posted on March 6, 2001 09:27:15 PM
I think you need a visit to the NRA website before you put your foot in your mouth again about their goals.
When you start using words such as "probably" and "more likely" in an argument, you have no argument. And when you try to pass out that pap of responsibility for your child killing his schoolmates onto the gun manufacturers you've only set off on an even weaker course.
I'm not going to waste my time with you, but before I go, let me ask you as a student of history, do you think that the writers of our constitution were some of the most astute and learned governmental figures ever to live in this country? Or do you find fault with their thinking and feel that they were shortsighted?
posted on March 6, 2001 09:27:29 PM
Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. (Genesis 4:8)
jamesoblivion, exactly how it doesn't say...probably with a rock or a stick. They didn't have Uzis back then, ya know. (smile)
posted on March 6, 2001 09:31:58 PM
reamond, the big bad wolf was killed by a hunter who happened to find the wolf attacking Red Riding Hood. He used a gun to defend her, and saved her life.
posted on March 6, 2001 09:36:32 PM
REAMOND YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!! EVERY PERSON IN SWITZERLAND OWNS AN FULL AUTO MACHINE GUN BY LAW. WHAT IS THEIR CRIME RATE? CRIME HAS GONE UP IN COUNTRIES WHERE GUNS HAVE BEEN BANNED. IT HAS GONE DOWN IN STATES WHERE CONCEALED CARRY HAS BECOME LEGAL. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU HEARD OF A TOURIST BEING SHOT IN FLORIDA! NOT SINCE THEY COULD GET A TEMPORARY PERMIT WHILE THEY ARE THERE. WHEN SOMEONE KICKS IN YOUR DOOR IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT JUST DIAL 911 THEY WILL ANSWER IN 4 OR 5 MINUTES & SEND A COP BY IN AN HOUR OR SO! HAVE FUN TED KENNEDY’S CAR HAS KILLED MORE PEOPLE THAN MY GUN
You continue to cite "facts" not in evidence, compare apples and oranges, confuse opinion and reality.
I have cited above the 2 times I have used a gun. Many of my friends have similarly used their guns. Yet, none of these incidents were reported to any official authority, so there is no record. That being so, how do you KNOW the likelihood of being shot with your own weapon as opposed to using your weapon effectively to the desired effect. You may be referring to "facts" circulated by the anti-gunners. Virtually ALL of their statistics are twisted and distorted beyond belief to suit their purposes. In this case, they are including suicide by gun as "shot by your own weapon". While it is technically true, they INFER that the XXX deaths were by another hand. Discounting suicides, the number of people that are shot with their own weapon is infintesimal, so small that the anti-gunners have to keep bringing up the case from 1969(!) of the old lady who had
her gun taken from her and was shot with it.
To include suicides is misleading as hell and ignores the fact that suicidal people will find a way, regardless of the availabilty of firearms. There ARE case studies of areas (Canada?) where guns were banned and suicides dropped- but only briefly, until those hellbent on self destruction found another way - then the rates went right back to where they were.
The reality is if you wish to commit suicide, guns are very effective, far more so than most other common methods. If you are sincere in your desire to end your life,
a gun is generally amn effective way to do it.
As to amateur marksmen, in my state, where we have had a concealed carry law for many years and tens of thousands of permitholders, not a single "wrong" person has been shot. For the last several years, less than a dozen are shot each year, but when surveyed, hundreds of "uses" are reported. This is as it is in most every jurisdiction with carry laws. When introduced, the anti-gunners scream about bloodbaths, but in every state that has added a carry law in the last 10 or 15 years, the only effect has been to reduce crime, usually in a striking fashion.
If you are, as you infer, a scholar, a lawyer, or even just an avid reader, I refer you to the study done by the University of Chicago a few years ago regarding guns in civilian hands and their effects. you will find it supports everything I am saying. it was a striking document in its impartiality, done by highly regarded researchers with every possible care to bias- and the conclusion is clear - law abiding citizens, trained to use their firearms, reduce crime.
This study was unique in another way- it was so well done that Handgun Control, Inc did not attack it. This is the only document I am aware of that supports the private possession of guns in any way that they have not attacked. One must conclude that their silence was because they know it was right in it's conclusions and so carefully crafted as to be beyond reproach.
If KRS or someone who knows where to find it can provide a link, perhaps it is YOU who should do some reading- some reading RELEVANT to the issue as you raised it.
I've carried a gun nearly every day for more than 25 years. It has saved me and many others from serious injury or worse. I've used it hundreds of times. Outside of the target range, I've fired it twice. Donrob's right about it's most frequent use.
Cops do sometimes shoot each other. Gunfights tend to happen when everyone is real close. There's not a lot of time to plan and it gets real confusing. I can't relate to the freezing up thing. Seems like it probably should happen. I've never seen it happen, though.
You accuse others of watching too much TV. I'm curious as to how you've acquired your knowledge.
"In any event, your children, your spouse, or yourself, are far more likely to be harmed or killed by your gun than the gun will ever be used for any defensive measure."
Although I have my spouse on permanent and irrevocable ignore, I
would not consider shooting him.
posted on March 6, 2001 09:52:59 PM
In point of fact, it is the position of the Federal government, per a 1996 (Clinton Year!!) that it WANTS the citizenry to be armed and proficient in the use of arms.
Allowing citizens without criminal records or histories of significant mental illness to carry concealed handguns deters violent crimes and appears to produce an extremely small and statistically insignificant change in accidental deaths. If the rest country had adopted right-to-carry concealed handgun provisions in 1992, at least 1,570 murders and over 4,177 rapes would have been avoided. On the other hand, consistent with the notion that criminals respond to incentives, county level data provides evidence that concealed handgun laws are associated with increases in property crimes involving stealth and where the probability of contact between the criminal and the victim are minimal. The largest population counties where the deterrence effect on violent crimes is the greatest is also where the substitution effect into these property crimes is the highest. The estimated annual gain in 1992 from allowing concealed handguns was over $6.21 billion.
posted on March 6, 2001 10:16:02 PMREAMOND YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!
kimlittle
Your comments , above, are a direct insult and a violation of the Community Guidelines. I am issuing an informal warning and would recommend you review the CGs before posting again.
Every User is entitled to expressed his/her opinion, provided they abide by the User Agreement when doing so, regardless of whether you agree with them or not. The "ignore" feature is always available for your use.
posted on March 6, 2001 10:46:45 PM
24/7 Michelle, this is your life.
xardon,
I doubt that there's an interested kid alive who doesn't know about those, in fact, complete instructions have been contained in popular television shows for years. Was it "Picket Fences" in which kids caused another kid to wreck his Camaro and break his neck with one? That's just one that I remember.
posted on March 6, 2001 10:47:03 PMdo you think that the writers of our constitution were some of the most astute and learned governmental figures ever to live in this country? Or do you find fault with their thinking and feel that they were shortsighted?
False alternative, Ken. The founders recognized that they were not omniscient, thus the incorporation of the amendment process. Actually I get the impression that they expected it would be used far more frequently than it has.
With the second amendment in place, the gun folk will win just about every round. Especially since that "well regulated militia" clause seems to be ignored on a regular basis. I'm still amazed that they didn't raise a stink about not being allowed to have operational howitzers on their patios.
The solution is an amendment concerning personal armament which takes into account the realities of the twenty-first rather than the eighteenth century. Unfortunately the folks with a whizzing bullet fetish are a lot more organized than those who're tired of so many people getting shot.
Wish I had more time to look into the Chicago study data -- throwing out five states and a dozen municipalities is a nice start toward skewing the correlation coefficients. And anyone who can't fudge a time-series regression should find work elsewhere.
-gaffan-
posted on March 7, 2001 04:47:18 AM
Dear kind, omnipotent, Moderator- I advocate free speech, especially on anonymous [well at least quasi anonymous] boards.
Being called an "idiot" is nothing. Being called late for dinner is another thing.
While you certainly have the power of absolute control over this board, I ask that you not censor or admonish on my behalf anyone who may express their consternation with name calling.
Raising an intellect to the mode of thinking, or angered name calling, shows the level of one's ability to effect people through the written word.
Muting these responses causes faulty feedback and a false light upon the respondent.
posted on March 7, 2001 06:07:42 AM
shadowcat - Sorry I am back so late - Sorry also you don't see what I was saying. You were worried about your child's feeling that she had to take a stand and show she would not be picked on or it would just get worse, and wondered where she gets those ideas.
An overhelming display of force is what the government itself does routinely on the news so you should not be surprised if she figures that is what you do even if you are on the angel's side.
Having experience with school yard bullies she is probably correct. Quiet resonable talk will simply be taken as weakness. Yes it needs to change but how will you change it?
Will you go have a quiet reasonable talk with the parents of the other children?
If you have any success at that we will sent you to talk with all the people in Bosnia who would tell you that first of all a leader must be strong....
