered: 2-2003 |
"That is probably an appropriate result, you should be able to unload, without turning off the safety, a defective design in my and the jury's opinion." Of course you think that. You're a lawyer and stand to profit from a large companies liability. It's not the gun manufactures fault that the dumbass who owned it DROPPED IT, nor had the brains to unload it away from the child's presence. 90% of "accidental" shootings are a result of ignorance. Most gun accidents involving children occur b/c one of the children involved knew nothing about guns and was curious. I plan on teaching my kids all about fire arms, about safety, and about how to respect them and how dangerous they can be. Just like my dad taught me, and my dad's dad taught him. Guess what, WE NEVER TOUCHED MY DADS PISTOLS or rifle without him being present b/c he taught us about them. At my uncles ranch house, there was a gun rack inside the front door with several rifles. WE NEVER TOUCHED THEM WITHOUT PERMISSION!!! One of the best things the NRA has ever done is start the summer Gun Camps to teach kids about safety, safety, and safety. The safety is an integral part of the triggering mechanism. Asking a manufacturer to foresee the accident you described is ludicrous. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1581 Registered: 1-2002 |
Art, actually, the majority of gun-related crime is due to 3 sources: gang-related; drug-related; and felon recidivism. Crimes of passion is WAYYYYY down the list. Also, I support the liability exemption, since the pursuit of liability against gun manufacturers has been & continues to be abused to the Nth degree--most often by liberal big-city mayors with taxpayer dollars. These chickensh!t cowards are unable & unwilling to go after the criminals (they're too scared of violating their "civil rights": don't make me puke), so they go after the deep-pocketed manufacturer of the inanimate tool used. And Art, your profession ought to be ashamed of itself in these debacles. Thankfully, they keep losing... In the example you cite, the idiot who couldn't handle the weapon, or who TRIED TO UNLOAD IT IN THE PRESENCE OF CHILDREN, is 100% liable. Am I wrong here? As a gun owner, I would never, EVER unload a weapon in front of a child---especially one who had just found the weapon! This is the pinnacle of irresponsibility! And the gun manufacturer is NOT at fault. So what about their design? It is the responsibility of the person holding the gun to understand how to operate it. Failure to do so is NOT the fault of the manufacturer. | ||
| Jonas Petersen (Karsten335)
Member Username: Karsten335 Post Number: 406 Registered: 11-2002 |
Hehe, thanks Jack. We have some pretty nice girls yeah Mike, I really can't answer the question you asked about NZ and Sweden, cuz' I don't know. I don't live there, so I don't have any insight in whats going on there. But I can tell you, that 13 people killed a year by guns is very little compared to the US's 36.000 back in 93. I'm just saying, again, that I would bet a complete ban of weapons will reduce the deats with firearms in the US, it has in our country, and probably also in the others. As you can see in this new data from 2002, which is a little better (cuz' it new) Denmark is nr. 1. The US is 38. As for the question about why I said 5 people. That was merely a guess. I thought around that number, and just typed it down. When something like this happends, it gets blown up in the papers and so on. And I could remember about 5 times that happened last year. So I said that. Now, what about all these kids running around killing others at schools and the bi-cycle incident. That has NEVER happened here. Because it's close to impossible to get a hold of a real gun in this country. Deaths by Violence per 100,000 1 Denmark 1.2 2 Ireland 1.3 3 Norway 1.5 4 Greece 1.6 4 Spain 1.6 6 Czech Republic 1.7 6 Japan 1.7 6 Netherlands 1.7 6 Switzerland 1.7 10 Kuwait 1.9 10 Mauritius 1.9 12 Austria 2.0 13 Austrailia 2.2 13 Italy 2.2 13 Luxembourg 2.2 16 Macedonia 2.3 17 Canada 2.5 17 New Zealand 2.5 17 U.K. (N. Ireland) 2.5 20 Croatia 2.8 21 Germany 3.1 22 Finland 3.3 23 Romania 3.5 24 South Korea 3.7 25 Belgium 4.1 26 U.K. (England, Wales) 4.2 27 U.K. (all) 4.4 28 Slovak Republic 4.6 29 Hungary 4.7 30 France 4.9 31 Slovenia 5.3 32 Sweden 6.0 33 Bulgaria 6.3 34 U.K (Scotland) 7.2 35 Israel 8.2 35 Poland 8.2 37 Costa Rica 8.4 38 United States 8.9 | ||
| Jack Habits (Ferraristuff)
Member Username: Ferraristuff Post Number: 554 Registered: 4-2003 |
Mike, >>>So maybe they aren't so much violent as simply depressed The Danish are fun and the girls are soooo "friendly"... especially after a couple of Gammeldansks... :-D Jack | ||
| Jack Habits (Ferraristuff)
Member Username: Ferraristuff Post Number: 553 Registered: 4-2003 |
Hi Arlie, These are discussions that I normally don't engage in as when both sides are good debaters, they will ultimately convince eachother and then still be opponents... What I meant to say is that I understand Jonas's "feeling of not being safe in a gun-friendly environment". I come from a "no gun" country (not totally true as you CAN get sportsguns, hunting guns and personal guns provided you go through the whole process of licensing) and I feel realtively safe here (The Netherlands). This dicussion overlaps a little with the many Iraq debates and politically speaking, I am pretty righ wing although more "right of the center" but also a pacifist at heart. I feel that in this era ANY form of violence is soooooooo primitive and that includes personal arms but also warfare. To be honest, I understand that there will allways BE violence and that we will allways NEED armies but I can't understand the principle of people shooting eachothers brain out. I have visited the USA many times, even considered moving there (can't persuade my g/f of 11 years to come along and I won't go without her) so I am aware of all the slogans, the pros & cons etc. but if I hear "guns don't kill people, people kill people", I would like to argue "you can't fire a gun that isn't there". I join Jonas's statement that I feel less "safe" in the USA than in most "gun control" countries eventhough I have never gotten into real trouble in either place. It is simply always in the back of my mind when I'm in the USA when late at night a car pulls up next to me at a traffic light and the guy(s) are looking at me with those weird looks in their eyes( yes, I DO stick out in a USA crowd as European...) that they COULD pull out a gun and blow my brains out. We have had a tremendous discussion here in The Netherlands about safety and "feeling safe", all caused by a "right of the center" politician who was assasinated last year May (he was actually shot so there you go...). Outcome is that "feeling safe" is not necessarily related to the actual crime rate and for me, and probably many people more, having "uncontrolled guns" in a country does NOT add to the "feeling of safety". I would like to repeat the statement I made at the beginning, this is a debate nobody can win. Jack | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Junior Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 195 Registered: 12-2002 |
Arthur, Perhaps much of the shootings are spur-of-the-moment crimes. But if someone will pick up a gun and kill someone... are you saying if they didn't have that gun, they would not have picked up a bat, or knife, or some other weapon? Are you saying a gun makes it "easier" to kill? Furthermore, whether guns should be allowed or not isn't a matter for debate, their posession by citizens is a guaranteed RIGHT, not a priviledge. You dont have the "right" to drive but you have the right to own a gun. Now, we could argue about the fine points of what the intent of the 2nd amendment was, but that's not really germane, IMO. And Art, I see where you're coming from on the liability issue, but I have to disagree. How much foreseeability is given to a business? Could the gun manufacturer not also do other things that would have prevented the accident such as making the gun only fire 3 seconds after the trigger is pulled, or restricting sale of lead bullets in favor of rubber ones, or other such things? How much is too much? You could spend $1,000 per gun protecting people from themselves. As for the case cited, I didn't read it, and I'm not a lawyer, but I would have a REALLY hard time finding a company liable for that scenario at all. First, the parent is primarily liable for allowing the child access to a gun (do you let your kids get the car keys or your cocaine or...???). Second, keeping a loaded gun around I say adds more liablity to the parent. Then an accident occurs (gun dropped) and another accident occurs (gun goes off and hits kid), and the guy who made the gun should have foreseen it? There were 10 other things that should have been done by others first. Actually, in that case, the gun manufacturer should be allowed to sue the family for being careless and opening them up to liablity. Or maybe we should restrict liability lawsuits to the person of primary liability? That would help a lot. Should a car manufacturer foresee that any vehicle that can travel faster than the allowed speed limit (75 I think is the highest) could cause injury? Is there EVER a time when any citizen should be going over 75? Why can cars go over 75? Why aren't the car companies liable when some kid wraps his Camaro around a tree after going 150mph? Same thing, in my opinion. Would you be in favor of holding car companies liable, and/or implementing speed limiters at 75mph? | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Junior Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 194 Registered: 12-2002 |
Jack, You need to add in the factor of gun control. I am not saying there is more shootings in Denmark than the USA, either as a % of a flat number - of course not. I am saying Jonas' position that gun control is the reason is just completely wrong, as evidenced by NZ and Sweden (and others). Also, according to the data I presented, the per-capita violent death rate was higher in Denmark in 1993 than in the USA in 1999 (the only numbers data was available for). Apparently Denmark has a huge suicide rate. So maybe they aren't so much violent as simply depressed | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 1125 Registered: 5-2002 |
I do see your point Jack. It's like down here in the south (Arkansas) around the 4th of July. Fireworks are illegal to sell inside the city limits of most towns, so fireworks stands are clustered just outside the city limits to stay legal. But my problem is with the entire law at the local level. Why is it illegal to sell handguns in Chicago? Because the Chicago lawmakers passed a law making it illegal. And why would they pass a law that clearly violates the Second Amendment constitutional rights of every citizen in Chicago? Because somebody thinks that Chicagonites couldn't handle firearms like the citizens of other cities in America? That doesn't seem right or valid. Perhaps they wouldn't have the problem of gunshops being clustered in outlying areas if they would allow the free trade of gunshops throughout the city. Isn't that what the Second Amendment says? The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. And by the way, alcohol, tobacco, gambling and lotteries are NOT protected by any constitutional amendment in the Bill of Rights. So it would seem that there is no specific protection of those activities from state or local laws. | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Junior Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 193 Registered: 12-2002 |
Jonas, So before you say my data is wrong, please come up with alternate data. Listen to what you are saying! You are saying "you are wrong, because I know you are". So provide some facts please! As for the death rate, the rate of death from violent acts is still higher in Denmark. Ok, so most of it is suicide? Why? Are things so bad in Denmark? I'm simply saying... 1) You said less than 5 people die per year from guns in Denmark. I claim that to be untrue and I've provided facts. Please provide alternate facts. 2) You insinuated the USA is "less safe" (talking about violent crime) than Denmark. I provided evidence against that. The rate of violent death in Denmark is higher than that of the USA. 3) If you are talking strictly about gun deaths, then yes our rate is much higher than yours, but then what about New Zealand and Sweden that both have a large number of gun owners but have lower gun deaths than Denmark. How can you explain that, if, as you say, gun control reduces violent crime? And if you want to skew numbers, how about the fact that the USA is one of the most racially diverse countries in the world. I wonder what the numbers would look like if you removed the racial element from the USA's numbers, or added in a racial element to Denmarks numbers? You say gun control is responsible for your low numbers, but please explain NZ and Sweden. | ||
| Jack Habits (Ferraristuff)
Member Username: Ferraristuff Post Number: 552 Registered: 4-2003 |
I'll give Jonas a little support here: Deaths by Violence per 100,000 1 Denmark 1.2 2 Ireland 1.3 3 Norway 1.5 4 Greece 1.6 4 Spain 1.6 6 Czech Republic 1.7 6 Japan 1.7 6 Netherlands 1.7 6 Switzerland 1.7 10 Kuwait 1.9 10 Mauritius 1.9 12 Austria 2.0 13 Austrailia 2.2 13 Italy 2.2 13 Luxembourg 2.2 16 Macedonia 2.3 17 Canada 2.5 17 New Zealand 2.5 17 U.K. (N. Ireland) 2.5 20 Croatia 2.8 21 Germany 3.1 22 Finland 3.3 23 Romania 3.5 24 South Korea 3.7 25 Belgium 4.1 26 U.K. (England, Wales) 4.2 27 U.K. (all) 4.4 28 Slovak Republic 4.6 29 Hungary 4.7 30 France 4.9 31 Slovenia 5.3 32 Sweden 6.0 33 Bulgaria 6.3 34 U.K (Scotland) 7.2 35 Israel 8.2 35 Poland 8.2 37 Costa Rica 8.4 38 United States 8.9 39 Singapore 9.2 40 Cuba 10.0 41 Azerbaijan 10.2 41 Thailand 10.2 43 Armenia 14.6 44 Portugal 14.9 45 Kyrgyzstan 16.2 46 Lithuania 16.4 47 Argentina 18.6 48 Moldova 22.0 49 Brazil 22.4 50 Latvia 24.3 51 Estonia 27.0 52 Belarus 32.4 53 Ukraine 34.2 54 Kazakhstan 52.0 55 Russia 52.9 56 Philippines 58.1 This data comes from http://hypatia.ss.uci.edu/istudies/peace/peace/countries.htm and dates from 2002. If my calculator is working correctly, then 8.9 is about 7.4 times as high as 1.2 so I guess he DOES have a point... Jack | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 850 Registered: 3-2002 |
Arlie, I understand your points, but bikes don't kill, people do. Also, when the Bill of Rights was written, the intent was of national defense, as you pointed out, not to empower every citizen as judge, jury and executioner. When Mayor Daley initiated his lawsuit against gun manufacturers, I was at first skeptical, seeing it as much as a publicity movement as anything. But if you dig a little deeper into the issue, there is a logic to it. It is illegal to sell handguns in Chicago, so the industry has stacked their suppliers around the perimeter, in predominately depressed areas, to ease efforts of obtaining a handgun. In many ways, the campaign to sell these guns has mirrored past shady marketing techniques whereby corporations target minors (alcohol, tobacco), or those better served without the product (gambling/lottery). I don't know where you live, but I assure you, it IS an issue here. Perhaps that's another problem with the debate, in that different areas of the country have entirely different relationships with guns. Ours is a little rocky, to say the least. | ||
| Jonas Petersen (Karsten335)
Member Username: Karsten335 Post Number: 405 Registered: 11-2002 |
------------------------------ In terms of handguns, Denmark had .23 handgun deaths per 100,000 people. Given 5.2 million people, that is 12 people last year ------------------------------ Those ratings are 10 year old. They can hardly be used here. The figures for today is alot different than that. But to take a look at your site. Country: Total Homicide Firearm Homicide Denmark 1.21 0.23 United States 5.70 3.72 That's from the site you linked to. And seems that the figures you said wasn't true either. Your ratings is a lot higher than ours. If you take a good look, all the deaths is not from violent crimes. It's suicides. All the US ratings are higher, except that one. And that it the one that drags us up. remove it, and we wouldn't be that far up the ladder. Actually, a great deal under the US | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1604 Registered: 6-2001 |
MikeB, et al: Control criminals? Good story line, but unfortunately the majority of crimes committed with guns are those of passion, by people who have no criminal record, or not a significant one. Classic examples are family fights, with alcohol involved, etc. As to the case Dave cited, it was a good result. However the NRA is lobbying for an exemption from all product liability cases. That is unfair for the following reason: There are instances when a weapon is poorly designed and the manufacturer should be held liable for that defect. An example: Accidental shooting. Facts: Young child gets weapon. Adult see child with weapon, takes it away. Gun has safety on, but it loaded. That is illegal in Califoria, when minor children in the residence. Adult is family friend, decided to unload the weapon. Because of the design, he has to turn the safety off, in order to unload. After his turns off safety, while unloading, he drops weapon, it discharges, kid turns into a quad. Gun manufacturer held liable for injury (not 100% but 45%). That is probably an appropriate result, you should be able to unload, without turning off the safety, a defective design in my and the jury's opinion. Any comments? Art | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Junior Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 192 Registered: 12-2002 |
Really Jonas? There were 13 murders last year in Denmark from guns. What was that about "not even 5 people per year"???? As for violent crime, it means crime where someone was hurt. Your violent crime rate is higher than the USA. It doesn't mean you have more cases, we do because we have 260 million people, but your rate (per 100,000 people) is higher. Look at this site: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html The data is from the International Journal of Epidemiology), and you can see that you had 23.4 violent deaths in Denmark per 100,000 people, whereas the US had 18.57 violent deaths per 100,000 people. In terms of handguns, Denmark had .23 handgun deaths per 100,000 people. Given 5.2 million people, that is 12 people last year. And you said "less than 5 people". So it was more than double the number you quoted. Now, the USA has figures for gun deaths that are higher than yours, but our overall violent deaths are lower. To me, this means there is more violent crime and killing, but just not with guns. So more people get killed in Denmark per capita than in the USA, but just not with guns. Is that a good thing? Is it better to get killed by being run over by a car, or beaten to death with a club, or forcibly drowned? How is it better? And you claim gun control is responsible for your low gun-death rate (even though people seem to find ways to kill others without guns). But look at Sweden and New Zealand. In Sweden, 15% of people have guns, and 20% of New Zealanders have guns, and their gun-related deaths are lower than Denmark. So it would appear that 1) It is not true that "less than 5 people a year" die from shootings in Denmark 2) More people die violently in Denmark than the USA, per capita. 3) Other countries that allow guns have significantly lower gun-death rates than Denmark. How do you account for this? Please don't claim the numbers are wrong unless you come up with your own numbers. I've seen these statistics listed in multiple places, so I believe they are pretty accurate. | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 1124 Registered: 5-2002 |
"A couple kids on bikes", "The kids (not even 15 years old) fired into the group". Why isn't anybody trying to outlaw bicycles? If it hadn't been for the bicycles, the kids could not have easily ridden by and shot those people? Of course it's alot easier to attack the guns themselves in this whimpy politically correct climate. If you can sue a company for making Oreo cookies on the basis that they are harmful to children, why couldn't you sue a bicycle company for providing transportation to the scene of a violent crime? Sounds just as plausible or just as rediculous. "get their noses out of joint with concern that their hunting rifles will be taken away" I will repeat for the 487th time, the Second Amendment was never meant to protect your rights to own a rifle for hunting. The Second Amendment was initiated to provide for individuals to maintain firearms as a means of self defense and national defense. Do your research. The old "protects your right to own a hunting rifle" statement has always been nonsense. | ||
| Jonas Petersen (Karsten335)
Member Username: Karsten335 Post Number: 403 Registered: 11-2002 |
Mike B, Quote; ---------------------------- Denmark may have very strict gun control laws, but your rate of handgun-related murders is higher than many other countries ____________________________ I'm very sorry to tell you this, but you haven't got your fact's straight. Not even 5 people get's killed a year from gunshots. A 100 people in Denmark maybe owning guns, tops. I have never seen a real gun in my whole life. Not even all our police officers where them, cuz' it's not necessary. Yes, we have alot of home burglary, but no one ever gets hurt in these thefts. Quote; --------------------- In the top ten list for "Violent crime", Denmark is #8, but the USA is not even on the list --------------------- Violent crimes can be many things, I guess in this case it assault. And it happens sometimes in Denmark. But you have to realize, that we are a country with only 6 million citizens, that less in the City of New York. So if something happens in this country, it often get blowed out of proportions. But I don't trust that survey at all when it says the US is nr. 12. I have seen many documentarys from the US itself, claiming that in the US alone, a car is stolen every half minute. In Denmark 2 cars is stolen every week. So that survey is pretty rotten if you ask me | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Member Username: Randall Post Number: 468 Registered: 1-2003 |
I'll say it again, some gun control is good. Age limits, required registration, limits on fully automatic guns, background checks and mandatory safety courses are all great policies, and are all forms of control. When it come to an adult committing a crime with a gun, it should be a mandatory life sentence, no chance of parole. When it comes to a person negligent in ownership, they should never again be allowed to own a gun and some other form of punishment should also be administered. Anyway, I'm off to work. | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 848 Registered: 3-2002 |
I've never been a fan of guns. Obviously, it's not black and white as far as saying "guns = murder", since the urban congestion we see so much more of in the USA creates more hostile environments. People will kill people, whether it requires a gun, knife, or a board with a nail. However, we also witness crimes like what just happened 2 weeks ago in Chicago. A couple kids on bikes rode by a group of people participating in a neighborhood clean-up program. They were picking up garbage, planting flowers, etc. The kids (not even 15 years old) fired into the group, killing another child. It was retaliation for a supposed stolen bicycle, the victim having nothing to do with the theft at all. Now, you get into all kinds of social/parenting issues when confronting events like this, yet without guns, 13 year-olds aren't going to run around killing one another. All the rhetoric in the world is useless, because the gun issue is always batted around by responsible, law-abiding citizens (for the most part)who don't shoot their guns in night clubs, at convenience stores or into crowds of innocent people, or leave them in a drawer accessible by a child. Meanwhile, thugs who don't give a f**k about you, me OR the Constitution of The United States of America maintain easy access to firearms, with which they kill, maim or abuse others. Every time legislation is proposed to curb this situation, it's the responsible ones who, once again, get their noses out of joint with concern that their hunting rifles will be taken away. Nobody needs to acquire a gun thisfast. It's ironic that the freedoms being protected the most by the NRA are those of criminals. | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Member Username: Randall Post Number: 466 Registered: 1-2003 |
Here's a bit more about those statististics Mike quoted: "According to the comparison of international crime statistics produced by the UN's Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, England and Wales had 9,766 crimes for every 100,000 people in the year 2000. America had 8,517, South Africa 7,997, Germany 7,621 and Russia 2,022." As you can see, the US is not far from #1. The US is always held accountable for the actions? That's going a bit too far. Maybe more accountable than China, but if you look through our history we have experimented on people, had National Gaurd accidentally shoot students and that incident at Waco just to name a few. The legal system is an opinion, I personally think it sucks. While there are a lot of countries that have things worse, there are countries that I feel do things better. | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Junior Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 191 Registered: 12-2002 |
Jonas, There is a perception (a wrong one, I believe) that the USA has a ton of crime and a horrible legal system. Do you remember the situation in Moscow a year or two ago where Chechen rebels took over the theatre and the Spetsnaz troops used "some sort of gas" to knock everyone out, killing some of the good as well as the bad people? In the USA, that would never have happened, because the government would have liability. That is a big concept. In the USA, anyone, whether it's a person, a company, or a government official is held accountable for their actions. Yes, sometimes we have frivolous lawsuits, but the are usually played up. Nobody got millions of dollars because they burned their lip on coffee - that is just a rumor that perpetuates until everyone thinks it's fact. Yes, in the USA you can sue anyone for anything, but the court system does a reasonable job of weeding out the frivolous cases. As for crime. Actually, do you know Denmark ranks much higher in overall crime than the USA? The British Home Office did a study in 1999 of crime rates of various countries. And the results? From a survey of 24 different countries: For all crime combined, the USA is #17 out of 24 (#1 is the worst). The top 5 were Sweden, New Zealand, UK, Denmark, and Belgium. For home burglary, the USA was #6 on the list. Denmark was #1 (the worst rate). For auto theft, the USA was #12 of 24, with Sweden being #1, followed by New Zealand, the UK, Australia, France, and then Denmark. In the top ten list for "Violent crime", Denmark is #8, but the USA is not even on the list. In the UK, after their gun laws were made more strict in 1996 and ALL handguns were banned, violent crime involving a gun has RISEN 40%!. Denmark may have very strict gun control laws, but your rate of handgun-related murders is higher than many other countries. Scotland, Singapore, S.Korea, New Zealand, England, Sweden, Germany, Spain, Japan and Ireland all have lower gun-related muder rates then Denmark. So how well does gun control work in Denmark again? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I am just saying how the facts are often misrepresented. Just like they are on what the legal system is like in the USA. So, Jonas, you say you feel very safe walking around knowing you are safe. But, there is more chance you will be a victim of a violent crime in Denmark than in the USA. I have never felt unsafe anywhere I have gone in the USA, and I've been almost everywhere in America. | ||
| Jonas Petersen (Karsten335)
Member Username: Karsten335 Post Number: 400 Registered: 11-2002 |
And to your second question. That wouldn't work in a Danish court. We have a very effective court, to bad the sentences are to low. I've had people can sue the most ridiculous things in the US? - Something about a women suing McD cuz' their coffee was hot and she burned her lip. And a guy because their food had made him fat. And they won. Those things would be laughed at in a danish court. hehe. I think it's funny. BTW Dave, Funny how the two of us always have a different opinion on everything we discuss | ||
| Jonas Petersen (Karsten335)
Member Username: Karsten335 Post Number: 399 Registered: 11-2002 |
Does England have a complete restriction against all weapons? Cuz' I was sure that Denmark was the only country having these laws. I don't know how it is in england, but here in Denmark it's working. It's illegal to sell guns, even in a huntingshop. If you want to by a rifte for hunting. you have to get a permission for the department of justice and they need to see a copy of your hunting license before you can get the permission. So if the govourment really is keen on making this work, I'm pretty sure it will. If you didn't have all those gunshops in the US, I'm pretty sure guns wouldn't be that big of a problem. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1566 Registered: 1-2002 |
Ask the Brits how their total gun ban is working for them, especially in urban areas. Hint #1: gun-related crime has skyrocketed, and now exceeds that of the US on a per-capita basis Hint #2: people who defend themselves and their families are being prosecuted, and those committing gun crimes are being freed, and sometimes get taxpayer money in order to sue their victims for using guns to defend themselves. Anyone see a problem here? | ||
| Jonas Petersen (Karsten335)
Member Username: Karsten335 Post Number: 397 Registered: 11-2002 |
It has been illegal since I can remember. And I'm 18 now. So it's at least 18 years old. I tell you, it works fine. I think there is tops 4-5 shootings in Denmark in a year. 90% of all police officers in Denmark retires without ever having drawed their weapon. | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Member Username: Randall Post Number: 463 Registered: 1-2003 |
Jonas, Have guns always been illegal there? Or is this something that has happened in recent(5-20) years? Banning them here is not a realistic option at all, but I'm curious how it works out long term for other countries. | ||
| Jonas Petersen (Karsten335)
Member Username: Karsten335 Post Number: 396 Registered: 11-2002 |
Well, here in Denmark you are not allowed to own a gun at all. In we have almost no crime. If the guns aren't out there, they can't be used. If the guns are illegal, you can't make money manufactoring them. It there's no guns at all, the crimes commited is not as lethal as they would be with guns. Actually, you have to have e permit for a having a knife in Denmark, and it can not exceed 7 cm's. It's only legal to have it at home, if you get stopped by a police officer, and you have a knife. It's just as illegal as anything else. Ban weapons completely would be the best solution. Now someone would say, but we have to protect ourselves and so on. Why? - If weapons are banned completely, the criminals won't have them either. And then what do you need the gun for? Nothing. Now some of you say, that criminals could easily have guns even if they are completely banned. And yes, maybe in the beginning. But if the sales are completely banned, the buisnesses will slowly die, and it would almost be impossible for criminals to get a hold of weapons. You bare hands is the best weapon ever. It's effective, and it doesn't kill. I like my country. I can go to school and walk in the streets at night, and feel safe. Knowing that in Denmark maybe 100 people, TOTAL owns gun. And not even 10% uses the for illegal purposes. It's a nice feeling. | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Member Username: Randall Post Number: 461 Registered: 1-2003 |
In Hawaii you can't sell used guns in the paper. Every transaction has to be dealt with like a new gun sale. This make for less guns available on the street. Unregistered gun/stolen guns here are expensive as hell, where in WA state you could get a stolen pistol for $50. That is an example of gun control at work. I never said all the rules are fair, but some amount of gun control is required. You just don't understand the difference between gun control and abolishing the right to own guns. In Japan and Singapore gun ownership is illegal, it has been for a long time. Their penal system is awesome too, and it works fine for them. I would never want guns to be illegal here, but for you to say "gun control doesn't ever work" is wrong, because sometimes it does. | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Junior Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 190 Registered: 12-2002 |
Randall, Do you think guns are bought and sold like toys now? In my state, it's up to the local chief of police if they will issue a handgun permit, and I was told flat out "we don't issue handgun permits to anyone except police officers - no exceptions". How is that fair? The constitution protects my right to bear arms does it not? I would say gun control is overboard already. Once you have a gun, there is little legislation dealing with how you need to handle and store that gun. And lawfully purchased guns are rarely used by their owners for crime. Stolen guns and illegal guns usually are used for crime. Rather than crushing a constitutionally protected RIGHT of citizens, how about stopping the mechanism whereby the guns get to the criminals. Gun control doesn't ever work - it only works "with a good penal system" because you can lock people away for a long time for little reason and without weapons, there isn't much they can do about it. I don't want to live in a fishbowl society where my elected officials make sure they handle my decisions so I don't have to make them myself. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1565 Registered: 1-2002 |
Well, we're in 100% agreement, then. Guns currently cannot be bought & sold as casually as toys, and machine guns (the TRUE assault weapons) are pretty much illegal without a special ATF permit & rectal-probe background check. | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Intermediate Member Username: T88power Post Number: 1491 Registered: 2-2001 |
Gun control is great... for the criminals. Ernesto | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Member Username: Randall Post Number: 459 Registered: 1-2003 |
I'm for the both. I don't think guns should be bought and sold as casually as toys. I also don't want to see fully automatic guns readily available. I think the people that want no gun control need their heads examined. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1563 Registered: 1-2002 |
LOL, Randall. Actually, I prefer criminal control to gun control. The former only affects the law-breaking. The latter only affects the law-abiding & respecting. Guess which category deserves better treatment? | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 446 Registered: 2-2003 |
Guns don't kill people? I've been smoking for a few years now and now only recently found out it can kill me or cause health problems. What WILL they think of, next? | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Member Username: Randall Post Number: 455 Registered: 1-2003 |
It's on MSN also http://www.msnbc.com/news/913616.asp By the way, gun control with the right penal system does lower crime, it's just our penal system sucks so it doesn't work. | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Member Username: Randall Post Number: 454 Registered: 1-2003 |
Well, that is a BS result. I mean, if the gun makers can't be blamed, who's gonna take the fall? I guess there's always the steel mills, because it wouldn't make sense to blame the criminals. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1562 Registered: 1-2002 |
Arlie, I was not aware of that--thanks! I like it when the Constiution wins, Arlie!!!! As I said, sanity prevails. Gun "control" does not reduce crime. And that's a FACT. Just ask anyone who has lived in London for the last several years. Or read their newspapers. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1561 Registered: 1-2002 |
No, but I like the fact that they report stories that CNN won't touch for risk of "offending" its liberal constituency. | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 1121 Registered: 5-2002 |
Hey Dave, that makes it a "DOUBLE WHAMMY" news day for the gun haters. ABC news did a story tonight about how the Republicans will not even bring the Assault Rifle Ban up for a renewal vote next year. It will automatically expire in September 2004 unless Congress votes for a renewal. No vote, no renewal, it expires. Second amendment wins. | ||
| DES (Sickspeed)
Advanced Member Username: Sickspeed Post Number: 4013 Registered: 8-2002 |
Dave, do you get a pay check from Fox News...? | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1560 Registered: 1-2002 |
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86908,00.html |