[Necrology]

you know a gun called tabur?
he was found to be better than the m4

[FWB]

Originally Posted by BallisticWookie

Err mate, non-lethal means it can't kill, so by definition a non-lethal round wouldn't be able to take a life.

[quote:8b404]I know what guns do and I know clearly the difference between gaming and living.

Clearly not, as you keep refering to it.

[quote:8b404]You enjoy gaming ? You enjoy shooting pixels ? You enjoy the fact that you are shooting at representations of humans without the blood and gore and know that you are not actually killing anyone ?? Well guess what, WE ARE DOING EXACTLY THE SAME FUCKING THING, ONLY I SHOOT REAL GUNS AT PAPER TARGETS AND YOU SHOOT PIXELS THAT LOOK LIKE HUMANS ON A COMPUTER. We are not hurting anyone and WOULD never hurt anyone. Do you comprehend ? Criminals with illegal guns should be the target of your dislike for guns, not people like me who follow and obey the law to the letter. [/quote:8b404]

Now, now. Calm down. No need to get uptight and swear.

The pixels are not the same as real life. It is completely different. Od I enjoy the blood? No not really, it makes no difference to my gameplay. In fact I don't play games that are particularly graphic, but that's another point, because even if I did it wouldn't be real. I would not be firing a real gun. I'll say it again, if you can't comprehend that then I can't help you.

I don't dislike you, although with the manner of debating your seem to be stepping into I may soon - what I dislike are guns. Its nothing against you. If no-one was getting shot then fine you can have your weapons, but the fact remains that people are dying from guns and a ban will reduce that.

[quote:8b404]You think mass killings wouldnt occur if guns were banned ?? How stupid are you to believe in something like that ?? Guns are readily available all over the place, banning them wont stop anything, dont you understand ?? Black market arms is BIG business, those arms dealers make shitloads and they sell to whomever has the cash. No law, no worries, it's all about money, you got the money, you got a gun, not a problem at all. [/quote:8b404]

Not at all. Yes a black market will operate, but you could arrest someone for simply possessing a gun. Gun crime has been reduced thanks to the ban we have.

[quote:8b404]Licenses should be made harder to get, psychological tests should be given, background checks, and whatever else is needed to make sure the licensee isnt going to go postal. If new technology that is being created is made public, guns will only be able to be fired with a special ring on the handlers finger. The gun and the ring work in conjunction, without the ring, the gun is useless. Firearms with this particular application built in would make them much more safer.[/quote:8b404]

I don't care about safety, I'd want a ban. Just get your thrills another way instead of shooting off a couple of rounds.

[quote:8b404]I never forced my opinion on you or any of you, I stated my feelings, and you stated yours. You think guns are dangerous by themselves, I dont.[/quote:8b404]

As I said, by you demanding the right to bear arms you place pressure on the rest of us who would like to live in a gun free society.

[quote:8b404]I like guns,[/quote:8b404]

lol. I know. Very scary.

[quote:8b404] you dont. Simple as that. If you dont like guns, I'm not going to change to suit your needs and neither is anyone else. The majority of people in my country want guns banned ?? Since when ?? The chance of their kids being blown away accidently would be reduced if the owner was smart enough to lock away his weapons, keep ammunition seperate from the guns and locked away in another compartment. [/quote:8b404]

<Cough>http://www.rice.edu/projects/topics/quizzes/quiz2.htm<Cough>

[quote:8b404]I'm sorry you feel as though you are being given a raw deal here, being made to live with gun owners and all. Seriously, theres nothing you can do about it, so stop your whining. We have put up with shit from people like you for years now, and we arent going to back down, simple as that. Get used to it. [/quote:8b404]

Hey, I don't live in the US, so at the end of the day I don't really care. I just can't find sympathy for a society that you advocate when someone gets blown away.

[quote:8b404]End of discussion.[/quote:8b404][/quote:8b404]

Ok, but if you don't mind I'll continue it with others here.

[FWB]

Originally Posted by Colonel

Nice thread guys. I love a lively discussion. Great post Rudedog. FWB, I couldn't disagree with you more. You say that the most important issue is the "if one life can be saved" theory.
If you use this logic, you should encourage gun ownership. As I stated before, the statistics show that guns save more lives than they take.

Rubbish. Show me the stats.

[quote:dd9c7]The US government has conducted at least ten studies on this in the last fifteen years, most conducted by an administration that was trying to draw the opposite conclusion, and EVERY study proved that guns save lives. You site gun banning as a solution in Britian.[/quote:dd9c7]

Show me the stats. How on earth do you judge it saved a life? I'm sorry mate, but I think you're talking out your rear-end there. Here's a critique of "preventing-crime" "studies":

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCas ... tml#arming

[quote:dd9c7]However, crime has increased since the ban.[/quote:dd9c7]

But not gun-related crimes. You are trying to make a link where none exists. Our crime issue is down to other problems. Many pro-gun groups try and use this poor argument.

[quote:dd9c7]You mention accidental deaths and of course, this is always tragic. The number of accidental deaths in the US is extremely small. (and in fact is at an all time low in the US). Far less than the number of kids who get into their mom's cleaning supplies and drink something they shouldn't, or the number of kids killed on bikes, or the number of kids killed because their parents didn't make them wear a seatbelt, etc.[/quote:dd9c7]

And what about non-accidental deaths? The black communities are the worst to suffer from this, but I guess if you're white and middle class it is alright, right? You don't have to live with it.

[quote:dd9c7] I know your argument that guns were designed to kill and that makes them different. I somewhat disagree, guns are designed to propel a projectile at a high velocity. Where you aim that projectile is up to you. Some guns are designed solely as good target shooters, but could kill if misused. [/quote:dd9c7]

You are fooling yourself if you don't think they are designed to kill. That projectile talk is quite frankly a lame way of trying to get around the issue. Guns are supposed to kill. That is why they were invented and that is why they were designed.

[quote:dd9c7]There are many things in our modern world that are dangerous. Should we ban them all? I understand that in Australia, crime with knives went up are the gun ban and that now there is a movement to ban some knives. Where does it end?[/quote:dd9c7]

Knives are, generally speaking, not designed to kill.

[quote:dd9c7]A few additional comments about previous posts: The statement that most people are killed by their own guns is false. The fact is that guns are used more times to prevent a crime than they are to commit a crime.[/quote:dd9c7]

Show me that stats, and don't bring up the police force, because this discussion is about civilian control.

Every year, more than 30,000 people are shot to death in murders, suicides, and accidents. Another 65,000 suffer from gun injuries.

firearms kill about 85 people every day in this country."

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/200 ... earms.html

If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often,'' said Rebecca Peters, a Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence. ``This has to be treated as a public health emergency.'
http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html

I like this paragraph, especially the last line:

Enough of the mindless violence in the United States made possible by easy gun availability. Sure, criminals will find a way to access guns on the black market despite any future ban. But the next time some unbalanced person decides to wreak havoc on a day care center, downtown street or school classroom, let him or her wield a tree branch or throw rocks. Knives of course are effective murder weapons, but not particularly efficient at a distance. Unlike the use of guns with criminal intent, the outlawing of guns in the United States might prove painful for some people, but not fatal.
http://ifrm.glocom.ac.jp/gii/dan20000502en.html

As I said in the another post, get your cheap thrills another way.

[quote:dd9c7] The statement that we would not have any mass school killings in the US if we banned guns, unfortunately, may be false also. The boys in Columbine, Colorado also had homemade bombs. I think if a kid wants to take out several people at his school, he doesn't need a gun to do it.[/quote:dd9c7]

You are being very naive if you think they could've caused the damage they did with just bombs. I believe every single death in that incident was from gun shot wounds. Pipe-bombs are alot harder to kill with, especially if someone is charging straight for you. Have you ever thrown a grenade?

[quote:dd9c7]I think discussing crime statistics and accidental deaths, or whether guns should be allowed only for hunting etc. is irrelevant. The discussion should be about whether or not a human being has a fundamental right to certain freedoms.[/quote:dd9c7]

It isn't irrelevant. Just because you may not be on the receiving end of it doesn't make it unimportant. As for the freedom issue, again, I argued that. I want the freedom of not living in fear of being blasted away.

[quote:dd9c7]In America we have many freedoms and they are not always popular. One of the posts says that freedom of speech is the best freedom that we have. But this freedom too, is not always popular and can incite people to kill. If we allowed our police to bust into any house and search it, we might be able to "save one life" but freedom from search and seizure is a human right so we have laws against it. The point is that we must defend our freedoms, even the ones that aren't popular, or we will slowly descend into a society with no freedom.[/quote:dd9c7]

You are confusing freedom with ancient 19th century values.

[quote:dd9c7] Freedoms are not taken from us in big steps but are whittled away over time. The events of 9/11 have many people talking about the necessity to give up a few freedoms in the name of safety. I believe that it was Thomas Jefferson (I'm not sure, it was one of the Founding Fathers) that said, "A people that gives up their freedom in the name of safety, deserves neither freedom nor safety." Once a freedom is taken away it is almost impossible to get it back. It becomes accepted not to have it. If we ban and confiscate all guns, do you think the people that really shouldn't have them are going to just turn them in?[/quote:dd9c7]

You are clinging to out-dated beliefs.

[quote:dd9c7]No. I have a couple of guns in my house, but not a single bullet. Do these guns pose a threat to anyone? No. Right now they are just attractive paper weights.[/quote:dd9c7]

I don't care what you're doing with yours, I assume you are "responsible" (if you can call someone who owns a gun that ). What I do care about are the morons who have no idea what they're doing. You aren't going to educate them. Have you ever worked in a kindergarten? Have you tried telling a child not to hit someone with their toy? They don't listen. You have to take it away from them. These people are just like that. Call it unfair that they're ruining your fun, but tough. That's the price of life and your "freedom" isn't whether a penny if you're dead.

[quote:dd9c7]Ok, I think I've vented enough. No more posts from me. (except to correct errors in facts maybe)[/quote:dd9c7]

I guess I won't see your stats. Typical, make a claim and then don't back it up.

[rudedog]

OK here are the real statistics from the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov) 1999 ( most current year )

Number of death from automobiles
[img]http://members.cox.net/jlandi/cdc_a.jpg[/img]

and now from firearms
[img]http://members.cox.net/jlandi/cdc_f.jpg[/img]

Funny how something not meant to kill, kills more people then something made to kill.

I could have found other "statistics" from the NRA or the anti-Gun groups but I thought a 3rd party would be a little more credible.

[quote:88404]CDC = Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is recognized as the lead federal agency for protecting the health and safety of people - at home and abroad, providing credible information to enhance health decisions, and promoting health through strong partnerships. CDC serves as the national focus for developing and applying disease prevention and control, environmental health, and health promotion and education activities designed to improve the health of the people of the United States.[/quote:88404]

[FWB]

Ok... and what are you trying to prove. They support the stats I gave. No one here has claimed that more people die from firearms than vehicles... so what's your point? We're discussing guns here, not cars.

Can you find cause of vehicle incidents, i.e. drunk driving, falling asleep, brake failure etc?

[Pfc.Green]

So FWB maybe we should ban, knives, sticks, rocks...and so on

[FWB]

[quote="Pfc.Green":ef3a8]So FWB maybe we should ban, knives, sticks, rocks...and so on[/quote:ef3a8]

Green, here's an idea before you join a topic... read the posts. I've already covered this. Sigh. :roll:

[Pfc.Green]

[quote=FWB]

Originally Posted by "Pfc.Green":4ef2a

So FWB maybe we should ban, knives, sticks, rocks...and so on

Green, here's an idea before you join a topic... read the posts. I've already covered this. Sigh. :roll:[/quote:4ef2a]

Ok GOD we all know you know everything in world there is to know. :roll:

[FWB]

[quote="Pfc.Green":711b4]Ok GOD we all know you know everything in world there is to know. :roll:[/quote:711b4]

What kind of a reply is that? Can't you come up with anything better/relevant?

[rudedog]

Originally Posted by FWB

Ok... and what are you trying to prove. They support the stats I gave. No one here has claimed that more people die from firearms than vehicles... so what's your point? We're discussing guns here, not cars.

Can you find cause of vehicle incidents, i.e. drunk driving, falling asleep, brake failure etc?

Yes, the person responsible for the vehicle is the cause in every incident you stated. just like guns.

We need to hold the individual responsible not the means. Everyone is so caught up in banning firearms because they are so bad and are meant to kill. When the statistics show vehicles ( not meant to kill ) are more likely to kill someone. We should ban all vehicles!

Sounds kind of stupid doesn't it?

On a side note. This thread started out. Who takes their kids to the range? Not the right to bear arms or gun control.

[Colonel]

[quote:adb8a]Rubbish. Show me the stats.[/quote:adb8a]

Most gun control lobbying groups, such as the one you link to, refer to a stat showing that you are "22% more likely" to have the gun in your house used against you, either by a criminal, or by accident. (sometimes they say 40 or 43%, sometimes 18% - they can't make up their minds). This supposition comes from study done by Arthur Kellerman, M.D.. But he readily admits that he used very a very small scale group from "selected" districts because he wanted to make sure he proved his belief that guns should never be in the home. He justified his political bias by stating "People should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes." Apparently the end justifies the means. Furthermore, he only included cases where the criminal was actually killed. Dr. Edgar Suter refuted Kellerman's findings in the Journal of Medicine of Georgia. Dr. Suter said, "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected—not the burglar or rapist body count. Since only 0.1% to 0.2% of defensive gun usage involves the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."

[quote:adb8a]How on earth do you judge it saved a life?[/quote:adb8a]

I agree that this is difficult. As in the case I mentioned earlier, I believe my father's flife was saved by his gun. Can I prove it? No. Can I be reasonably sure that a young guy with a baseball bat who is ramming your door, and who tries even harder to break down that door after he sees the 75 year old liilte guy inside, intends to cause someone serious bodily injury? yes.

This is not an unusual case, "criminologist Gary Kleck notes, "More commonly, guns are merely pointed at another person, or perhaps referred to or displayed, and this sufficient to accomplish the ends of the user." (Targeting Guns, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, p. 162.) Kleck's 1995 landmark survey of defensive gun uses found guns used for protection as many as 2.5 million times annually, ("Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995.)"

[quote:adb8a]But not gun-related crimes. You are trying to make a link where none exists.[/quote:adb8a]

Ah, but the point is that crime in general, and even violent crime increased. "Between 1980-1995, Australia's firearm-related death rate was cut nearly in half and its firearm-related homicide rate nearly by two-thirds. (The former decreased 46%, from 4.8 deaths per 100,000 population to 2.6; the latter decreased 63%, from eight per 100,000 to three). In 1995, the annual number of firearm-related deaths fell to its lowest point in the 16-year period." So crime was decreasing in Australia prior to the ban. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics website, incidences of violent crime increased from 1997 to 1998 (I think this was the first year of the ban) from 161,398 to 172,690, a 7% increase. (violent crime includes murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, sexual assault, etc.)

A few more quotes:

"The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws.
--Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997.

"Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%."
--"Gun crime soars," Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998.

"The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago."
--South Australia Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, reported in The Advertiser, Adelaide, Dec. 23, 1999.

[quote:adb8a]And what about non-accidental deaths? The black communities are the worst to suffer from this, but I guess if you're white and middle class it is alright, right? You don't have to live with it.[/quote:adb8a]

This is a little insulting. Crime is crime regardless of skin color. This statement is like me saying to you that your only concerned about banning guns because you don't want to be "blasted away" and that you don't care about all of the women that are raped because "You don't have to live with it" By the way, in the murder/attempted murder category in the Australian stats they increased from 639 cases to 666 cases, sexual assaults increased from 14,353 to 14,568. I guess you don't want the stats about accidental deaths. But.. 100,000 people of all ages were accidentaly killed in the US in 1999 (sorry that the last of year of stats that I could find). Tragically 824 were from accidental firearm deaths. 42,401 from autos, 13,162 from falls, 12,186 from poisoning, etc - firearms deaths were way down the list.

Your comments about my 19th century values will have to wait until another time - got to pick my daughter up from school - but I will say that freedom is never old fashioned. I think we are looking at this from two different directions. you say that "your "freedom" isn't whether a penny if you're dead" and I agree. But your freedom from the fear of being "blasted away" will not be worth a penny if a guy bigger than you beats you to death or rapes your daughter, etc. I guess it is all in how you look at it.

I'll have to comment on the rest of your post later. You have some good points, but sadly, they are not based in facts. :cry: :wink:

By the way, you also said that non-lethal by definition cannot kill you. Maybe its not designed to, but it can. Remember the actor a few years ago that was killed by a blank firing gun because it was fired too close to his head? Haven't you occasionally read about someone in a crowd getting killed by a rubber bullet that happens to hit them just right? Don't you remember Mama Cass choking on a ham sandwich? (actually I think she had a heart attack while eating a sandwich but it didn't go down in history that way). -- Boy I wish this had spell check cause there's no way I'm gonna proof this.

[Low spark]

I personally have a real problem relating car deaths to gun deaths. That's one of the first argument's I here, everytime. Some things about cars & guns, you must have a license to drive(is needed to use a gun?), your car must be licensed(must guns licensed?), you must take driver's ed(is gun safety required before one can get a gun license?) to get a license, you must have insurance on you car(to use a gun does that gun have to be insured?

I think that if a persons is driving drunk, that person is guilty of using an automoble as a deady weapon.

[FWB]

Originally Posted by rudedog

Sounds kind of stupid doesn't it?

You are missing the point here. Cars are not designed to kill, guns are. Using your argument we might as will give the right to civilians to store/carry anthrax or small pox? Or what about land mines? Or fully-functional tanks (i.e. with a working gun)? We can trust people not to drive down the centre of town and fire a few shells into a building, right? Or at the least it the individual would be to blame and not our lack of control as a society. Right?

You can't trust people. They are stupid. Sorry, but that is the way it goes. Those who moan about being able to fire a couple of rounds off will soon find something else to keep themselves amused. It won't kill them.

[Miscguy]

Originally Posted by Necrology

you know a gun called tabur?
he was found to be better than the m4

I have heard of it. I dont really liek the look of it. That and im used to teh m16 style. You know style is everything... :roll:

[FWB]

Originally Posted by Colonel

"The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected—not the burglar or rapist body count.

Ohh dear. This is where we're going to divert even further. Are you suggesting that killing a burgler is alright if he's trying to enter your house (no matter how small the percentage of this happening is)? Since when did individuals become the executors of the law? Let alone the death penalty issue at stake here.

[quote:4a7cc]Since only 0.1% to 0.2% of defensive gun usage involves the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."p[/quote:4a7cc]

Did you read all the links I posted? There was one good one which criticised pro-gun studies saying they did the same thing, exaggerated cases of defensive (e.g. getting up when you here a bump in the night).

[quote:4a7cc]
I agree that this is difficult. As in the case I mentioned earlier, I believe my father's flife was saved by his gun. Can I prove it? No. Can I be reasonably sure that a young guy with a baseball bat who is ramming your door, and who tries even harder to break down that door after he sees the 75 year old liilte guy inside, intends to cause someone serious bodily injury? yes. [/quote:4a7cc]

I can't comment because I don't know your father's incident, but no doubt that most cases are exaggerated.

For every time a gun in the home is used in a self-defense homicide, a gun will be used in—

1.3 unintentional deaths

4.6 criminal homicides

37 suicides22

People living in a household with a gun are almost five times more likely to die by suicide than people living in a gun-free home

In 1997 there were 15,690 homicides.

Of these, 8,503 were committed with handguns.

Among handgun homicides, only 193 (2.3 percent) were classified as justifiable homicides by civilians.

For every time in 1997 that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 43 people lost their lives in handgun homicides alone
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hgbanfs.htm (those stats are from the FBI. There's alot more interesting info on there)

[quote:4a7cc]This is not an unusual case, "criminologist Gary Kleck notes, "More commonly, guns are merely pointed at another person, or perhaps referred to or displayed, and this sufficient to accomplish the ends of the user." (Targeting Guns, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, p. 162.) Kleck's 1995 landmark survey of defensive gun uses found guns used for protection as many as 2.5 million times annually, ("Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995.)"[/quote:4a7cc]

See above.

[quote:4a7cc]Ah, but the point is that crime in general, and even violent crime increased.[/quote:4a7cc]

No, that isn't a point, because you are drawing a conclusion with no actual evidence. Just because crime increases does not mean it is control related. As I said, gun crimes are down. The reason other crime is up... well that's a seperate issue.

[quote:4a7cc]

This is a little insulting. Crime is crime regardless of skin color. This statement is like me saying to you that your only concerned about banning guns because you don't want to be "blasted away" and that you don't care about all of the women that are raped because "You don't have to live with it"[/quote:4a7cc]

Unfortunately crime is not just crime. Racism inflitrates every institution and you are kidding yourself if you think the politicians or the police are the same about the middle-class suburbs as they do about the poor downtown areas.

[quote:4a7cc]By the way, in the murder/attempted murder category in the Australian stats they increased from 639 cases to 666 cases, sexual assaults increased from 14,353 to 14,568. I guess you don't want the stats about accidental deaths. But.. 100,000 people of all ages were accidentaly killed in the US in 1999 (sorry that the last of year of stats that I could find). Tragically 824 were from accidental firearm deaths. 42,401 from autos, 13,162 from falls, 12,186 from poisoning, etc - firearms deaths were way down the list.[/quote:4a7cc]

Australia has quite strict control.... perhaps a link?
Anyway, I concede that accidental (although what exactly that means) death is rather small, but that is still 824 too many. 824 which I believe, if guns were bannedm wouldn't exist.

[quote:4a7cc]Your comments about my 19th century values will have to wait until another time - got to pick my daughter up from school - but I will say that freedom is never old fashioned. I think we are looking at this from two different directions. you say that "your "freedom" isn't whether a penny if you're dead" and I agree.[/quote:4a7cc]

No, I was suggesting your idea of freedom is old fashioned. It is not the same now as it was back then.

[quote:4a7cc]But your freedom from the fear of being "blasted away" will not be worth a penny if a guy bigger than you beats you to death or rapes your daughter, etc. I guess it is all in how you look at it.[/quote:4a7cc]

And you think a gun will stop that? I don't, not one bit. All that happens is that the "bad" guys end up with more weapons.

[quote:4a7cc]By the way, you also said that non-lethal by definition cannot kill you. Maybe its not designed to, but it can. Remember the actor a few years ago that was killed by a blank firing gun because it was fired too close to his head? Haven't you occasionally read about someone in a crowd getting killed by a rubber bullet that happens to hit them just right? Don't you remember Mama Cass choking on a ham sandwich? (actually I think she had a heart attack while eating a sandwich but it didn't go down in history that way). -- Boy I wish this had spell check cause there's no way I'm gonna proof this.[/quote:4a7cc]

Yes, but you're being pedantic. Certain incidents under certain circumstances.