| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
| where is your stand |
| total disarmament |
|
17% |
[ 5 ] |
| strict guns control |
|
53% |
[ 15 ] |
| light guns control |
|
21% |
[ 6 ] |
| free access to guns |
|
7% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 28 |
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
Further to Windwalking's statistics, I reviewed Australia's gun crime statistics for assault, sexual assault/rape, kidnap and robbery in addition to homicide.
Our homicide rate is 3.62 / 100,000 - similar to the European countries. I believe there is a direct relationship between our low homicide rate and our strict gun laws.
Further, in the US, 8.8% of the crime types listed above involve a gun compared to 1.2% in Australia. Or, in other words, you are over 7x more likely to be the victim of a gun-related crime in the US than in Australia.
In 1998 (last stats I could find), there were 21 accidental gun deaths which is too low to bother converting to a percentage.
Surely these numbers speak for themselves? You can debate the "guns don't kill people - people do" line all day but the absolute bottom line is surely that the increased availability of guns in the US results in a higher number of deaths and the increased use of guns in crime?
If I accepted the argument that a gun is desirable for self-protection then I would conclude that the US was a very safe place indeed. If only the statistics didn't tell the truth.
I can't even imagine the justification for automatic hand-cannons. |
Wed Aug 28, 2002 10:00 am |
|
|
Remus
Overgrown Cat
Joined: 03 Jul 2002
Posts: 1657
Location: Fish bowl |
quote:
Originally posted by mDrop
quote:
Originally posted by Val
Odd, I thought I was innocent until proven guilty. You seem to want to make me guilty simply because I own a handgun. 
You own a gun? Okay, that's it, lock her up. 
Err....mDrop, i don't think it is good idea to mess with Val. 
quote:
Originally posted by Windwalking
perhaps a very radical measure would be to make manufacturers do guns by order only. That way, every gun even MADE would be ordered by a law-abiding citizen that passes all the background tests and such. Or whatever. The point is that the strict gun laws should be ENFORCED.
IMO the strict guns control should focus on criminal groups, not law-abiding citizens.
At least, in certain U.S cities or town areas where criminal activities is high enough, we should let it inhabitants to get guns for security/self defend....
As to make strict controls for guns manufacturers, i think i read somewhere certain U.S states or guns free advocate groups already tried to sued them; but the manufacturers is suing back with all kind of reasons....
_________________
 |
|
Wed Aug 28, 2002 11:30 am |
|
|
Windwalking
Fearless Paladin
Joined: 05 Jul 2002
Posts: 227
|
quote:
Originally posted by goofy goldfish
IMO the strict guns control should focus on criminal groups, not law-abiding citizens.
At least, in certain U.S cities or town areas where criminal activities is high enough, we should let it inhabitants to get guns for security/self defend....
As to make strict controls for guns manufacturers, i think i read somewhere certain U.S states or guns free advocate groups already tried to sued them; but the manufacturers is suing back with all kind of reasons....
Well, I agree that strict guns control should focus on criminal groups, but the very nature of criminals is that they won't respect any laws that people make to control them. The sad truth is that I can see no way to make guns easy for law-abiding people to have and difficult for criminals to have. Why not? Criminals will just steal the guns or get them through the black market.
In order to limit criminals getting guns, I think we have to limit the number of guns made. There are far too many guns out there; it's impossible to keep track of them. If guns were created on a made to order basis, it would just mean that every gun would be matched with a law-abiding citizen that wants one. No more gun shops to rob. And every gun would have to be accounted for; it would be mandated that everyone who loses/breaks/gives up a gun would have to file it. To me, this strikes me as a better way of having guns in our society than the way we do currently, in which guns are so easily "lost" or stolen or purchased en masse that criminals and gangs can get whatever weaponry they want.
Sure, law-abiding citizens would have a bit more hassle, but in the end, this should in the long run sway the balance of guns away from criminals (of course in the short run, crims and everyone else will still have access to the guns that are currently in circulation right now).
I'm sure there are better plans out there, but I'm just throwing one out there because our current system is pretty ineffective (but powerfully protected by the NRA and other gun lobbies).
- Wind |
|
Wed Aug 28, 2002 12:15 pm |
|
|
Remus
Overgrown Cat
Joined: 03 Jul 2002
Posts: 1657
Location: Fish bowl |
There is some peoples said that high guns ownership has no correlation to guns violents in America. In canada, Michael Moore assumed that a lack of guns contributed to the relative peace. But the facts = there is 7 million guns in 10 million households in Canada, yet they don't kill each other. So he said it's not guns, but it's about "us" (American culture/peoples) = "culture of fear" which is played nightly on our television news....He add "Most people who own guns in America are White, suburban & middle class....they are afraid & want to protect themselves."
You could find more info & documentary about guns/violent by Michael Moore on several other sites (use google). Do you believe him?.
_________________
|
|
Wed Aug 28, 2002 12:45 pm |
|
|
Roach
SBR Belfry Bat
Joined: 20 Jan 2002
Posts: 3233
|
And tested, and tested, and once they have the gun they should be tested, and tested, and tested again to keep it. I think that gun owners should be required to attend a safety class every six months followed by a test each time, and if they fail that test then they should have their gun taken away. I also think that every six months they should have to bring in their gun to a special location to have it checked, to make sure the gun is being maintained properly. And I think that all guns should be required to be kept in a combination safe. I think someone mentioned before that different states have different laws and enforce those laws differently. Texas is one of the states that is the most strict when it comes to enforcing those laws, we are also the first (and I believe only) state to allow the carrying of a concealed hand gun, with a special license. *on a side note I think their should be even stricter laws like the ones I mentioned above* To many people’s surprise there was no significant change in the number of shooting deaths or the number of crimes being committed with guns. I don’t mean to imply that we have fewer shooting deaths per capita than any other states, we do after all have a number of urban areas. But my point is that I think what is more important than the number of guns on the street is how responsible the ones who own them are. Not allowing a US citizen the opportunity to own a gun would violate their civil rights as laid out by the Bill of Rights, but (and this is a very big but) if they prove to be irresponsible then I don’t believe it would violent their rights at all if they were never so much as allowed to touch a gun again
*As you may have guessed I’m not a big supporter of guns themselves, but I am as big as supporter as anyone of the Bill of Rights. Even though it was written so long ago, and therefore has been justly amended dozens of times, I don’t believe that we should change the actual Bill of Rights. (which is just the first ten)*.
I know a guy that is a serious gun freak, before he had money problems and had to sell most of them, he had an entire arsenal. However this guy also attended gun safety courses and lectures religiously, had every license, had an eight hundred dollar safe, and went to the gun range often. One of the most dangerous types of (law-abiding) gun owners is the one that doesn’t know how to use it properly. So as crazy as many people thought this guy he would the first person I would willing to trust with a gun.
quote:
Originally posted by Windwalking
perhaps a very radical measure would be to make manufacturers do guns by order only. That way, every gun even MADE would be ordered by a law-abiding citizen that passes all the background tests and such.
I would happily vote yes on something like that, or support a candidate who made that a priority of his platform.
EDIT: (something I just thought to add) Many gun deaths are sub-cultural, many of these deaths occur in the Ghettos. (the poorest areas of cities like NYC, LA, Detroit, and to a lesser extent my local city of Dallas) Those that I am referring to are very often gang related, which I believe is more a problem of society than of weapon availability. I believe that increasing education and decent jobs in the heart of these areas would reduce shooting deaths far more than outlawing guns. |
|
Wed Aug 28, 2002 1:27 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
Can we say 'harassment'?
I'd support that when they start doing the same thing with people who drive cars. More people are killed by cars driven by complete idiots (drunk and sober) than there are with guns.
Utah allows a person with the proper license to carry a concealed firearm as well.
As to why I own firearms?
Because the firearms I own were owned by my dad. My pistol is the one he carried when he was a police officer. (Now he's a school teacher, you should hear the analogies he makes between schools and prisons.  ) They are the guns my father taught me to shoot with.
Because I like to go to the range and practice with them.
Because I like to go hunting.
Because I like the security they provide.
Because they are the firearms I will teach my kids with. I'll teach them about their maintance and proper handling.
Lastly, because I want to.
Utah has a high amount of gun owners. We also have a low crime rate. What do you make of that? 
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
|
Wed Aug 28, 2002 6:12 pm |
|
|
Erb Duchenne
Slayer
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 987
Location: malaysia |
I'm not sure if I agree with Michael Moore's statictics, but the idea behind it is sound. It's the gunculture and relative carefree, desensitization towards firearms which causes it to be used in retaliations and fits of rage.
I would imagine that the majority of the guns in Canada are shotguns used for hunting... while in the US of A they're mostly small handguns. Their very designs are for very different purposes and mentalities.
Gun law in my country is very strict. My Dad had a Ruger .22 carbine and I could dismantle and re-assemble it in no time. But he had to give it up when he got a stroke because he couldn't pass the yearly gun-test required to renew his license (because of his disability).
If I could, I would have liked to have held on to that rifle.
_________________
Erb Duchenne |
|
Wed Aug 28, 2002 7:09 pm |
|
|
ButtOfMalmsey
Village Idiot
Joined: 07 May 2002
Posts: 785
Location: Mississippi |
quote:
Originally posted by Val
Utah has a high amount of gun owners. We also have a low crime rate. What do you make of that?
The two factors are unrelated in the way you wish them to be related. It reminds me of the story of Milton Friedman visiting Sweden:
Milton Friedman was speaking with the Swedish finance minister, who boasted, "In Sweden under socialism, we have no poverty." Milton Friedman responded, "That's very interesting, because in America among Swedes we also have no poverty."
The moral of the story: lacking a direct causal connection, you cannot relate gun ownership to lower crime, because there is plenteous legal gun ownership in Mississippi (among the highest per capita in the nation) and a cripplingly high violent crime rate, based mostly on poverty. Utah is 1) wealthier than Mississippi; 2) more homogeneous racially and culturally than Mississippi. Utah is also more literate, and has a lower rate of teenage pregnancy. All of these factors contribute to lower rates of violent crime.
_________________
"It has been a grand journey- well-worth making once."
-Winston Churchill, 1965, on Life
I saw this in a movie about a bus that had to SPEED around a city, keeping its SPEED over fifty, and if its SPEED dropped, it would explode. I think it was called, "The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down."
-Homer Simpson
=Member of the Non-Flamers Guild=
=Member of The Sixth House=
::Captain of the Black Company:: |
|
Wed Aug 28, 2002 8:33 pm |
|
|
Ryban
Village Dweller
Joined: 23 Aug 2002
Posts: 19
Location: Belgium, Gent |
quote:
Originally posted by Val
Can we say 'harassment'?
I'd support that when they start doing the same thing with people who drive cars. More people are killed by cars driven by complete idiots (drunk and sober) than there are with guns.
That would be OK for me , for me u could test cardrivers every year. But I think it's the wrong comparison. Cars are designed to travel with, guns are designed to kill with (humans or animals). And that makes makes a big difference.
I have no problems with people owning guns but
1/ civilians should not have guns with them alll the time
2/ If guns can be kept at home (witch I strongly oppose) they need to be locked away safe and not to easy reachable.
3/ every gun and owner is registered, every owner has to be tested on regular bases
4/ every gun owner has to spend a minimun time at the shooting range and take initial lessons (before he can buy a gun of his own)
And Val u must know people u would never trust with guns, do you really think they should be able to get guns without restrictions (as they can now , I understnaded from other posting americans). Again I have noting against responisble gun owners like you.
Ryban
_________________
I don't suffer from insanity,
I enjoy every second of it. |
|
Wed Aug 28, 2002 10:10 pm |
|
|
Joey Nipps
Orcan High Command
Joined: 03 Jan 2002
Posts: 849
Location: Outer Space |
quote:
Originally posted by Ryban
That would be OK for me , for me u could test cardrivers every year. But I think it's the wrong comparison. Cars are designed to travel with, guns are designed to kill with (humans or animals). And that makes makes a big difference.
Others here have tried to use that argument - it really is irrelevant what the original design is for (for guns or anything else). After all, humans always find new uses for things that science and engineering produce - that is just the way of it.
quote:
And Val u must know people u would never trust with guns, do you really think they should be able to get guns without restrictions (as they can now , I understnaded from other posting americans). Again I have noting against responisble gun owners like you.
Ryban
In terms of regulations, people who really shouldn't have guns already are restricted - but that is part of the point - the regulations don't stop them and it is unlikely they ever will. Our problems (at least in part) is that because of our view of individual rights (at least in the US) this sets up innumerable ways for a felon (or other undesirable) to acquire a gun.
Just to make a comparison, it is also a real problem in the US (and I suspect other industrialized countries) wherein drivers who cause accidents (alcohol, drugs, bad driving, etc.) continue to do so even with the laws in place. It is NOT a matter of needing more laws - but to some extent having the guts to enforce the restrictions that are already imposed.
For instance, it is illegal to perform a robbery. However in the US (and likely every other modern country) after the robber leaves jail there is absolutely nothing to prevent him doing it again (and most do). Further, even after they are a repeat offender, they can do it again and again and again. We do NOT need more laws.
_________________
When everything else in life seems to fail you - buy a vowel. |
|
Wed Aug 28, 2002 11:13 pm |
|
|
MoonDragon
High Emperor
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 1254
Location: Waterloo, Canada |
Let me tell you about guns. For as long as I can trace my heritage, my family has been hunters, soldiers, healers and teachers. Many times those roles were mixed (my great-grandfather was a veterinarian and a high ranking officer in Austro-Hungarian army--in the role of a veterinarian). His grandfather was a Jagermaister for the Austro-Hungarian royal family in the Carpatian mountains. My father is a hunter. As is my stepfather. Their fathers were hunters as well.
Needless to say, I grew up around guns. I played with a .22 rifle at my grandfather's place since for as long as I can remember visiting him. I cleaned my stepfather's guns after the hunts since I could hold the gun in my hands. The gun cabinets in any of the houses I grew up in were never locked beyond just keeping the doors closed. For the record, I went to plenty of hunts, yet never with a gun of my own. One of the hunts I attended made me... umm... lose appetite for killing. Not in a bad way. It just made me realize that I would never have a problem killing if I needed to, but also that I would never kill unless I needed to as well.
Also, I have had a blessing and a curse to be in a war. A real war. With real guns. And real dead people. I had a gun in my hand, with sole intent to kill. Psychological aspects of that experience are quite out of this world, but they are certainly better suited for another place and time. Except one that I'm about to talk about briefly.
Now that my qualifications have been dispensed with, let me tell you about guns. As a child, my father shot the kitchen sink with an empty gun. My stepfather shot a hole through 2 walls in his house with an empty gun. In my army base, of the 30 rooms every single one of them had bullet holes in them except one. Each of these bullet holes was inflicted with an empty gun. Some of the stories I heard first hand. Luckally, nobody got hurt. In the field, three people got badly wounded--one of them was slightly crippled--by a gun that went off by itself. And the worst part of it... and this goes almost directly to Val based on something she said... when I had my gun in my hands and my uniform on me, I was invincible. Nothing in this world could stop me. I was afraid of no man and no ailment. Nothing could touch me. I had the power to end other men's lives, in my hands. I was a god and a number.
Seems far fetched, doesn't it? But it's not. Feeling that--and trace of humanity that I kept for myself telling me how wrong it was--I got really spooked. Like an addict that almost ODed and then quit the addiction. Today, I can hold a gun in my hand, but it feels uncomfortable. Evil. I get willies down my spine. I can feel the trace of the power still lingering in the back of my skull. Like a recovered addict, having a heroin needle in his hand. Beconing him once again to feel the rush.
I never fired an empty gun. Mostly because almost everybody I know did, so I never trusted myself enough to ever assume that a gun is empty. And that is not to say that these people don't know how to handle their guns. Hunters have rules about handling guns that are miles ahead of any firearms safety rules. Why? Because they know empty guns kill people. I tolerate hunters because I have a long family history in the craft and I respect what they do for the environment. But I have no tolerance for guns. Nobody can ever tell me that they need to have one. If they do I know that their judgement is warped and twisted by the evil that the gun seeps in their minds. Guns occlude vision. They twist rationality. They instill false sense of security. In a non-hunting society, no good can ever come out of a gun. Ever. Just like no good can ever come out of owning a nuclear bomb. Ever.
_________________
(@) |
|
Wed Aug 28, 2002 11:22 pm |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
I have to echo Moondragon's sentiments.
I won't tell the tale in full but my own father was nearly shot as a teenager when his friend was stuffing around with a shotgun he was *sure* was empty.
I think the bottom line is that many people *like* the feeling that holding a gun gives them but I am glad that my country made the decision that not having guns was the socially responsible thing to do and outweighed the individual desire to own one. |
|
Thu Aug 29, 2002 2:01 am |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
Oh lovely, now I'm guilty and evil.
@ButtOfMalmsey: And whose fault is all of that? Utah is an example that guns are not the source of conflict.
@Ryban: The people I don't want to have guns? Criminals.
Now let me tell you a little story. My family was out camping one summer as we usually do. One night some men who were drunk drove past as the sun was going down. We could tell that they took an unusual interest in us. Later that night they came back. They got out of their truck and started walking towards our campsite. They failed to notice eariler that my father had his handgun with him. My father walked out a ways and yelled to ask what they wanted. They ignored him and started walking faster toward us. My father drew his gun and let it hang at his side in his hand. Those men certainly noticed it then. That's when they took off.
What would have happened to myself and my family if my father didn't have his handgun? Frankly, I don't even want to think about that. It's bad enough just drudging up that memory.
Yes, I own a handgun to ensure the safety of myself, my family and my home. I don't own it because it makes me feel all trippy when I hold it. I don't feel that way when I hold a gun. I perfectly understand it's capabilities which is why I treat a firearm as a tool that deserves a healthy amount of repect for what it is capable of doing. I feel the same way about a power drill or a nail gun or a car. I could just as easily injure myself or someone else if I'm careless with it. This is why I am not careless with firearms or cars or power tools or knives or a cast iron pot (I learned the hard way on that one when I dropped that 20 pound piece of iron on my toe. OUCH!  ) or anything that could potentially harm myself or others.
I'm a responsible person who takes my ownership of a firearm very seriously. I do not deserve to be harassed because I own one.
Do not lay a cloak of guilt around my shoulders because others are evil.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound= |
|
Thu Aug 29, 2002 4:00 am |
|
|
Remus
Overgrown Cat
Joined: 03 Jul 2002
Posts: 1657
Location: Fish bowl |
quote:
Originally posted by Val
Oh lovely, now I'm guilty and evil. ...Do not lay a cloak of guilt around my shoulders because others are evil.
 .........
although i am supporting light guns control measures, i always willing to listen & keep my mind open. based on this poll so far, it seem most people want strict control of guns and wide degree of different opinions across the issue.
i have seen almost same arguments as Val opinions' on another forum site (also college girl, strongly support free access to guns; she is not you, right?  ), and i think their reasons is reasonable. Also, guns control would effect male & female populations differently - so it's worthy we take this into consideration.
one of the websites = http://www.iwf.org/news/000512b.shtml has this to says:
"You won’t hear that from professional anti-gun groups like Handgun Control, Inc. They are using women and manipulating the facts to get the political outcome they want: abolishing legal gun ownership.
At IWF, we care about facts and believe that women need to know the truth about gun control, and why they should oppose it. For women, by far the safest course of action when confronted by a criminal is to have a gun. The number of rapes in states with non-discretionary concealed handgun laws is 25% lower than in states that restrict or forbid women to carry concealed handguns. Guns are the great equalizer between the sexes.
Here are facts you should know:
. For women, by far the safest course of action [when confronted by a criminal] is to have a gun. A woman who behaves passively is 2.5 times as likely to end up being seriously injured as a woman who has a gun. (John R. Lott, Jr.)
· Guns also appear to be the great equalizer among the sexes. Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for women. One additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3-4 times more than one additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men. (More Guns Less Crime, John R. Lott, Jr., p. 20.)
· Orlando, Florida had a long-standing rape problem. Then the police offered a highly publicized gun-training program for women. The result was a 76 percent decrease in rapes. (Washington Times, March 31, 2000.)
. According to Dr. Gary Kleck, about 205,000 women use guns every year to protect themselves against sexual abuse. (Gun Owners Foundation Firearms Fact Sheet, 1999 cited to Kleck and Gertz “Armed Resistance to Crime” at 185.)
· The number of rapes in states with nondiscretionary concealed handgun laws is 25 percent lower than in states that restrict or forbid women to carry concealed handguns. (More Guns Less Crime, John R. Lott, Jr., p. 46.) "
_________________
|
|
Thu Aug 29, 2002 5:51 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
@Val, I don't want to imply that you (or any other individual gun owner) evil. My argument is that a society (as a whole) is better off without guns, IMO. |
|
Thu Aug 29, 2002 10:26 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:29 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
