gun control

umm ... crime involving violence..

Funk,

quote:

---

I thought the idea of allowing citizens to own guns was so that they could protect themselves. Not so much from the criminals, but in case a gov't trys to steal their freedom.

​

It amazes me how many freedoms people will give up for an illusion of safety.

---

Likewise. You accept the argument that a 6 shooter is going to fend of the best equipped army in the world? You're kidding yourself. If not, I'll pay to be in one of the M1 Abrams as your community gets rolled over, or in an f-22 as it drops a gps 2,000lb HE warhead guided weapon on your 6-shooter.Get real! This is a spurious argument. Some people will have to get a different hobby. A small price to pay for getting less dead peeps.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

I'm sorry, Holmes, but there are clearly "freedoms" that have a greater or lesser effect on yours, or anyone elses lives if removed.

---

Clear to who?Ashcroft, Bush, and Rumsfeld have claimed they are pretty good at delineating what are greater and lesser freedoms. I can't believe you agree with any of the "lesser" freedoms they have stripped away in the name of their war on terror.While it is clear that any particular freedom has a greater or lesser impact on your life (at any given moment) than another freedom, one equivocates when jumping from that temporal assessment to a judgement of "lesser or greater freedom".To my mind, and to many of the founding fathers, freedoms are inalienable and to be preserved regardless their rank in use (or importance) at any particular moment.

quote:

---

Removing your freedom to own a gun is as nothing compared to removing your freedom travel outside the town of your birth, for example.

---

Interesting example. And when a government suddenly says you can't leave your town, how will you defend your right to leave your town?Suddenly the right to own a weapon would become a lot more important.As I said, the impact a certain freedom has on your life may not be much now, yet become very important at other times.

quote:

---

Of course, you could campaign to allow rocket launchers to be owned by the public, or would that be a "small freedom" that is best left withdrawn?

---

This reductio is kind of a cheap shot. You say I should be able to discern between lesser and greater freedoms, yet in making this argument you pretend being unable to discern between handguns and rocket launchers.The level of danger posed (to user as much as to target) and the necessary sophistication (necessary for proper storage and use) make this comparison highly inaccurate... at least with regards to the topic of gun control.However, I recognize it does act as a proper reductio against my theoretical argument and deserves a response on that level.I have not argued that freedom to own weapons means they should be handed out like candy, massmarketed (especially as solutions to problems), or free from practical regulation and increased responsibilities for anyone who owns them.I have only argued that blanket prohibition is not the proper answer.Weapons like rocket launchers would necessitate much greater regulation (than simple firearms) to ensure a user is unlikely to use them outside of armed conflict, proper knowledge of how to use such devices during training (or in times of conflict), not to mention following proper storage regulations for high explosive munitions.One's access to rocket launchers would by necessity be less "free" than to a handgun or rifle, even if one is free to own them.Someone else brought up chemical and biological agents, one could also add radiological weapons. Let me anticipate this reductio.These weapons are entirely different than firearms and I do not believe people have a right to own them. They are not designed to help an individual defend him or herself, only as strategic instruments for use in mass conflicts. Their care and use (or at least their "safe" use) involves organizations.Frankly I don't think governments should have the freedom to own such weapons either, as their "safe use" is more illusionary than the security they supposedly provide.For what it's worth I don't like guns and would rather face an opponent with a melee weapon than a firearm. But one should keep in mind it was a small group of men armed with knives and boxcutters that managed to kill more people in one morning than an army which launched a sneak attack on the US using highgrade munitions.Violence and the will toward violent action is the problem, not the weapon.holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 03-04-2003][This message has been edited by holmes, 03-04-2003]

quote:

---

You accept the argument that a 6 shooter is going to fend of the best equipped army in the world? You're kidding yourself. If not, I'll pay to be in one of the M1 Abrams as your community gets rolled over, or in an f-22 as it drops a gps 2,000lb HE warhead guided weapon on your 6-shooter.

​

Get real! This is a spurious argument.

---

Yours is also a spurious argument (or at least a strawman). You do not see the army giving up on regular infantry units (or not giving an individual soldier firearms) just because an opposing force may have tanks and larger weapons.The freedom to own weapons is not based on the idea that one person or community can fend off an entire army, but that if an entire population is armed they may have a chance.Without question an armed populace is better able to defend its rights against a tyrannical government (foreign or domestic), than an unarmed populace.One might note that the colonies had much less armament than the British at the time they began their revolution. I agree the disparity in firepower was less than than now. Does that really matter? Would you have advocated the same position?It is obvious that a larger (or more powerful) force will likely crush a weaker one. Does that mean every other nation should surrender its weapons to the US right now? I mean what chance do THEY have?Your statement only underscores the public's need to reassert control over the military-industrial complex, before the military (or leaders using the military) are truly unstoppable.I might also note that weapons may be used to defend onesself in times of mass riots and other civil disorders, when the government loses control.holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 03-04-2003]

red, here are statistics for Queensland {one Australian state} and Australia for violent crimes for 1993-1999.Where is the skyrocketing violent crime rates? The post-Port Arthur gun control laws banning semiautomatic firearms were introduced in the middle of this period. Since then, there has been no firearm mass murder in Australia instead of the previous trend of a multiple firearm murder event every 2 years.

Some text clipped, then:

quote:

---

These weapons are entirely different than firearms and I do not believe people have a right to own them. They are not designed to help an individual defend him or herself, only as strategic instruments for use in mass conflicts. Their care and use (or at least their "safe" use) involves organizations.

---

I think the essential problem is, is that what constituted "arms", at the time of the creation of the 2nd ammendment, was pretty limited. For fire arms, the weapons were muzzle loaded pistols, rifles and such, and cannons (for the big guns). There were also primitive bombs. None of these would enable an individual to do a great deal of harm. A single person with a today modern day assault rifle could probably defeat a fair sized army of 200 years ago.As I see it, the 2nd ammendment permits no restrictions what so ever, on a U.S. citizens rights to possess any weapon. 200 years ago, this was no problem; Today it's a significant problem.Does the 2nd ammendment permit anyone to have their own personal H-bomb? As I see it, yes.Moose

quote:

---

f the right to bear arms was squashed 100 years ago, there would be a LOT more people alive in the US than there is today. Sometimes small freedoms must be given up so that lives can be saved.

---

Gun ownership started to be severly restricted in the UK aprrox.
100 years ago (I think ... maybe not quite that long), but gun-crime
is all too prevalent in our major cities.I think restrictive gun-ownership laws will cut-down on 'spur of
the moment' shootings ... and as pointed out elsewhere one has
a bit more chance in a spur of the moment stabbing scenario.Hardcore criminal activity involving guns has little to do with
gun-laws. And since gangs know that their rivals also have guns
widespread knowledge of ownership is clearly no deterrant ...Not entirely sure, now, what the whole issue revolves around here.It is reasonably obvious that if there is restricted availabilty
of firearms there will be less incidents of their use.However, gun-control does not restrict availability.Beyond shot-guns and some military supply I don't think many firearms
are actually manufactured in the UK ... but the availability is
increasing.

I cleary stated in a previous post that murder rates were not on the rise in Australia, violent crime was.As taken from your link...http://www.oesr.qld.gov.au/views/statistics/stats_fs.htm?..."Australian rates of assault have shown significant increases from 1993 to 1999"Now they do go on to say that the trend was for a marked reduction in the use of firearms in all crimes, HOWEVER they also say the trend starts BEFORE the firearm reform and that AFTER the firearm reform the trend AFTER reforms doesn't show much improvement, seemingly indicating that gun reform didn't really have anything to do with it.Here is another story about crime in England and Australia that is from a later date, 2001 it would appear from the link.Object not found!"Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized."Here is an article from 2000 as wellPage not found - WND"Since Australia's gun ban, armed robberies increase 45%""Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;Assaults are up 8.6 percent;Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly. "That would seem to be a big increase in crime, maybe not skyrocketing, but a marked difference none the less. If you would care to explain why this is, or get me more stats for Austalia overall that would be great.

This is going to be tricky as I agree with most of your assessment, but disagree on some minor points. I'm not sure about the conclusion (you left your post sort of open ended).

quote:

---

I think the essential problem is, is that what constituted "arms", at the time of the creation of the 2nd ammendment, was pretty limited.... A single person with a today modern day assault rifle could probably defeat a fair sized army of 200 years ago.

---

If everyone was forced to stand out in an open field and close in from the range of the assault weapon, then I agree. But combat generally doesn't happen like that (as the British sorely complained about during the Rev War). Without those preconditions I'd put my money on the army.That said, it is totally true that a raving maniac with an assault rifle is going to do more damage than if armed with a musket.Welllll... Unless it was Rambo. All he needed was a big knife!

quote:

---

As I see it, the 2nd ammendment permits no restrictions what so ever, on a U.S. citizens rights to possess any weapon. 200 years ago, this was no problem; Today it's a significant problem.

---

I totally agree with this. But I don't believe the answer to the resulting problem is to throw out the 2nd Amendment.Rather it is to find a realistic border between self-protection (the inalienable right under consideration)and gratuitous casaulty infliction (not a right but a possibility made real by advancing technology) and draw the line there.

quote:

---

Does the 2nd ammendment permit anyone to have their own personal H-bomb? As I see it, yes.

---

I agree and this is a perfect example of where one has to address the spirit of the law, when technology has made the letter impractical.Well to be honest I don't see any individual making an H-bomb, or "delivering" it in any practical self-defense way. It really has to be done by an organization with raw materials and proper lab conditions. But let's pretend some weapons company starts testmarketing a home nuke device, to make such a scenario possible.The problem is that an H-bomb (just like any chemical or biological agent) does not act as a defense at all. It is almost inconceivable that an individual could use one without injuring themselves, and it's ultimate effect (even if used properly) is to inflict mass casualties... horrific mass casualties. Such things destroy life in the given area, sometimes for years.This is hardly the same scenario as a weapon designed to kill another man or select group of people (or animals) so that one can continue living in peace.Obviously the "realistic border" I was talking about would start well before the strategic level weapon category. It seems the real debate should be where to back that border down to.And even on the "legal" side of the border, there is no reason why a certain amount of regulation regarding ownership of weapons, or increased responsibility for gun owners/manufacturers would be unconstitutional.Yes, there are alot of tragic and unnecessary gun related deaths. But why is it that our only choices to solve that issue are making ownership of all guns illegal, or letting madmen run through the streets with rocket launchers?I guess what I'm finding hard to understand in this thread is why people are buying into that stock dilemma.holmes

I'm not sure why, but my post appeared twice. Nevermind this post.[This message has been edited by holmes, 03-05-2003]

quote:

---

This is going to be tricky as I agree with most of your assessment, but disagree on some minor points. I'm not sure about the conclusion (you left your post sort of open ended).

---

I think I was just tacking an addition thought onto your message. I think we may be in 100% agreement on the issue.

quote:

---

I totally agree with this. But I don't believe the answer to the resulting problem is to throw out the 2nd Amendment.

---

and

quote:

---

I agree and this is a perfect example of where one has to address the spirit of the law, when technology has made the letter impractical.

---

I agree. The 2nd ammendment, however, untimately is the law. And the legal system operates on the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law.That 2nd ammendment is just plain totally out of alignment with the modern reality. I guess we need a new ammendment, which would define the line between weapons of self-defense, and weapons of mass destruction.Moose------------------
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links

redvento

quote:

---

I cleary stated in a previous post that murder rates were not on the rise in Australia, violent crime was.

---

"skyrocketing" was your description for violent crime rates in Australia (message #43). This link (bulletin #9), provides statistics for murder, assault, sexual assault, robbery inter alia for 1993-1999. This would encompass the range of violent crimes. How are the trends described?murder: "No statistically significant trends relating to murder occurred in Queensland or Australia. The murder rate, rate of weapon usage and proportion of weapons that are firearms have not shown any significant trends in the period 1993—1999."assault: "Australian rates of assault have shown significant increases from 1993 to 1999, while Queensland rates have remained fairly steady. The percentage of assaults involving weapons and the percentage of weapons that are firearms have both displayed significant downward trends." The rate for Australia increased from 561 to 705 per 100,000 population, an annualised 6% pa increase.sexual assault: "The national rate of sexual assault has shown no significant trend while Queensland rates have trended upwards."robbery: "While the national robbery rate exhibited a significantly greater upward trend than the Queensland rate, neither Queensland nor Australia showed any significant trend in the use of weapons. On the other hand, both showed very significant downward trends in the use of firearms as weapons." More descriptively: "The Australian robbery rate showed a steady increase from 72 in 1993 to 127 in 1998, before dropping slightly to 119 in 1999 (figure 4)." And a general comment regarding firearm use in crime: "The use of firearms as weapons has decreased markedly in assault and robbery while it has remained reasonably steady in the commission of murder."The complicated nature of the relationship between firearms, other weapons and various types of crime is indicated in the following comment: " The overall trend for violent crimes for both the use of weapons and the use of firearms have shown significant reductions. Further research is needed to determine whether these coincide with the introduction of tighter gun control legislation in 1996. Significant decreases occurred in 1993, 1994 and 1995 prior to the law changes but reductions since 1996 have slowed."So, redvento, where is the skyrocketing violent crime rates?

quote:

---

"Since Australia's gun ban, armed robberies increase 45%"

---

Please reconcile this scaremongering statement with figure 9. And the percentage of armed robberies using a firearm decreased from 25% to 18%. So what?

quote:

---

In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;

---

Australian Instirute of Criminology No. 116 table 2: Firearm-related deaths in each jurisdiction : number and rate per 100 000 population, 1993-97
Victoria
year no. rate
1993 111 2.48
1994 103 2.30
1995 99 2.19
1996 94 2.06
1997 100 2.17
1998 76 from hereIn fact this site treats one of your sources as an urban legend.

quote:

---

In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;

---

Care to be a little more specific?I really don't think you should rely on NRA for accurate data on the Australian scene.

wj:FYI anything in quotes in not mine, its quoted from the source listed above the quote, since I am fairly sure many don't goto the link.The entire last portion of my previous post was from this link. If that is a bad source I apologize, like I previously stated I could not find much on Australia other than headlines of Violent Crimes on the rise.However, the link you provided also showed some interesting trends. The gun laws went into effect in 1996/1997, murder rates were dropping as indicated by your link, "The overall trend for violent crimes for both the use of weapons and the use of firearms have shown significant reductions. Further research is needed to determine whether these coincide with the introduction of tighter gun control legislation in 1996. Significant decreases occurred in 1993, 1994 and 1995 prior to the law changes but reductions since 1996 have slowed." So what do the guns laws have to do with it? That was what I was trying to get to.There is something else I am wondering about, what are the crime rates for big population centers as compared to big population centers in the US? That would be a much more telling comparison I would assume.Now even if Australia has in fact had marked decreases in violent crimes along with murder(which I never said were on the rise, in fact said was very low) that does not explain the situation in Great Britian which I also asked about in message 22.I am very willing to be swayed, but just for information purposes: I do not own any handguns, rifles, slingshots or pea-shooters. I am pro gun ownership, AND for very strict gun safety laws(smart locks and the such) but I can see no reason to make it illegal for law abiding citizens to own a handgun or non-assault hunting rifle/shotgun when criminals are not bound to the same laws.Red

This is my first post. Havng read a few of the "regulars" on this board I can see I'm in the "ant category" for intellect in comparison, but I do know something about gun control.IT DOES NOT WORK!!!Why? Because unless you can remove guns already in the hands of criminals (you can't) or remove ALL guns that they could steal (you can't) you will never control them. Laws are for the "law abiding". Criminals dont care, and in the USA, don't need to.You can talk all you want, but take a walk on the streets of any major (or minor) city at 04:00 and see if you feel the same way when you run into those who would do you harm. With or without a gun.The saying "God made man, but Smith&Wesson made them equal" sums it up nicely.-Jim

quote:

---

Because unless you can remove guns already in the hands of criminals (you can't) or remove ALL guns that they could steal (you can't) you will never control them.

---

That's why we have to stop producing cheap handguns in the copious numbers we have been.Also, if we imposed stricter laws about how people must store their guns and ammunition we might make it harder for the crimials to steal them out of nightstands and garages. IOW, requiring all gun owners to be much more responsible with their weapons, and hold them liable if they did not secure them properly.You know, we regulate every other consumer product in this country, but not guns.

quote:

---

You can talk all you want, but take a walk on the streets of any major (or minor) city at 04:00 and see if you feel the same way when you run into those who would do you harm. With or without a gun.

---

Any major city? I have walked in London, Paris, Bern and a couple of German cities at that time of night and felt perfectly safe.All of those countries have strict gun control, too.To drive a car, you have to study and take a test, you have to pay to register it every year, you have to purchase insurance in case you do damage to people or property with your car, if you sell your car, you have to pass on the registration to the new owner so the vehicle can be tracked, etc., etc.We don't have to do any of this for guns, and guns are manufactured espressely to kill.You have also ignored the fact that more people use guns to kill themselves than are used to kill others.