Guns in the U.S need to go away now (or in a few years :))

[Dis]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/22/indiana.shooting/index.html

not to mention a 4 yearl old girl was shot to death in my city last week by accident. Not to mention the murders that happen at least 3 times a week in my city.

guns are bad plain and simple. There is no good use for them (except hunting). Therefore logic dictates that only hunting rifles should be legal. EVERYTHING else should be illegal. Especially handguns.

As noted above the right to bear arms would not be infringed (hunting rifles would be allowed). There is no reason not to do this.

What is wrong with americans? Are we scared of the NRA. And one thing I hate is those stupid NRA bumper stickers.

I own a gun, but that doesn't mean I support the crooked NRA. Those idiots support legal fully automatic weapons.

Are guns bad? discuss

[Asher]

I think the gun laws have in Alberta and Canada should suffice.

The hunters still get their rifles, while the kids and gangsters tend not to.

There's been 1 murder this year so far in Calgary (1M people), and it was an execution of a hired thug for the Hells Angels.

Guns are not "bad", but the US goes a bit too far in letting the wrong people get the wrong types of guns.

Banning them isn't the answer (like the UK tries to do).

[Dis]

P.S. that doesn't mean I don't think guns are cool. Because they are .

but americans are either too stupid or too violent to have them. except me of course

[MrFun]

Until recently, the Supreme Court has ruled that individual American citizens did not have the right to bear arms.

But now, with the last and most recent Supreme Court ruling, they are going against 65 years of consistent rulings and change their mind and say that individual citizens DO have the right to bear arms.

I'm not sure if this applies to American citizens who do not belong to any organized militia or not. I might have to go back and read the Supreme Court arguing again.

[Asher]

You have to question the sanity of a country that gives everyone a right to a gun. That's right, it's not a privilege, but a right.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher
You have to question the sanity of a country that gives everyone a right to a gun. That's right, it's not a privilege, but a right.

Now, now -- no flaming.

Seriously, let's refrain from flaming or trolling -- especially the European and Canadian Apolyton members. Present real arguments based on your opinion.

*** realizes he just made an unrealistic request ***

If you must know, I am for banning handguns in United States, but so far I have resisted flaming or trolling those who argue against me on this issue.

[Asher]

Hey, it's a legit argument.

There's no reason a modern country like the USA needs to have a "right to bear arms". It should be a priviledge, not a right. That needs to be ammended, and fast, before a state of marshal law is declared and the police disbanded.

[Hydey]

I like to think that one day all americans will shoot each other and the world will be at peace.

Let them keep the guns and keep my dreams alive

[-=Vagrant=-]

I'm a bit lame because I'll just quote other people. Can't be bothered to write long text on sundays.

"In 1973, the American firearm stock totalled 122 million, the handgun stock was 36.9 million, and the homicide rate was 9.4 per 100,000 people. At the end of 1992, twenty years later, the firearm stock had risen to 221.9 million, the handgun stock had risen to 77.6 million, but the homicide rate was 8.5--or 9.5 percent lower than it had been in 1973. The percentage of murders committed with firearms decreased as well. In 1973, 68.5 percent of murders were committed with guns. Fifteen years later, after Americans had purchased almost as many new firearms as they had in the preceding seventy-three years, 62.8 percent of homicides were committed with guns. . . . In sum, over a twenty year period of unparalleled increase in guns, homicide rates were erratic, unpatterned, and completely inconsistent with the shibboleth that doubling the number of guns, especially handguns, would increase homicide rates. -[Cato Policy Analysis #284]"

Is there a connection? I don't know. -=Vagrant=-



"Most gun-advocates accept that heavy machine guns should be regulated. So clearly, they realize there is a limit to how much freedom can be excersized.

However, those that oppose guns appear to have no limit on risk: they want all the risk gone.

One of these two positions is inherently irrational, and it's not the gun advocates.

As a liberal who supports gun liscensing (you have to have a liscence to drive a car, don't you?) and owns a gun, I think it's pretty obvious that the real debate is not about guns.

Removing guns from American society will not make American society materially safer. It will prevent a few tragic accidents, but so what (see the Hockey thread if you think a few tragic accidents justifies curtailing 280 million people's freedom)? Violence in America is not caused by guns. Guns don't kill people, people do: and in New York City, the year after they outlawed guns, death by guns went down, and death by club & knife went up (more than the drop in gun deaths, I believe).

Furthermore, half the people who die to guns in this country are suicides. I personally think they have the right to kill themselves in the least painful manner known to man.

Our country has a love affair with violence: we substitute it for sex whenever possible. We are also a nation founded on smuggling, so pretending you can keep guns out of the hands of criminals is like pretending you can keep marijuana out of the hands of paying customers.

Liscensing guns might help us track down who did what after the fact. That would be good. But if you want to stop violence, it's not really the guns. After all, we do have gun control: you can't buy a handgun (or ammunition) until you are 21, you can't carry it to bars or schools (even here in Arizona where you can carry an open weapon anywhere else), you can't mail them around the country, you need a background check to buy one... these are all ways of minimizing the risk while preservering the freedom.

Those that object to any legislation of guns are as irrational as those that demand complete removal of guns, but for different reasons: one thinks risk can be controlled, and the other doesn't. The truth is, risk can be influenced.

But until "Bloodsport" and "Dirty Harry" are X-rated films, and "Debbie Does Dallas" is PG, we are going to have a violent society.

(Not that I think films cause violence; but they certainly tell you something about the society that produces and watches them).

As a martial artist, I understand that guns are a) a tool that allows a weaker person to defeat a stronger one, and b) a form of power that can be obtained without training or the screening process that goes with training.

Guns are not the cause of violence. They are the symptom. Gun violence in this country certainly is at a level that we should do something; but gun legislation is only a tiny, tiny part of what needs to be done.

After all, the two most devestating attacks on Americans required no guns: just fertilizer and box cutters. "

-Yahzi in James Randi Discussion Forum

[Wraith]

Not another one of these...

Does anyone honestly believe that getting rid of guns is going to stop murders?

--"guns are bad plain and simple"

Guns are objects. They are neither good nor bad, they simply are. It is only the uses to which they are put that can be described as good or bad.

--"As noted above the right to bear arms would not be infringed (hunting rifles would be allowed)."

Do you not see the contradictions inherent in this statement? That's like saying "Well, you can still say "Ni!" all you want, so your right to free speech isn't infringed. You just can't say anything else."

--"What is wrong with americans?"

Lack of training in logic, apparently.

--"Until recently, the Supreme Court has ruled that individual American citizens did not have the right to bear arms."

Bull****. The Supreme Court has made very few rulings regarding the Second Amendment, and not a single one of them can be interpreted this way. All of them were much more narrow in scope.
If you think otherwise, please provide a citation, so I can go read the decision for myself.

--"But now, with the last and most recent Supreme Court ruling"

Which would be what, exactly?

Wraith
"Any time somebody tells you won't need a gun, you better take one that works."
-- Phillip Marlowe

[Dr Strangelove]

The AMA technically supports gun control. No other group ( except maybe for victim's and their families ) witnesses so frequently the extent of damage that excessively free access to firearms does. Medical studies show how phony the claim that guns prevent crime is, but you'll never see them widely publicised. Unfortunately the societies have never really pushed their views. It would be interesting to see the might of the NRA matched against the might of the AMA, but they're too tied up in their struggle with HMOs, and Medicare fee cuts.

[Wraith]

--"Medical studies show how phony the claim that guns prevent crime is, but you'll never see them widely publicised"

Actually, you see them publicised all the time. The problem is that they're not being done by the right people. Why should doctors be expected to have the kind of criminology training necessary to performe good studies on this subject? Gary Kleck, as an example, is a criminologist, and publishes in peer-review criminology journals.
Reports done by doctors about criminology, published in medical journals (where they will not be subject to peer review on non-medical claims) are not exactly a reliable source of information. Nevertheless, most of the claims cited in the media on the gun-control side of the debate come from studies done on such a basis.

Edit:
As an example, here is a draft version of a chapter from one of Kleck's books, "Targeting Guns: Firearms and their Control".

Wraith
I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe.

[Urban Ranger]

Actually, doctors are very good with gun shot wounds and stuff like that. Com'on, where do you think criminologists got their info?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
"Most gun-advocates accept that heavy machine guns should be regulated. So clearly, they realize there is a limit to how much freedom can be excersized.

However, those that oppose guns appear to have no limit on risk: they want all the risk gone.

One of these two positions is inherently irrational, and it's not the gun advocates.

That is called a strawman.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
"In 1973, the American firearm stock totalled 122 million, the handgun stock was 36.9 million, and the homicide rate was 9.4 per 100,000 people. At the end of 1992, twenty years later, the firearm stock had risen to 221.9 million, the handgun stock had risen to 77.6 million, but the homicide rate was 8.5--or 9.5 percent lower than it had been in 1973. The percentage of murders committed with firearms decreased as well. In 1973, 68.5 percent of murders were committed with guns. Fifteen years later, after Americans had purchased almost as many new firearms as they had in the preceding seventy-three years, 62.8 percent of homicides were committed with guns. . . . In sum, over a twenty year period of unparalleled increase in guns, homicide rates were erratic, unpatterned, and completely inconsistent with the shibboleth that doubling the number of guns, especially handguns, would increase homicide rates. -[Cato Policy Analysis #284]"

Is it? What I am seeing here are two data points. How do they form a pattern I do not know.

Now if there is a graph that plots the whole thing over 20 years I like to see that.