Various Stances on Gun Control Policy

[teripie]

The hand gun talk reminds me of my favorite little gun. For Valentine's hubby bought me the tiniest little revolver, looked just like an old West 45. Soooo cute! I could palm it and ya wouldn't know I had it in my hand. It fired 22 longs and could really blast a big hole in anything it hit. I've always considered it the most dangerous gun we've ever owned. Why? Because it did not look like a real gun, looked like a cute little toy, and at the time we had kids still living at home. Yes, our kids knew exactly what it was and knew it was dangerous as all hell but I constantly fretted one of their idiot friends might someday stumble on it.
I eventually sold it to a guy I worked with. he was tickled to pieces with it but I warned him when I handed it over, it had to be fired very carefully as it was so small one's hand tended to totally envelope it. The hammer could tear a chunk out of the palm of your hand and the barrel could burn your finger. The next day the guy came to work with his hand all bandaged up. He was still pleased with the gun but had a bigger respect for it.
Wish I still had it. It was a great conversation piece.

[Capellini]

I consider the use of firearms for hunting to be a separate issue than the specific use of handguns. Apologies if I didn't make that clear originally.

So, to restate in a clearer fashion, handguns are designed to shoot people. That was their original intention when first invented, it is what they are designed to do, and any other possible use is secondary. But, even taking people out of it, a handgun is still designed to kill SOMETHING. Anything that is specifically designed to TAKE LIFE should be more regulated than something that ISN'T.

It should be harder to buy a gun than to buy a house. The use of a gun should require more training than the use of a riding lawn mower. Gun licenses should be more closely monitored than driver's licenses. A person should be held to a higher degree of responsibility for actions committed with the use of there gun than with the use of there wrench.

If you want to call a gun a tool, its still a tool designed to cause harm to another living creature. I don't believe in the ridiculous slippery slope argument of 'well, I could kill someone with my beach towel, lets regulate beach towels'. A beach towel has an inherent, practical, and primary purpose that is something other than causing physical harm to another living creature.

Denying that the intention of a firearm is to cause physical harm to another living creature is AMAZINGLY irresponsible, imo. It indicates an inherent state of denial of the seriousness of the object.

When you're cutting vegetables in the kitchen, you generally don't take for granted the fact that you could slice off your finger, and the vegetable knife wasn't even originally designed to cut off fingers (unless you're using surgical tools in the kitchen, and that's just silly). To own something that's most basic and original purpose is to kill something, and deny that is what its for is just ridiculous.

[teripie]

I don't believe in killing snakes. And before you jump on me and accuse me of never having had to live with them, you'd be totally wrong. Almost all of my life I've lived in an area where there were snakes to be encountered when venturing out of doors. In fact, where I live now I've had a couple indoors. A few years back one fell from the ceiling into the mess of wires behind the TV and we never found it. My question about that one was how the hell did it get onto the ceiling?
I'm outside almost every day and I love nothing better than tromping through the woods. And I know within those woods are snakes ranging from little garter snakes to diamond backs to coral snakes. Not to mention, copperhead and cottonmouth, the later an extremely aggressive little bugger. We've never shot or killed a snake. We've relocated a few but most we leave be.
At one time there was a HUGE black racer that regularly patrolled the area and all the neighbors were familiar with him. Everyone welcomed him. Then a new very suburban couple moved in and one day I saw the black racer hacked to pieces in their driveway. That's when I had a strong desire to use one of the guns.
BTW, I was raised just outside the Fort Worth area, so I'm very knowledgeable of the Texas snake population.

[Spatula]

The ranchers out here will get upset if you kill a non-poisonous snake, but rattlers have got to go!

[LibraLabRat]

Fine, Cap. You can live in your pretty little Emerald City of steel, concrete and glass, and bewail the fate of all living creatures.

Yes, guns are designed to fire projectiles, whose purpose is to kill things.

But the rest of your smarmy, emotionalized, knee jerk "Guns should be harder to get than blah blah blah" has no point what so ever.

Send Schumer a check if you believe in disarming the populace.

People kill people every day. You can either be a victim, or not. Crimes should be punished, not every single item in existance nanny-ized to give white people in the urban centers and suburbs a false feeling of security.

You dont like guns? Great. But kindly quit trying to disarm the rest of us because you cannot deal with living in the real world. I have had my house broken into more than once, and have nearly been mugged more than once. I choose not to be a victim. I have not had to kill anyone, and saved lives in the process.

Which is what guns for defense are for: DEFENSE.

And here is a link from an official state hunters education site, that discusses the use of handguns as HUNTING WEAPONS. OH, YOU DO realize that many handicapped hunters use handguns and crossbows due to limitations of their physical abilities? I guess the lame and infirm should not be allowed access to guns either, so they dont get depressed and go on a wheelchair bound shooting spree.

http://tinyurl.com/jvxy5

[teripie]

Source: http://goodsforguns.org/nationalfacts/

In 1999, approximately 10,096 people were murdered by guns in the United States.[1]

In 1998, over 30,000 people died from gunshots in the U.S.[2]

A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than it is to be used against an intruder.

10 children are killed by guns in the U.S. every day, on average.

In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, 211 in Germany, and 9,390 in the United States.

Costs
In a book published in 2000, Professors Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig estimate that the total annual cost of gun violence in the U.S. is $100,000,000,000 (One Hundred Billion dollars).

The estimated cost of direct health care expenditures for firearm-related injuries in the US in 1995 was $4,000,000,000 (Four Billion dollars).

The costs of treating gunshot wounds can reach over $100,000,000 (One Hundred Million dollars) at an average county hospital.

Know what I think of all this? I don't give a flip. I've got other fish to fry.

[LibraLabRat]

I like getting my information from non-bleeding heart web sites...you know, ones without an agenda.

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

And here is the single most important bit of data to take away.

Here you go:

Offenders

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%


During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.
On average, State inmates possessing a firearm received sentences of 18 years, while those without a weapon had an average sentence of 12 years.
Among prisoners carrying a firearm during their crime, 40% of State inmates and 56% of Federal inmates received a sentence enhancement because of the firearm.


So, 80% of gun crimes committed with ILLEGALLY OBTAINED WEAPONS, but what we need is more control of legal guns.

Yeah, just like screwing for virginity.

[teripie]

Here are the sources for the statements I posted from the "bleeding heart" website. They are in oder of the statements. Guess I should have included them in the first place.

[1]Federal Bureau of Investigation “Crime in the United Statesâ€￾ pub. 2000. Estimate of the number of people killed by guns in 1999. Actual figures not yet available.

[2] Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC. Data Source: NCHS Vital Statistics System for numbers of deaths. 1998 data.

[3] Arthur Kellermann, MD, New England Journal of Medicine, 1998.

[4] Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC. Data Source: NCHS Vital Statistics System for numbers of deaths. 1998 data.

[5] Embassies and foreign crime-reporting agencies/FBI Uniform Crime Report, 1995. The number for Germany represents total murders by firearms.

[6] Gun Violence: The Real Costs, Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, Oxford University Press, 2000.

[7] K.W. Kizer, Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995

[8] G.J. Ordog, et. al., “Hospital Costs of Firearm Injuries,â€￾ Journal of Trauma, Feb., 1995, p. 1

I guess all these above souces look pretty "bleeding heart" don't they? Like I stated, as far as gun control goes, I could give a flip. And don't come back at me with the argument, "You'll care when the tyrants ake over and the people have no weapons to fight them with." That's exactly what those in power want us to to think. Be afraid! Be very afraid! They keep the populace distracted with non-issues, while they steal the country.

[Capellini]

Fine, Cap. You can live in your pretty little Emerald City of steel, concrete and glass, and bewail the fate of all living creatures.

Yes, guns are designed to fire projectiles, whose purpose is to kill things.

But the rest of your smarmy, emotionalized, knee jerk "Guns should be harder to get than blah blah blah" has no point what so ever.

Send Schumer a check if you believe in disarming the populace.

People kill people every day. You can either be a victim, or not. Crimes should be punished, not every single item in existance nanny-ized to give white people in the urban centers and suburbs a false feeling of security.

You dont like guns? Great. But kindly quit trying to disarm the rest of us because you cannot deal with living in the real world. I have had my house broken into more than once, and have nearly been mugged more than once. I choose not to be a victim. I have not had to kill anyone, and saved lives in the process.

Which is what guns for defense are for: DEFENSE.

And here is a link from an official state hunters education site, that discusses the use of handguns as HUNTING WEAPONS. OH, YOU DO realize that many handicapped hunters use handguns and crossbows due to limitations of their physical abilities? I guess the lame and infirm should not be allowed access to guns either, so they dont get depressed and go on a wheelchair bound shooting spree.

And you're doing it again. I never said anything about disarming anyone. It seems you are incapable of holding this discussion on honest terms, so I guess I'm done.

Anyone interested in the possible existence of a middle ground, let me know.

[Rasti]

I'm with ya Cappi.

I too, seek Middle Earth.

I know it's around here somewhere, But I'm having trouble finding it.

I'm about to go look for it outside, let me grab my gun first . . .

[Qwertyuiopasd]

yeah, guns kill people. or rather, guns are used to fire projectiles that cause damage which kill people. whatever.

most guns are obtained illegally. so why make it harder for people to get guns the honest way? if you're buying a gun for self defense, you're going to want to obtain it legally. but someone who wants to commit a crime isn't going to take the time to obtain it legally. even if they do, as soon as they get caught, they'll lose their liscence and have to steal a gun if they want to use one again.

making it harder to legally obtain guns isn't going to help anything.



and to all those statistics about people being shot on accident, or in their home by family members or friends or whatever; thats out of everyone. I think we all know that there are alot of stupid people in this world. enough that they can make compelling percentiles. if I'm going to own a gun, I'm going to make sure only I can access it, that everyone knows I have it, and that they should not go near it.

also, sport shooting:

I don't like killing animals for sport. food maybe, but to me killing for sport is sick. but I'm not going to get mad at anyone for it.

shooting targets is what I'm talking about. I enjoy shooting bb-guns. I don't do it much, but its fun being in the range and shooting. I suppose its like a thrill-ride.


and as for middle ground: lets just try to be civilized... sheesh.

[Rasti]

How about a 3 to 5 dollar charge per bullet for the non-rifle sizes? Urban gunfire is rarely NOT a handgun.

Use the monies collected to fund emergency rooms and first responders.


Guns don't kill people, bullets do.

[Qwertyuiopasd]

I'm tired of the "people/guns/bullets don't kill people, people/guns/bullets/nine-inch-holes-in-their-heads kill people" statement.

you can say bullets kill people, but then you can say nine inch holes in their heads kill people.

why not just have, in addition to the saftey and usage tests or whatnot, have someone spend a day with you or something to see how smart/stupid you are.

[LibraLabRat]

Once again, I am trying to clarify what this argument is about. YOU keep changing your tune Cap...not me.

And teripie, as far as where your stats come from, when I want a treatise on open heart surgery, I go to the Journal of Medicine. WHen I want to know about gun crime, I go to the Department of Justice.

As far as the "increase the cost" scenario, that is exactly what the anti gun crowd think. It has a more insidious undertone: Poor people kill people, so lets keep them from getting weapons. RE: Check out the silly ploy California was discussing about individual serial numbers on every single shell casing and bullet....thereby making ammunition being too expensive, and rendering guns useless.

It is a simple argument, and why I started it over on the Ban Protesting at Funerals thread, and most of ya have proven my point.

YOu want to preserve the rights that you agree with, like the first, but have no problem extrapolating and eviscerating those that you do not, like the second......

And I stand by this, and always have:

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS THE RIGHT THAT PROTECTS ALL THE OTHERS, AND MAKES THEM VIABLE.

Thomas Jefferson once said that the roots of the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants.

Most Americans are soft, weak, and lazy. They give up their rights peicemeal or in whole just to feel safer, to feel like they can be left alone.

But another great man, Ben Franklin had this to say:

THose who willingly give up freedom for security deserve nor recieve either.

Face it. You do not understand what gun ownership is for, so you would wrench it from the hands of those of us that do. WHich to me, is very anti american.

[Qwertyuiopasd]

Once again, I am trying to clarify what this argument is about. YOU keep changing your tune Cap...not me.

stay civiliiiiized! lets not be nasty.

but I do side with you, Libra.

the second ammendment says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

so if you make guns or bullets to expensive, or restrict them too much, then thats infrigment, and unconstitutional.

however, you lose your rights when it comes to endagering others. you can have a gun as long as you don't kill someone, not in a self-defense case.

if we want to stop people from having guns illegally, we should do something to stop that, not stop people from getting guns legally.