A Bowling for Columbine Review

Nice stats analysis above Pidz

It IS a shame that Moore doesn't do better things with his - he COULD have done a percentile comparision taking population into account and still shown (i suspect) that the US's death rate from guns is higher than any of the other examples used (i suspect. In any case i took the stats as being still fairly hefty despite the population differences when i first saw them - i'm sure many others did too)

Two things i want to mention to Karl:

The first is (i knew something was nibbling at my brain, but time, time, time...always a pressure) ...the ZERO-TOLERANCE policy which was so successful in NY means it's in no way representative of the US as a whole, or a good comparison for London. London, due to "decentralisation" has received far less money, comparatively, than other areas of britain for new initiatives over the last seven years or so (i.e. since labour arrived - and boy have we started to get angry about that - despite the good sides to that policy ) - therefore, the recruitment drive in the police is only just kicking in down here.....

Info from today's "The Londoner" newspaper:

-Police numbers had been falling for seven years in london until about 2 years ago.
-the mayor's new plan is to introduce 1000 more policemen/women every year, - so over the last two and a bit years we've gained 2000. The target is 35,000 in a few years time (28,602 currently)
-a return to bobbies-on-the beat (comparable to a milder/less-heavily-funded [i believe] zero-tolerance program) ...should deal with many of the issues Karl has brought up about street crime.
-mobile-theft, and false-reporting of mobile theft, have pushed up crime figures to a ridiculous extent over recent years.
-street crime in london is down 27% between 2001 and 2002. Seems like things are working mate

If zero tolerance was still to some extent in effect at the time of your stats, Karl, then we can imagine that mobile theft wouldn't be nearly such an epidemic as it has been here.

But let's remember - these aren't violent crimes as a rule. I can't really see anyone shooting someone over a mobile phone in britain (tho we'd start, if we all had guns, probably ), so there's no real deterrent there.

So, altho i still see, within your own communities, how you can argue for guns-for-all, i'm still DEFINITELY of the opinion that some of these stats you've used have been misleading (concernig US-Britain comparisons, and internal US ones) And that, tho no Utopia, Britain is far better off without guns - a target we're working towards with respects to the influx of guns brought about by banning sporting usage. Again, this last example does NOT justify re-instating handgun-ownership in britain, even for sport.

It's for those within your communities that disagree about guns-for-all that should argue with you. You guys do what you want (it's when you do what you want OUTSIDE your own borders the rest of us get annoyed )

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Nah, one a comedian called Chris Morris had to move to France for a bit with his family after he parodied hysteria about paedophilia, so it's 60,094,644 at the mo

Only jesting Cait, i've no idea what the british population is (we have our own illegal immigration problem too). But you must admit that Pidz's assessment of the stats seems the most valid so far.

Still, i bow to your superior knowledge of american streets etc in your first post on the subject.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. You assume influences are just as important, and lead to the tragedy. It's the same way with drugs and guns, you can't assume that getting rid of the drug, getting rid of the gun, getting rid of the knife, etc etc, is going to change a damn thing. We make laws against recklessness, whatever you act reckless with. We shouldn't be protected from inanimate objects, we should be protected from recklessness. It may be hard to realize that, but it's the truth. A murderer is going to murder, whether or not he has a gun.

__________________
You're not hopeless...

Kong doesn't really want to jump into this argument, but he'll just make a small point.

Kong understands you're logic here, but at some point it seems wise to draw a line. Why not be pragmatic when recklessness is likely to occur with the given object, and if the object has little other value than that of destroying something? If we followed you're logic to it's end then we would have to say that private ownership of nuclear weapons is okay as long as we legislate against its reckless use. Would we really want nukes being sold at Wal-Mart?

So, while your logic may make some degree of sense it isn't really very practical and we are left with the question of, "Where should we draw the line?"

__________________
Kong's Reviews:
Stuck On You
Bad Santa

I won't deny that there has to be a line drawn. It's not easy to distinguish just how far is "too far", I agree, but I think it has to be done.


Besides that, while we're on nukes, United States does need to get rid of about 2/3 of all our unused nukes.

You don't "draw the line" on an object that can be used to defend one's life and property. That doesn't make much sense.

Believe it or not, many Americans don't have a problem with using lethal force to stop an aggressor, to thwart an act of aggression. It is really a natural, inherent right to defend one's self by any means necessary. It is an animal-right and a natural urge locked away in our brain stems. Fans of film know that Peckinpah's tag line for Straw Dogs was "every man fears the day he must defend his family." [paraphrased]

What a wholly appropriate example for a gun-rights advocate to use, considering Peckinpah's 1971 film demonstrated that violence lurks everywhere, including "peaceful" Cornish villages, and that the use of a firearm to protect one's family was as pertinent then as it it today.

Most guns-- even handguns-- are not made with any specific purpose in mind. The shooting sports consitute one of the oldest, most traditional diversions of American hobby. The uses for guns run the gamut from hunting to collecting and from target shooting/range competition to plinking or personal defense.

No one has any reason to presume what any one gun might be used for-- especially mine. No one has any right to prohibit or restrict the private ownership and operation of firearms because one feels uncomfortable or threatened by their existence. Get over it.

There is no amendment in the Bill of Rights which states that "the people have a right to feel safe." It doesn't exist. Kong, Pidzilla, Golgot, and everyone else: when you are in this country, you have NO right to feel safe. You have no right to restrict what IS a constitutional right-- the 2nd amendment-- because you are uncomfortable with the right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms IS a right.

I have a hard time understanding why some people seem so afraid of my gun. Do you think I'm going to shoot you with it? You have a much better chance of dying in an automobile accident then you do by a firearm. The idea that one may be more necessary or useful than the other is unrational and has no foundation in the discussion of prohibition.

Kong's statement about "drawing the line" is a specious and arbitrary approach that even the gun-grabbers abandoned years ago.


On with the FACTS:

Since Golgot enjoyed Pidzilla's sparse and disconnected stats so much, here are some REAL STATS to chew on.

Let's start with accidents at the hands of recklessness, which seems to be such a source of distress for the anti-gunners here.

Accidental Firearms-Related Deaths Compared to Other Causes of Accidental Death (1997)
1. Motor vehicles: 43,200 deaths
2. Falls: 14,900 deaths
3. Poisoning by solids or liquids: 8,600 deaths
4. Drowning: 4,000 deaths
5. Fires, burns and related deaths: 3,700 deaths
6. Suffocation by swallowing object: 3,300 deaths
7. Firearms-related: 1,500 deaths
8. Poisoning by gases and vapors: 700 deaths
9. All other causes (including medical "misadventures"): 13,900
Total deaths: 93,800
(Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts)


The Most Common Activities that Lead to Emergency Room Visits
1. Baseball/softball 404,000
2. Dog bites 334,000
3. Playground 267,000
4. ATV's, mopeds 125,000
5. Volleyball 98,000
6. In-line skating 76,000
7. Horseback riding 71,000
8. Baby walkers 28,000
9. Skateboards 25,000

Note: There is no mention of guns or shooting activities

[Source: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission]

The Truth About the Kellermann Study claiming firearms increase your chances of being murdered by a factor of 43
Arthur L. Kellermann is an anti-self defense lobbyist with an axe to grind. The "study" was designed to produce a pre-determined result. The "study" is pure "junk science."

Specifically, Kellermann claimed that "for every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides and 37 suicides involving firearms." (That adds up to 43.) Did you spot the gimmick?

At the end of his report, Kellermann stated his study did "not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm." Kellermann considered only homicides. The "study" conveniently ignored all instances of home defense in which an intruder was not killed. If a would-be victim scared the intruder away with a firearm, that did not count. If the would-be victim wounded the criminal, that did not count, either. To count, someone had to be killed. This is dangerously misleading because if the victims were disarmed and unable to scare off intruders, most or all of the violent crimes would be completed, drastically increasing the incidence of rape, robbery and murder.

Further, 37 of the 43 deaths noted in the "study" were suicides. As the data above show (regarding the suicide rate in Japan, where firearms are virtually non-existent), a person who is intent on killing him- or herself will do it, with or without firearms.

Kellermann also admitted his study did not look at situations in which intruders "purposely avoided a home known to be armed."

In short, Kellermann ignored the vast majority of situations in which legally armed citizens frightened away intruders simply by displaying a firearm.

[from guntruths.com]

Gun Ownership and Violent Crime
Research from the U.S. Department of Justice confirms that responsible gun ownership by boys leads to lower crime rates. Specifically, the Dept. of Justice found that boys who who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use than do boys who own "illegal" guns, and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns. Here are the data:

Status Street Crime Gun Crimes Drug Abuse
No guns owned 24 1 15
"Illegal" guns only 74 24 14
Guns Legally Owned 14 0 13

Note: these figures represent the percentage of each category's involvement in street crime, gun crimes and drug abuse.

The Dept. of Justice concluded that boys who owned guns legally were less likely to become involved with criminal activity, when compared to either boys who owned illegal guns or even boys who owned no guns, in part because of the different ways in which they were "socializ[ed] into gun ownership" and the fact they typically had "fathers who own guns for sport and hunting."

[source: "Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse: Initial Findings--Research Summary," published by the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in March 1994.]

Firearm Use by Civilians to Deter Crime
By carefully examining facts and statistics from the Department of Justice, the F.B.I. and other law enforcement agencies, Prof. Gary Kleck from the School of Criminology, Florida State University, discovered Americans use firearms to prevent crimes approximately 1 to 1.5 million times per year. These are the very cases Kellermann chose to ignore. Had Kellermann considered these facts, he would have had to conclude a firearm in the home makes a family safer.

Prof. Kleck also discovered that robbery victims who defended themselves with a gun suffered lower rates of injury than did those who resisted without a gun, or even those who did not resist at all and instead complied with the violent criminal's demands. In short, Prof. Kleck concluded the private ownership of firearms deters criminal behavior. (Source: "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force" by Gary Kleck)

Concealed Weapons Permit Laws
Liberalized concealed-carry handgun laws, now in effect in 31 states, are a major factor in reducing violent crime. This was proven by University of Chicago by Professors John Lott and David Mustard in their landmark 1996 study, "Crime, Deterrence and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." The researchers examined crime in the more than 3,000 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992 and discovered liberalized concealed-carry laws reduced murders by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent and aggravated assaults by 7 percent.

[from guntruths.com]


Murder Rate Highest in Anti-Gun Metropolitan Areas
Baltimore, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. have perhaps the most repressive laws regarding firearm ownership and possession by citizens. Not surprisingly, in 1998, these areas also had some of the highest murder rates:

City Population Total No. of Murders Murder Rate
(per 100,000)
Baltimore, MD 662,253 312 47.1
Detroit, MI 999,976 430 43
Los Angeles, CA 3,621,680 426 11.8
New York, NY 7,357,745 633 8.6
Philadelphia, PA 1,449,419 338 23.3
Washington, D.C. 523,000 260 49.7

In addition, in 1998, these cities had a combined population of 14,614,073, which is approximately 5.6 percent of the total U.S. population of 259 million. They also had a combined murder total of 2,399, which was about 14.2 percent of the total murders in the U.S. for that year (16,914 total U.S. murders in 1998).

A common response to the statement that the cities with the most repressive firearms laws have the highest violent crime rates is that criminals obviously go into surrounding cities or states to obtain their firearms since the laws there are more relaxed and firearms more readily available. What destroys this argument is the fact that, without exception, those areas where firearms are more readily available and the firearms laws more liberal have lower violent crime rates.

[source: FBI's 1998 Uniform Crime Reports]

Murder Rate and Firearms
As reported in the May 25, 1998, edition of U.S. News & World Report, according to the F.B.I., the murder rate in the U.S. dropped 20 percent--from 24,526 to 19,645--from 1993 to 1996. There was an additional nine percent drop in 1997.

The murder rate in 1993 was 9.5 per 100,000; in 1996 it went down to 7.4 per 100,000. (Source: May 25, 1998, edition of U.S. News & World Report)

Although exact figures are not known, firearm ownership increased since 1994 by as much as 2.5 million per year, while, as shown above, the murder rate decreased during that period. This conclusively shows firearms do not lead to higher murder rates. (Source: May 25, 1998, edition of U.S. News & World Report)

In 1995, there were a total of 22,552 homicides (which would include murders, but exclude the 343 "legal interventions") in the U.S. Of these, 15,551, or 69 percent, involved the use of a firearm. The percentage of firearms-related homicide decreased from 71 percent in 1994. By 1998, the rate of firearms use in murder was down to 64.9 (Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts; F.B.I.'s 1998 Uniform Crime Reports)

In 1995, there were 3.3 non-fatal firearms related injuries for each death. (Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts)

U.S. Murder Rate Since 1900
(Rate shown is per 100.000 population)

1900 1.2
1901 1.2
1902 1.2
1903 1.1
1904 1.3
1905 2.1
1906 3.9
1907 4.9
1908 4.8
1909 4.2
1910 4.6
1911 5.5
1912 5.4
1913 6.1
1914 6.2
1915 5.9
1916 6.3
1917 6.9
1918 6.5
1919 7.2
1920 6.8
1921 8.1
1922 8.0
1923 7.8
1924 8.1
1925 8.3
1926 8.4
1927 8.4
1928 8.6
1929 8.4
1930 8.8
1931 9.2
1932 9.0
1933 9.7
1934 9.5
1935 8.3
1936 8.0
1937 7.6
1938 6.8
1939 6.4
1940 6.3
1941 6.0
1942 5.9
1943 5.1
1944 5.0
1945 5.7
1946 6.4
1947 6.1
1948 5.9
1949 5.4 1950 5.3
1951 4.9
1952 5.2
1953 4.8
1954 4.8
1955 4.5
1956 4.6
1957 4.5
1958 4.5
1959 4.6
1960 4.7
1961 4.7
1962 4.8
1963 4.9
1964 5.1
1965 5.5
1966 5.9
1967 6.8
1968 7.3
1969 7.7
1970 8.3
1971 9.1
1972 9.4
1973 9.7
1974 10.1
1975 9.9
1976 9.0
1977 9.1
1978 9.2
1979 10.0
1980 10.7
1981 10.3
1982 9.6
1983 8.6
1984 8.4
1985 8.4
1986 9.0
1987 8.7
1988 9.0
1989 9.3
1990 10.0
1991 10.5
1992 10.0
1993 10.1
1994 9.6
1995 8.7
1996 7.9
1997 7.4
1998 6.3
1999 TBD

[Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics, Revised July, 1999]

Notes: The murder rate peaked in the mid-1930s and again in 1980. These facts also show there is no correlation between the 1939 National Firearms Act (NFA), which imposed stringent regulations on fully automatic weapons, or the 1968 Gun Control Act (GCA), and the murder rate. In fact, the murder rate skyrocketed in the 12 years following enactment of the 1968 GCA.

In 1900 there were few gun laws. New York had no handgun law and California no waiting period. Guns of all types could be ordered by mail or bought anonymously. And the homicide rate was 1.2, about one-sixth of what it is today. The homicide rate peaked in 1933, during the Depression, and then fell. It was low during and after World War II, but began to rise in the 1960s and 1970s, and reached its high for this century, 10.7, in 1980. It then fell to 8.3 in 1985, a fall of 22%. This welcome news was virtually ignored by the media, which emphasize rises in violence but downplay decreases. Homicide rose again in the late 1980s, but not to its 1980 high. The homicide rate continued to rise following the Gun Control Act of 1968, while the fall in the early 1980s occurred when anti-crime laws but no new anti-gun laws were passed.

It is also significant that from 1900, the number of firearms owned by Americans continued to increase throughout the 20th Century, but the murder rate fluctuated. By the end of the century, the murder rate had decreased to a 30-year low. This conclusively shows the availability of firearms is unrelated to the murder rate; i.e., firearms do not lead to increased violent crime rates.

[from guntruths.com]

Decreasing Violent Crime
According to the FBI's 1998 Uniform Crime Reports (released in October, 1999), from 1997 to 1998:

Overall violent crime: the overall violent crime rate in the U.S. decreased by 7.3 percent.
Murders: In 1997, there were a total of 18,208 murders in the U.S.; in 1998, there were 16,914. [source: FBI's 1998 Uniform Crime Reports, page 13]
Murder Rate: From 1997 to 1998, the murder rate decreased by 7.4 percent from 6.8 per 100,000 to 6.3 per 100,000 population, the lowest since 1967 (when the rate was 6.2).
Robbery: From 1997 to 1998, the robbery rate declined by 11.3 percent to 165.2 per 100,000, the lowest since 1969 (when the rate was 148.4).
Firearm Use In Violent Crime: More significantly, despite the fact the number of firearms and handguns owned by individual Americans continued to increase from 1997 to 1998, the F.B.I. also reported:

Decrease in Firearm Murders: In 1997, of the 15,837 murders as to which the type of weapon used was known to the F.B.I., 10,729 were committed with firearms; in 1998, 14,088 murders in which the type of weapon used was known, 9,143 were committed with firearms.
Decrease in Rate of Firearm Murders: Thus, the rate of firearms used to commit murders decreased from 67.8 percent (of murders in which the type of weapon used was known to the F.B.I.) in 1997, to 64.9 percent in 1998.
Firearms vs. Other Weapons in 1998 (total numbers): Extrapolating these rates to the total number of murders in 1998 (as opposed to just the murders in which the type of weapon used was known), 10,977 of the total 16,914 murders apparently involved the use of firearms, and 5,937 involved other types of weapons.
Firearms vs. Other Weapons in 1998 (rate per 100,000): In 1998, there were 4.1 (per 100,000 population) murders involving the use of firearms, and 2.2 (per 100,000) murders involving weapons other than firearms.

[Note: it is instructive to compare the non-firearms murder rate in the U.S. to the total murder rates in those countries which have strict gun control; e.g., Japan, where the total murder rate of .6 per 100,000 is about one quarter of the non-firearms murder rate in the U.S. This proves that the absence of firearms does not lead to lower murder rates. Click here to examine these data.]

Knives--Increased Usage: By contrast, the FBI also reports that the percentage of murders involving knives is on the rise. Knives were used in 13.3 percent of the murders committed in the United States in 1998 as compared to 12.7 percent of murders in 1994.
Decrease in Use of Firearms in Robberies: The rate of firearms used to commit robberies decreased from 39.7 in 1997 to 38.2 in 1998.

The 17 states and the District of Columbia without concealed-carry permits enjoy an 81 percent higher rate of violent crime. Their restrictive gun laws produced 1,400 more murders, 4,200 more rapes, 12,000 more robberies and 60,000 more aggravated assaults.


So, when Golgot and Pidzilla and others proclaim their "freedom" from a society that does not recognize the right to private ownership of firearms, that's okay. Hey, it's your culture. I certainly don't want it.

Because the United States possesses the right to keep and bear arms for its tax-paying civilians, we are automatically the freest nation on earth. And I don't expect most Europeans to understand why.

The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill people, and other "mongrelized peoples," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1 million "educated people", unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

So you draw no lines at all? Everyone should be allowed to have a tomahawk missile in their backyard or a vile anthrax just in case?

Most americans agree that there does need to be a line; this disagreement is generally in where that line should be drawn.

The 2nd amendment did not recognize the right to keep and bear warships, although I am not certain such a challenge was ever directly raised.

I personally don't believe it is necessary for individuals to own military equipment that requires specialized training and which relies on the concept of explosiveness to kill its targets. "Explosiveness" suggests unpredictability and perhaps uncontrolled effect and was designed to be used only in the unconfined expanses of field combat, not personal combat.

You expressly stated, ""Kong understands you're logic here, but at some point it seems wise to draw a line. Why not be pragmatic when recklessness is likely to occur with the given object, and if the object has little other value than that of destroying something?""

You are proclaiming there should be some shared understanding of pragmatism here, by prohibiting something that doesn't appear to be as useful on a daily basis as an automobile. That is presumptuous projection and nothing more. I say every law-abiding citizen has an inalienable right AND civic duty to protect himself and his family as necessary. I fail to see how owning, operating and even carrying a handgun for these purposes is impractical. It is indeed practical.

Attempting to compare nukes/missiles with personal handguns is a tired example of a very steep slippery slope.

So?

This would be line.

It's practical in the same sense that the nuclear arms race was practical. Kong is just saying that a line can (hopefully) be drawn at a point where it becomes impractical. You seem to believe that owning military equipment would be impractical, and for very well expressed reasons Kong might add. Kong never actually said where he drew this line himself, so it seems you are being a bit presumptuous.

Slippery for whom? Kong doesn't find it slippery at all. Personal ownership of handguns can be argued to be practical, but personal ownership of atmoic weapons cannot be argued for nearly as well. It doesn't seem like it should be slippery for anyone. The point was to illustrate that there can be impractical levels of being armed for self-defense. This still leaves the question of where the two sides meet unresolved, and Kong never attempted to even suggest where he thinks this occurs. So, attacking a position Kong hasn't stated is rather pointless. Kong has given you no position to attack so calm down.

I am not misunderstanding what you are saying, but it seems to me that you are ignoring what I am saying.

To me it is no problem at all solving the drug-problem by taking away the drugs. No drugs, no drug addicts and no crimes related to drugs. With guns it is different since the gun doesn't disappear once you've shot it up. You can use it over and over again and that is why this problem is so hard to handle. If you banned all guns in America today they would still exist only they would all be on the black market and harder to control. If you have read my posts you would know that is the dilemma I have talked about all the time without anyone addressing it in their posts to me. What I find so irritating is that you guys totally ignore the fact that your gun deaths statistics speaks for themselves and that the reason to why they look the way they do is simply because you have so many guns.

And, god damnit, how is taking away guns from reckless people not protecting us from reckless people?? To go back to my example about my friend. How would him owning a gun have protected him that night? I mean, it's not like it was a duel or anything. Also, if his dad had not had that gun in his possession, it would never had happened! "Oh yes it would, because if you want to murder someone you will succeed in the end anyway". Well, my friend's dad did not want to murder anyone. And please stop comparing guns with knives right now. If it is the same thing then why don't people with guns trade them in for knives? That would probably make both sides happy. The anti-gun people because we would get rid of guns, and the pro-gun people because they would still have an excellent weapon to protect themselves with. I am sure the homocides rates wouldn't drop very much, but accidental killings would and you know it.

Oh, I believe it. You are saying that americans haven't travelled as far from "the animal stage" as the rest of the world? Low shot.. forgive me.

If someone is trying to kill me or anyone close to me I think I would defend them the same way you would. Of course a gun would give me the upper hand in a situation like that or even out the odds if the other guy had a gun. But in general I don't believe our lives here in Sweden would be safter with more guns. On the contrary, if we had guns the same way you guys do I am absolutely positive we would create a lot of new problems and also worsen those we allready have got.

Do you carry your gun around on you all the time? If so, would you recommend that every one should do that?

Fair enough. Then my suggestion is that all "hobby guns" are being locked up in the club house instead of people having them in their house along with kids and liquor. Invest in a burglar alarm and buy a baseball bat and you are protected against the burglars too.

And the reason to why you wear your gun is what? Maybe you are the one who should get over something. A lot of people wear guns because they are afraid of something. And fear is very unreliable.

That doesn't make it right. When was that amendment written? Things have changed a lot since those days, wouldn't you agree?

As I said to Caitlyn yesterday, if I did go to USA the possibility for me getting a gun is there. Why don't I feel that way about going to Britain? Or Australia? Or Spain?

I agree, talking about automobile accidents on a thread about guns is irrelevant and has no foundation in the discussion of prohibition. For those who want to make comparisions between guns and cars I suggest you make a thread of your own. If you are interested in the car accident problem only I suggest you try the thread on seat belts, another right robbed from the citizens under the cover of being for the good of the people.

Ok now. I have never met you or your gun so I am not afraid of neither the first nor the latter. However, there is a greater possibility of you shooting me with it if you would feel threatened by me and the gun I don't have then if you didn't have it.

Well, you obviously don't want there to be any lines at all.


First of all, what was sparse and disconnected with the facts I posted?

Secondly, what argument are you trying to make in this discussion by letting us know that the number of accidental gun deaths in 1997 were 1,500 which was "only" enough to make number seven on the chart? The fact that it is not number one would make me believe it is not a problem worth dealing with?

Thridly, car accidents, drowning accidents, fires and all the other things on that list are all things that needs to be taken care of. This, however, is a discussion about guns.

Yeah, and horseback riding is a 100% safe activity to engage in because it is in 7th place on the list.

And here I stopped reading since you are a gun-loving lobbyist with issues...

..just kidding... but the post is sooo long and I will only have time to make a few comments.

I actually don't know who Kellerman is and I haven't read that study so I don't really know what to say about it or your comments on it.

I won't argue with you on that. It is the irresponsible ones I am worried about.

I don't find that hard to believe either, but how is that proving that more guns is better than no guns? And you have to see the big picture. I could probably meet these studies on special cases with other studies on other special cases. I bet there are some study that supports the view that guns in the home increases the gun deaths among kids.


And this is part of the dilemma I've been talking about. To protect yourself from the guns you need more guns.

This is too me not strange at all. When were these restricted laws introduced in those areas? Before or after they started having problems with high crime rates? The laws are desperate measures to do something about the misery and is the result of decades and centuries of no gun control at all. Or have these areas had those laws forever? If I was a gun owning criminal in New York City, do you actually believe that I would turn my gun in when these restricitve laws were introduced? What is the reason to why they call me outlaw, you think? The crime situation in those areas have gone to a point where there is just not much difference that a new law can make. But together with a lot of longterm programs and crime preventing measures starting with kids in problem areas at a very young age, sometime in the future you could se a difference.

And you don't think that has something to do with less criminals being situated there?


I am sorry but I just don't have time to respond to the rest right now....

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

I'm not sure how to address this.

You and Golgot have repeatedly attempted to debunk or disregard several pieces of factual data which have been presented to you in a debate that has demanded stats and facts to support its viewpoints.

I don't care. The facts are there and you can talk around them all you want.

Interestingly enough, however, the above statement you have chosen to make does absolutely nothing to support your irrational and flimsy viewpoints. So I will answer your question.

Yes, I definitely believe that certain areas-- both suburban and urban-- and those which have quite liberal carry laws, might have lower crime stats because there is less criminal activity. Which inadvertently supports my point that guns are not the problem. If the other areas have very strict gun laws, yet violent crime is highest in those areas, how can strict guns laws solve the crime problem???? Please try to answer this.

Somebody please attempt to answer this for me. How does restricting the right to carry or to own a firearm for law abiding citizens attempt to solve these high crime problems?

The facts are there, and you have chosen to ignore what they are trying to say, yet in attempting to put into words your viewpoints, you have contradicted your feelings by inadvertently supporting mine.

Don't feel bad. Anti-gun activists have nothing to stand on, while pro-gun activists have everything in their corner: facts, stats, common sense, history, morality, etc.

I do NOT carry a gun. I personally don't feel the need, but I have no desire to restrict those who wish to do so.

Your comments about the 2nd amendment do not deserve an actual rebuttal, suffice to say that most Americans enjoy a degree of personal freedom that worries most Europeans. We live by the constitution-- or at least we try to-- in this country. That is what makes the United States the finest Republic on the planet; not a democracy, but a Republic.

The 2nd amendment automatically guarantees the preservation of the 1st amendment-- always has, always will.

Karl, one problem here is that you are apparently coming in with absolutely NO intention of seeing any other sides on this. Hence you refuse to accept that there might be ANY problems with ANY of your stats. That's a ridiculous approach when you haven't addressed our criticisms (well - i've only skimmed so far, i'll get back to it tonight). Stats are only as valid as their methodology, application and context. Inappropriately used they can be highly deceiving and in no way "facts". I'm not saying ALL of your "facts" come under that category - but SOME of the earlier ones were DEFINITELY inappropriately applied and cannot be considered gospel:

i.e.

-NY to London comparisons while ignoring the role of "decentralisation"/lowest-ever-police-numbers in britain and Zero Tolerance in NY at those times)
-Sparse rural area crime figures versus inner-cities. Cities are breeding grounds for criminal activities. There are "exceptions" to this "rule", but we need you to actually address them b4 we can discuss it, rather than just insisting you're right no matter what.

Quantative without qualative assessment is normally pointless EDIT: especially in social assessments. At least address the issues surrounding your vaunted "facts".



Ahhh, that is sooooo sweet. With perceptive and informed opinions like that how can we fail to make some headway here?

NB please note i'm NOT arguing against you arms-for-all argument. It's your country, and you're welcome to it I'm just trying to get you to address some inconsistancies. Asking for discussion is not the same as insisting you're wrong. It's you that's insisting you're right and that all your facts are perfect. That makes discussion impossible.

That's all true. It's capitalism supply/demand at its finest. To take it a step further though even if you stopped the legal manufacture of guns it would not stop private manufacture of guns. Modern tools are so capable and guns are really so simple that home manufactured firearms would, IMHO, become all the rage (if the supply of black market guns became too expensive or non existent). One school I went to in NY had gangs with home-made guns... they called them "Zips". If an under-achieving high school kid can figure it out... well, need I say more? The problem is less with the guns and more with humanity wasting it's ingenuity on devising methods of killing one another. I'm a gun owner myself... the only reason for it (for me) is protection.


Reckless people should be stripped of guns. Well, even that's a gray area huh? Just because someone is reckless we strip them of the right to protect themselves? I don't know... I'm glad there are people out there with bigger brains than I.

Regarding knives.... the comparison I would make is that if someone were really intent on killing someone else they would do it. It would happen whether a gun were available or not. It's the motive that's the problem... and the fact that people value human life very little.

You can go around with that logic all you want. Let's say if his dad did not have a gun, and, just hypotheticaly, had an very heavy object. If he dropped said object on your friend's chest, he would have likely died, just the same. Believe it or not, you are blaming an object when the recklessness of humans is to blame. In my situation, he should have been smart enough not to have it in positions where it could be dropped on your friend. I'm so sick of people making every excuse for their actions... "I was drunk, I didn't mean to do it!"


By the way, I may seem like I'm being aggresive here, but I'm trying not to to the best of my ability.

Furthermore, just so we don't get any wrong assumptions about me, I don't condone gun use. In the perfect world, we wouldn't need guns, or any weapons for that matter. As a person who is naturally nonviolent, I despise guns. However, in the reality of America, any ban of guns would cause more problems than it would solve. I don't deny that accidental gun deaths would go down, but I also firmly believe that other ways for us to kill each other would arise very quickly. Furthermore, I also think that in the perfect world, drugs wouldn't have to exist. But as it is, wasting billions on a drug war that will never solve anything is not only pointless, it's ****ing absurd.

Micheal Moore addressed the gun problem in America with startling facts and smears the crap of our violence in Heston's face and I thank him for it, for anyone who thinks Moore stepped out of line at the Academy Awards, don't twist you panties in a twist!

Oh please. Michael Moore didn't do a freaking thing to address the gun problem because there isn't a gun problem. There is, however, a problem with violence in this country; but I fail to see where Charlton Heston is responsible for that, or even partly responsible. I have never heard such brainwashed, left-wing, blame-it-on-the-gun trash in my entire life.

I suggest you need to get out a little more often, instead of swallowing the pap the notoriously-famous liar Michael Moore tries to peddle to his Socialist flock of sheep.

Michael Moore isn't classy enough to take out Chuck Heston's garbage, yet he confronts him in his deceitful mockumentary, while twisting the narration and the video editing to suit his personal agenda. The only "crap that was smeared" was the lying BS that Moore presented to the public under the context of "non-fiction."

Your first statement is a peach. Here is a little analogy quiz for you:

Michael Moore is to "startling facts" what...

a) Rosie O'Donnell is to fat-free diet

b) Mike Tyson is to urbane gentleman

c) Rush Limbaugh is to passive objectivity

d) Stephen King is to struggling writer

e) All of the above

Richard Dreyfuss, the liberal Hollywood actor and occasional proponent of gun control, had this to say about Charlton Heston, following the announcement of Heston's Alzheimer's: [emphasis mine]

"The actor either gets you to where you have to go, or not. Heston did; priceless. He could portray greatness, which is no longer an artistic goal; he could portray a grandeur that was so satisfying. What he was able to personify so perfectly for us was a vision of ourselves called heroic.

"Is this out of favor? Out of step? Antique? Yes. Antique as in gorgeous, incredibly valuable, and not produced anymore."

"It has become fashionable to characterize his politics, almost as if they were separate from him. People are either defensive or patronizing (if not contemptuous). I can only say I wish all the liberals and all the conservatives I knew had the class and forbearance he has. Would I be as patient or serene when so many had showed me such contempt, or tried to make me feel stupid or small? I doubt it. This is dignity, simply and completely. A much more important quality than political passion at the end of the day, and far more lacking, don't you think? "

One more thing:

For recklessly and ignorantly insulting all who suffer from Alzheimer's disease-- and not just his target, Heston-- I would hope the oxygen thief who is known as George Clooney should use the same amount of discretion when crossing the street in front of a speeding bus.

[quote=nebbit][quote=Karl Childers]You don't "draw the line" on an object that can be used to defend one's life and property. That doesn't make much sense.

Believe it or not, many Americans don't have a problem with using lethal force to stop an aggressor, to thwart an act of aggression. It is really a natural, inherent right to defend one's self by any means necessary. It is an animal-right and a natural urge locked away in our brain stems. Fans of film know that Peckinpah's tag line for Straw Dogs was "every man fears the day he must defend his family." [paraphrased]

_______________________________________________________________
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
What the hell, maybe you should spend more time with your family nice and relaxed, what kind of a role model is someone who lives in fear & what if's.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// _______________________________________________________________

Most guns-- even handguns-- are not made with any specific purpose in mind. The shooting sports consitute one of the oldest, most traditional diversions of American hobby.
_______________________________________________________________
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
What kind of a hobby is killing! OMG
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
_______________________________________________________________

The right to keep and bear arms IS a right.
_______________________________________________________________
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Just because you think its right doesn't mean it is.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
_______________________________________________________________

I have a hard time understanding why some people seem so afraid of my gun.
_______________________________________________________________
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Maybe they are afraid of the violence and harm that this object can do, it is made to kill thats all.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
_______________________________________________________________

Let's start with accidents at the hands of recklessness, which seems to be such a source of distress for the anti-gunners here.
_______________________________________________________________
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Any death caused by Guns or anything is one too many.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
_______________________________________________________________

Pidzilla and others proclaim their "freedom" from a society that does not recognize the right to private ownership of firearms, that's okay. Hey, it's your culture. I certainly don't want it.
_______________________________________________________________
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Sounds alright to me, I do not want to live or ever be living in a country that has a gun culture.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
_______________________________________________________________

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Thanks, Nebbit.

Your response is easily the most entertaining material I have read in quite a while.

I will be keeping an eye out for your future posts in the likelihood I will be thoroughly amused and properly humored.

By the way, your avatar is cute.