[pest]

FWB - try this link - http://www.ssaa.org.au/gunleg.html

From the short time I looked at these, I cannot tell how Australias gun control laws helped a bit. It looks like it had no effect at all, maybe even a negative effect. It just reinforces the old saying - If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

If the existing laws in the US were enforced, we wouldn't need new laws. Unfortunately, its easier to create laws than it is to enforce them.

I'm sorry you dont want to hear the car vs gun arguement, but you are not interested in hearing the criminal vs non-criminal arguement, so i guess we are even. What about Switzerland where everyone is required to have a gun in their house? Why are their crime rates so low?

[FWB]

Originally Posted by pest

FWB - try this link - http://www.ssaa.org.au/gunleg.html

From the short time I looked at these, I cannot tell how Australias gun control laws helped a bit. It looks like it had no effect at all, maybe even a negative effect. It just reinforces the old saying - If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Not the case in Britain. You're also offering stats from a pro-gun site. Now, now, we all know that's not good.

However, what I can accept is that this comes down to a case by case issue. I'm not arguing that culture doesn't plays a huge role in this, it probably is the biggest, but sadly it isn't easy to overturn. Perhaps in the likes of Australia the criminal element has not been pushed off guns (this is one of the reasons the British police don't use such weapons, because they argue it causes criminals to resort to them too). You ban them, and perhaps, like here, given time, crooks will get used to not using them due to difficulty in obtaining and punishment for simply owning.

These things take time too. Let's wait some more years and see what happens. You can't expect change overnight.

[quote:ede7e]I'm sorry you dont want to hear the car vs gun arguement, but you are not interested in hearing the criminal vs non-criminal arguement, so i guess we are even. [/quote:ede7e]

It is because it is a pointless comparison. I'm still waiting for a response to my question on legalising fully armed tanks, land mines and anthrax.

[quote:ede7e]What about Switzerland where everyone is required to have a gun in their house? Why are their crime rates so low?[/quote:ede7e]

You've been reading to many NRA publications. No such law exists. The militia keep their guns at home. Maybe that is what is confusing you.

But for your information, the country is now reconsidering its laws after the Friedrich Leibacher incident. EDIT: Here, dug up a link for you:

http://www.eda.admin.ch/washington_emb/ ... unown.html

There it states that not only do you need a permit to buy a gun but you also:

A person who requests such a permit must demonstrate that he needs to bear arms in public in order to protect himself, other persons or goods against specific risks.

What about Japan, which has one of the lowest gun related crime stats in the world and strict gun control?

[Miscguy]

Im glad to see that RudeDogs thread about taking his daughters to a gun range to teach them gun safty and to have fun. Has been so contorted into a pissing contest about who's more right over gun control.
Why not just say nice pictures, good for you teaching the girls safety, and move on?

[pest]

Originally Posted by FWB

You're also offering stats from a pro-gun site. Now, now, we all know that's not good.

lol - and your sources weren't anti-gun?

I went back and read your links. They were all articles, not stats. Hihgly influenced by the authors personal beliefs. The links I sent had actual stats from some Australian buruea. Not the interpertation of the stats, just stats. I got the swiss comment there too.

I get sceptical (sp?) when an article is afaid to share its statistics.

The thing about cars and guns and criminals vs normal citizens is this. Law abiding gun owners have no intent to kill people with their guns. You refuse to acknowledge that. It might be apples and oranges to you, but not to law abiding gun owners. Gun owners arent the problem, criminals are.

Now, now. Even your research says the crime stats for Japan mean nothing. All crimes there are much lower, not just gun crimes. Tsk, tsk.

[FWB]

Originally Posted by pest

lol - and your sources weren't anti-gun?

That's already been accepted. Where I have offered sources they've been from a fairly valid source (e.g. the FBI) or were backed up by another person (e.g. 30,000 people die each year from guns).

[quote:2475a]I went back and read your links. They were all articles, not stats. Hihgly influenced by the authors personal beliefs. The links I sent had actual stats from some Australian buruea. Not the interpertation of the stats, just stats.

I got the swiss comment there too.[/quote:2475a]

Well then it brings questions about the validity of your source as I've shown the Swiss comment was clearly a lie. If they're lying about that, one must question their stats.

At least my "opinions" came from fairly distingushed sources, such as academics, professors... one from Harvard.

[quote:2475a]I get sceptical (sp?) when an article is afaid to share its statistics.[/quote:2475a]

Like I've said, nothing I've said so far has yet to be questioned by other sources.

[quote:2475a]The thing about cars and guns and criminals vs normal citizens is this. Law abiding gun owners have no intent to kill people with their guns. You refuse to acknowledge that. It might be apples and oranges to you, but not to law abiding gun owners. Gun owners arent the problem, criminals are.[/quote:2475a]

And like I said (so you haven't been reading my posts), I'm aware of that, but sorry, tough shit . Gun control can reduce the criminal usage of them as Britain and Japan testify. But it goes deeper than this. The cultural indoctrination of guns is undoubtably a huge issue. Having gun users in society fuels the desensitization of them.

[quote:2475a]Now, now. Even your research says the crime stats for Japan mean nothing. All crimes there are much lower, not just gun crimes. Tsk, tsk.[/quote:2475a]

Yes, because there are strict policies concerning all crimes there.

[intrestedviewer]

Jees FWB, quote enough people?

[rudedog]

That is an Olympic arms AR15 pre-ban with telescoping stock. I paid a little over $1400.00 for it.

[FWB]

Originally Posted by intrestedviewer

Jees FWB, quote enough people?

Hey, when I debate I try and do it properly. There's no point in spewing out comments without some backup.

[Colonel]

[quote:45ce5]Are you suggesting that killing a burgler is alright if he's trying to enter your house[/quote:45ce5]

You might have me here. If someone broke into my house I would try to detain them first by holding them at gun point, then if unsuccessful, I would shoot them. Can I ask the man "excuse me, are you breaking in just to steal replaceable merchandise or are you here to hurt someone?"? I guess I could but "by definition" is a thief honest? However, that was not the point of the quote. The point of the quote was that for the study in question to come up with the statistics stated (and in fact the statistics that you use in your most recent post appear to have come from the same study) they had to skew the numbers by only including gun-related cases to crimes where the perpetrator was killed. They did not include any time where he was only injured or held with a gun until police arrived. Had they done so the numbers would not have proven their hypothesis.

[quote:45ce5]Did you read all the links I posted?[/quote:45ce5]

Yep. And I almost commented that your links were very biased in their interpretation of some studies, as I'm sure the websites that I like to use are slanted towards their political belief. Most of my numbers, however, came from governement statistics not lobbyist sponsered studies. But, you are right to be sceptical of statistics. That's why this discussion should be based not in crime rates or deaths caused but in an analysis of what rights and liberties we have as humans.

As for the stats that you listed - I believe many to be exaggarated. The article that you site include Dr. Kellerman as one of its sources. As stated before I find his methods to unsound and biased. One thing in the article that is interesting to me is that it states there are 65 MILLION handguns in the US. With that many guns and relatively so few accidental deaths, I would say that the gun owners of America have an incredible safety record. And the fact that there are so many and relatively few crimes committed per gun shows that the gun itself is not the evil party here.

[quote:45ce5]Just because crime increases does not mean it is control related./quote]

I agree, but it sure seems strange that it was declining for several years prior to the ban.

As for the racism point, it's not relavent to this discussion.

[/quote:45ce5]824 which I believe, if guns were bannedm wouldn't exist.[quote:45ce5]

Maybe this number WOULD decline, but at what cost. If murders, rapes, etc. increased far more than that number would it be worth it? And you are assuming that ALL guns would be turned in (all 65 million handguns plus shotguns, rifles, etc.), including those held by criminals. NOW who is kidding themselves?

[/quote:45ce5]All that happens is that the "bad" guys end up with more weapons.
[quote:45ce5]

Exactly my point.



[/quote:45ce5]Yes, but you're being pedantic.[quote:45ce5]

And I thought I was being sagacious. :lol: Pedantic, hmm, great word. I had to look it up. I'm not sure I'll ever be able to use it in a sentence, but it's a great word.

And from another one of your posts:
[quote:45ce5]You can't trust people. They are stupid.[/quote:45ce5][/quote:45ce5]

There is the difference between us. I believe that individuals can be trusted. That they are innocent until proven guilty. That individuals are smart enough to make decisions for themselves without the need for government to hold their hand or be their daily protector. That they are granted certain inalienable rights by their Creator, these being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that..... Do I hear God Bless America playing in the background? :wink:

[pest]

Originally Posted by FWB

And like I said (so you haven't been reading my posts), I'm aware of that, but sorry, tough shit .

Ahh.... the root of it all. The fact that you blatantly acknowledge that you don't care for the rights or even wishes of the vast majority of gunowners only hurts your cause. That is the arguement that makes the NRA stronger by the day.

Anyway, thats all I've got to say on this thread. I will use my vote and my donation money to speak for me. THATS what this country is all about.

Sorry for hi-jacking the post, rude, but you know, conversations do drift and this is a discussion forum.

[Old Reliable]

Outlawing guns would be like prohibition...good luck!

[Low spark]

Very good arguments, on both sides (execpt the Trains,Planes and Automobiles aurgument). This is like arguing religion or politics, it's hard to find a middle ground. I know the the US is a long way from banning guns. But I do believe that we need stronger gun laws. There our people out there, who don't like the idea that every law abiding citizen can have a gun. People snap, and when they do, a gun is the last thing they need access to....
There is a good book you should all read by a man named Huff called How to Lie with Statistics.
Guns are a problem. What is the solution?

[Colonel]

Switzerland

[quote:299e7]No such law exists. The militia keep their guns at home. Maybe that is what is confusing you.
[/quote:299e7]

and

[quote:299e7]Well then it brings questions about the validity of your source as I've shown the Swiss comment was clearly a lie.[/quote:299e7]

I don't know anything about Switzerland but her are a couple of quotes from the link you gave us:

"The Swiss Constitution states: "Every Swiss male is obligated to do military service." Each Swiss male has to serve a minimum of 330 days in the Armed Forces over a period of at least 22 years, from age 20 to 42. "

and

'Due to the long tradition and the special organization of the Swiss armed forces as a militia army, special rules are applicable for army weapons. Between their regular annual service of two or three weeks per year, Swiss soldiers and officers keep their personal weapons at home. After they have left the army, they may keep those arms in order to continue practicing at rifle or pistol ranges managed by local communities."

This makes it sound like every male must be in the army and every army guy, past and present gets to keep a MILITARY gun at home (full auto? I wonder). That sounds like pretty much everybody to me. Maybe THAT's why:

"The use of firearms in crimes in Switzerland is relatively rare. "

[Old Reliable]

That's because Switzerland is a great place to live

[FWB]

Originally Posted by pest

Ahh.... the root of it all. The fact that you blatantly acknowledge that you don't care for the rights or even wishes of the vast majority of gunowners only hurts your cause. That is the arguement that makes the NRA stronger by the day.

Quite the opposite. I believe that it is the right of a nation to ban guns if it so chooses. No where have I suggested that minority anti-gun group take control. In the end it becomes the will of the greatest number of people.

What you deem as the right to bare arms, I deem as imposing upon peoples' choice to live in a gun free society.