-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>OK, I'll buy that, but you still only reinforce my argument. Have handguns ever had, or do you anticipate them ever having, a primary function other than killing people? Time hasn't altered its purpose<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
#1 Collecting/owning/shooting of guns of all varities will probably always be a hobby for many people. I personally don't own any, but I realize that just because I don't get into guns because I'm not interested, others might be.
#2 In MY hypothetical world, and if I were to do the research, I'd guarantee it isn't so hypothetical...that for every person killed by a gun in a crime, many MANY more lives are saved by guns through self defense. If you want to consider an act of self defense "killing" so be it, but I'm goign to stop anyone who wants to take my life at any cost.
One of those reasons have to do with why guns were made, and the other can suggest a reason why they're still around.
And yes, you CAN support that they were made for self defense. If a group of people were winning a war, say...with a more powerful weapon, the opposition comes along and creates the GUN...more powerful, much more of a threat, in order to defend themselves better.
Nobody invented the gun for senseless killing. It was to protect themselves from a more dominant force, or a more threatening one.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>What really pisses me off about this whole debate isn't so much those who disagree with me; at least you have a take, albeit one that sux.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Easy for you to say considering you've dodged many of my points. Specifically, one that asked how is it any less fair for someone to die by the wrecklessness of a drunk driver?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Opinion polls consistently show that a large majority of Americans believe as I do -- that we need tougher gun control laws.
But where are they? They sit back and keep their mouths shut while the vocal minority speaks out<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because they're going along with their liberal cronies, because it's the hip thing to do nowadays. Nobody is actually stupid enough to think gun-control laws will deter crime (except you), yet they don't want to openly voice that.
------------------
If you ever drop your keys in a river of molten lava, forget it man, cuz they're gone.
-The Great Jack Handey
[This message has been edited by MgoBlue-LightSpecial (edited November 09, 2001).]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smackie Chan:
I'm free to feel safe from accidental or intentional shootings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But you won't BE safe is the problem.
I'm going to go exercise my right to go to bed without a Glock under my pillow.
"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."
Alexander Hamilton
I think I finally found a sig.^^^^^
GOODNIGHTNOW!
------------------
No sig.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mgo:
Easy for you to say considering you've dodged many of my points. Specifically, one that asked how is it any less fair for someone to die by the wrecklessness of a drunk driver?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not dodging anything. I addressed this in my response to Buccaneer, and you're confusing the issue. Remember, I'm a liberal who believes that we should have more personal freedom than most Americans, including probably you, are willing to grant. So outlawing currently legal activities is typically not on my agenda. I don't seek to limit freedom, although that is invariably how the argument is perceived. My argument is that public safety is worth the relinquishing of Second Amendment rights, just as it's worth the relinquishing of some of our privacy rights when we use airports.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Nobody is actually stupid enough to think gun-control laws will deter crime (except you), yet they don't want to openly voice that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is where you would also be wrong. I referenced a Sloan study in my initial post. Here are the details of that study:
Perhaps the most dramatic findings about the efficacy of gun control laws come from a study comparing two cities that have followed different policies for regulating handguns: Seattle, Washington and Vancouver, British Columbia. Only 140 miles apart, the two cities are remarkably alike despite being located on opposite sides of an international border. They have populations nearly identical in size and, during the study period (1980-86), had similar socioeconomic profiles. Seattle, for example, had a 5.8% unemployment rate while Vancouver's was 6.0%. The median household income in Seattle was $16,254; in Vancouver, adjusted in U.S. dollars, it was $16,681. In racial and ethnic makeup, the two cities are also similar. Whites represent 79% of Seattle's inhabitants and 76% of Vancouver's. The principal racial difference is that Asians make up a larger share of Vancouver's population (22% vs. 7%). The two cities share not only a common frontier history but a current culture as well. Most of the top ten TV shows in one city, for example, also rank among the top ten in the other.
As one might expect from twin cities, burglary rates in Seattle and Vancouver were nearly identical. The aggravated assault rate was, however, slightly higher in Seattle. On examining the data more closely, the Sloan study found "a striking pattern." There were almost identical rates of assaults with knives, clubs, and fists, but there was a far greater rate of assault with firearms in Seattle. Indeed, the firearm assault rate in Seattle was nearly eight times higher than in Vancouver.
The homicide rate was also markedly different in the two cities. During the seven years of the study, there were 204 homicides in Vancouver and 388 in Seattle -- an enormous difference for two cities with comparable populations. Further analysis led to a startling finding: the entire difference was due to gun-related homicides. The murder rates with knives -- and all other weapons excluding firearms -- were virtually identical, but the rate of murders involving guns was five times greater in Seattle. That alone accounted for Seattle having nearly twice as many homicides as Vancouver.
People in Seattle may purchase a handgun for any reason after a five-day waiting period; 41% of all households have handguns. Vancouver, on the other hand, requires a permit for handgun purchases and issues them only to applicants who have a lawful reason to own a handgun and who, after a careful investigation, are found to have no criminal record and to be sane. Self-defense is not a valid reason to own a handgun, and recreational uses of handguns are strictly regulated. The penalty for illegal possession is severe -- two years' imprisonment. Handguns are present in only 12% of Vancouver's homes.
The Seattle-Vancouver study provides strong evidence for the efficacy of gun control. Sloan and his colleagues concluded that the wider proliferation of handguns in Seattle was the sole cause of the higher rate of murders and assaults. The study answered other important questions as well.
* Do handguns deter crime? If handguns deter burglary, the burglary rate in Seattle -- where so many more homes have handguns -- should have been lower than the burglary rate in Vancouver. But it was not.
* How often are handguns used for self-defense? Less than 4% of the homicides in both cities resulted from acts of self-defense.
*Perhaps most important: If handguns are unavailable, will people merely use other weapons instead? The answer must be "no." Otherwise, the cities would have had similar total murder rates and Vancouver would have had higher rates of homicide with other weapons.
------------------
I moderate with hate
[This message has been edited by Smackie Chan (edited November 09, 2001).]
-
I had to crash last night...but my point was that prohibiting hand guns in this country is not going to do anything more than take them away from the lawful. You will not be any more safe from handguns in bad hands, than you would be from the crack addict that too often mugs people in the street even though by law he isn't supposed to exist.
True, handguns have no other created purpose than to kill. If a robber busts into your house and stabs you to death with a kitchen knife, does this make you any less dead? If a handgun can deter a crime at allthen it has value. A hunting rifle is also created for no other purpose than to kill. The same could be said for a bow or certain types of knives. I just don't understand what you accomplish when you ban a handgun in this country. The crime element in this country is alot more complex than merely handguns. Criminals will still be able to get their hands on hand guns when you ban them. Prohibition accomplishes nothing. My argument on drugs has nothing to do with drugs themselves...it merely shows a very similar line of thinking to yours. Those who prohibit them argue illegal drugs have no significant beneficial purpose...and that they actually present a danger both to individual health and the community. They can show evidence towards that point so they have made drugs illegal. It has hardly worked...and if anything, has pigeonholed drugs into another dangerous element of crime. I believe the same would happen with guns...so in my opinion 1)you aren't making any real impact on those who use guns criminally 2)you are taking away any percentage (though it may be small)of hanguns preventing crimes 3)you are creating a dangerous new illegal market from which more crime will blossom...sum it up and you have a worse problem than you began with and you haven't really changed a thing.
You can mark this as irrelevant all you like...I just want to know what you think banning handguns really accomplishes.
------------------
truth is a concept conceived by liars
-
All of this couldnt have been talked about over flap jacks and crepes at the IHop?
Damn, I thought you guys had fun last weekend!!
H http://www.hostboard.com/forums/
------------------
Finish Line Smack
TSTEC
-
handguns are the devil and the 2nd amendment has totally been bastardized by the nra faithfull and its too fukkin bad. thank john wayne and our cowboy heritage i spose. the genie done gone way out o' the bottle.
scoreboard--euro's
------------------
no sig (in honor of the laugh off)
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mothage:
handguns are the devil and the 2nd amendment has totally been bastardized by the nra faithfull and its too fukkin bad. thank john wayne and our cowboy heritage i spose. the genie done gone way out o' the bottle.
scoreboard--euro's<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I guess I coulda just said this and saved a lot of time, huh?
------------------
I moderate with hate
-
There is no humor on this thread.
Hell,
When I went to the so-cal troll stop we talked about fun things http://www.hostboard.com/forums/
------------------
Your just jealous beacause the little voices are talking to ME!!
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buccaneer:
True, handguns have no other created purpose than to kill. If a robber busts into your house and stabs you to death with a kitchen knife, does this make you any less dead? If a handgun can deter a crime at allthen it has value. A hunting rifle is also created for no other purpose than to kill. The same could be said for a bow or certain types of knives. I just don't understand what you accomplish when you ban a handgun in this country. The crime element in this country is alot more complex than merely handguns. Criminals will still be able to get their hands on hand guns when you ban them. Prohibition accomplishes nothing. My argument on drugs has nothing to do with drugs themselves...it merely shows a very similar line of thinking to yours. Those who prohibit them argue illegal drugs have no significant beneficial purpose...and that they actually present a danger both to individual health and the community. They can show evidence towards that point so they have made drugs illegal. It has hardly worked...and if anything, has pigeonholed drugs into another dangerous element of crime. I believe the same would happen with guns...so in my opinion 1)you aren't making any real impact on those who use guns criminally 2)you are taking away any percentage (though it may be small)of hanguns preventing crimes 3)you are creating a dangerous new illegal market from which more crime will blossom...sum it up and you have a worse problem than you began with and you haven't really changed a thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
RACK
Prohibition didn't work with alcohol & it won't work with guns.
------------------
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TM1:
There is no humor on this thread.
Hell,
When I went to the so-cal troll stop we talked about fun things http://www.hostboard.com/forums/
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
RACK, TM1. Sorry, Smackie, but this takes your point total into negative territory
------------------
Your wealth of ignorance is astounding!