gun control

"A right to bear arms and the decision to use those arms in an illegal manner is unrelated. I would hope an educated person such as yourself would be able to differentiate between right and choice."Yes, I can do so. Many, unfortunately, do not seem to be able to. They are the ones that worry me.
Of course, bearing the arms in the first place sure makes it tempting for some to use them in the manner that they were, after all, intended.

quote:

---

Yes, I can do so. Many, unfortunately, do not seem to be able to. They are the ones that worry me.
Of course, bearing the arms in the first place sure makes it tempting for some to use them in the manner that they were, after all, intended.

---

So you believe gun control laws should be imposed because a very small minority use guns illegally?Sorry, too Orwellian for me.

http://www.ccpr-fl.com/bb/messages/16.htmlThis is an article by a police officer in Australia, containing some statistics, and information about the "effectiveness" of gun control in Australia.I really don't have much to add to it myself, I've read so much information on this subject I'm begining not to care.However I have not found much of anything that shows gun control as an answer to the problem of violent crime.------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

Funk,

quote:

---

I really don't have much to add to it myself, I've read so much information on this subject I'm begining not to care.

​

However I have not found much of anything that shows gun control as an answer to the problem of violent crime.

---

I tend to agree, but I'd rather have people be violent without weapons, than with.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

So you believe gun control laws should be imposed because a very small minority use guns illegally?

​

Sorry, too Orwellian for me.

---

I don't think the murders attributed to guns in the US can be described as "a very small minority". It is horrendously all too common.I agree that most gun owners are responsible, but the problem is that the population at large being able to gain legal access to guns means it is all to easy to get them illegally. If they exist, they can be obtained.If 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.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-03-2003]

This particular statement really caught my attention. When I think about it, it seems that the cost of freedom is very bloody. (think WW1&2, french revolution, civil wars, ect. ect.)I am wondering how we decide when it is worth it to give up freedoms. I'm wondering, is freedom ever really worth the price we continually pay for it?------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

quote:

---

Sometimes small freedoms must be given up so that lives can be saved.

---

While I am not a gun fanatic, I cannot agree with this statement and the horrific precedent such an idea sets. To me there is no such thing as a "small freedom."My line of thinking--- and this may be an "american value" type thing mentioned earlier--- was best stated by Benjamin Franklin..."They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."
--Benjamin FranklinAbolitionist gun laws will not remove the problem, even if it may lessen the numbers (or shift the stats of weapon used to other categories).And unfortunately such laws create a whole other set of problems if a government begins to turn on its population. At that point only criminals and the government would have guns, and decent people would have to go to criminals (and become criminals) to get what they need to defend themselves.Anyone that thinks this would not happen with "my government", or "in this day and age", is simply being naive. It can happen at any time, and in any place. What's worse is it tends to sneak up on a country and before everyone knows it a witchhunt is on.Ashcroft's vision of america is a good example of a country I would want to have a gun (when the jackboots come calling). Thankfully his vision does allow for guns, as most nonfundamentalists like myself would need them. At least he'd give us a sporting chance, eh?Franklin had something to say about this situation as well."Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
--Benjamin FranklinIt's easy to point to lives that are lost during times of peace when jackasses use weapons improperly. But how many lives are saved in times of conflict, when arms are used properly?What I find interesting is that the stated line of thinking has already led to lunacy as bullet-proof jackets are treated as weapons in some states. Like a bullet-proof jacket could ever kill anyone? Oh yeah, but it could allow a criminal to kill more people (just like a weapon). Absurd.holmes

Holmes,

quote:

---

While I am not a gun fanatic, I cannot agree with this statement and the horrific precedent such an idea sets. To me there is no such thing as a "small freedom."

---

I'm sorry, Holmes, but there are clearly "freedoms" that have a greater or lesser effect on yours, or anyone elses lives if removed. Removing your freedom to own a gun is as nothing compared to removing your freedom travel outside the town of your birth, for example.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?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yes, I can do so. Many, unfortunately, do not seem to be able to. They are the ones that worry me.
Of course, bearing the arms in the first place sure makes it tempting for some to use them in the manner that they were, after all, intended.

---

​

So you believe gun control laws should be imposed because a very small minority use guns illegally?

---

perhaps it can be pointed wherein I have advocated "gun control" laws of the type the likes of jdean seem to think I am in favor of?Of course, i do believe that some gun control is necessary. I find it hard ot believe that the framers would have wanted Joe Sixpack to be able to purchase anti-tank rockets, as some in the NRA seem to have no problem with...

Indeed - it doesn't seem to sink in with the gun worshipper crowd.I would much rather have someone come at me with a knife or a club than a gun.
I at least stand a chance against someone with a club or a knife.I know, I know - why, if I also had a gun, I wouldn't have to worry about it.Well, yes, I would. You see, more often than not, if someone is going to rob, kill, or assault you with a weapon, they already have it out or have ready access to it. Even if I was carrying a concealed hand gun, I would have to 'dig' for it, while my assailant is popping a cap in me.The alternative seems to be carrying a six-gun on my hip all the time.Its funny - we kept hearing how the concealed weapon laws would cause crime to drop. Well, in a sense, it did (from what I recall) - 'career' criminals were now less violent. But folks that were not violent before, now had a quick and easy fix for their problems. Hence the reference to shooting someone over a parking spot. Within a week of Texas passing their concealed weapon law, an otherwise law abiding citizen - legally packing heat - did just that...

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.------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

How do you answer the statistics that in areas that have strict hand gun laws, such as Great Britian and Australia the violent crime rate has skyrocketed?Where as in places like Switzerland than forces civilians to have assault rifles do not have high murder or violent crime rates?http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.htmlThomas Sowell: Biography and Latest Articles

Coming in late to this and not really having a strong opinion on gun control (quite happy with the laws in the UK as they stand to be honest), but what exactly are the pro-gun lobby's stances on the personal ownership of say, rocket launchers, tanks, bio-weapons etc?If we follow the personal liberty and protection argument to its logical conclusion, then do we not have to allow personal rights to any weapon whatsoever?Or if its a "reasonableness" thing, how does one gauge what determines a "reasonable" weapon to allow?PE

red vento, define violent crime and I will provide real data rather than your assertions of "skyrocketing" rates.