| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Maaxx" |
| Date: |
11 Feb 2005 10:48:50 AM |
| Object: |
40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun
control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the
lack of gun control.
Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics
showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics".
The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect
in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which
have been declining since 1991.
We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting
spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a
lunatic is paranoid.
The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot
with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking
gun and a dead would-be rapist at her feet.
When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense-give
them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields,
Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about
guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart
surgery.
One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil
engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer
programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms
expertise.
The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which
was created 130 years later, in 1917.
The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using
federally-owned weapons vehicles buildings and uniforms, punishing
trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.
These phrases; "right of the people peaceably to assemble ", "right of the
people to be secure in their homes", "enumerations herein of certain
rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people",
and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states
respectively, and to the people."all refer to individuals, but "the right
of the people to keep and bear arms." refers to the state.
"The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and
seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that
Constitution.
Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the
army has hundreds of thousands of them.
Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military
weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because
they are military weapons.
In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government
forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible
for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, anyone
could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations,
variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no
fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns
is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch"
campaign is responsible social activity.
Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them
properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult
to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
Women are just as intelligent and capable as men, but a woman with gun is
"an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at
women are "preying on their fears."
Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers
but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun
shows.
A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of
the population supported owning slaves.
Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon
of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which
most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because
it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of
handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and
typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.
The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the
Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the
Constitution.
Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic
who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a
representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is
entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger
capacity pistol magazines than "civilians" who must face criminals alone
and therefore need less ammunition.
We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because
it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that
private citizens can never hope to obtain.
Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police
are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police
are not responsible for their protection.
Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police
chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled
with cops, need a gun.
"Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of
people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential
promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to
buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive
purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty
weapon.
Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong
hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.
.
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
21 Feb 2005 11:32:58 AM |
|
|
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1108993915.635079.190590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Maaxx wrote:
A society without guns is a society without people getting shot. No
guns means:
1) Milder(if anything) injuries
2) Less(if anything) confidence in one's ability to assail and
therefore less assult.
If your response to this is "surely there are times when we want a
person to be shot", consider the "pet statistic" that in the whole of
British history only one female has been shot by the police. It was
because she was armed with a gun and so the police armed themselves
also. Do you think it is more or less likely that death would have
occured if there were no guns involved?
The problem for you is that you can't ever get rid of guns. There will never
be society without guns.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
22 Feb 2005 01:17:47 PM |
|
|
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1109071098.074938.257390@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Maaxx wrote:
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1108993915.635079.190590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Maaxx wrote:
A society without guns is a society without people getting shot. No
guns means:
1) Milder(if anything) injuries
2) Less(if anything) confidence in one's ability to assail and
therefore less assult.
If your response to this is "surely there are times when we want a
person to be shot", consider the "pet statistic" that in the whole of
British history only one female has been shot by the police. It was
because she was armed with a gun and so the police armed themselves
also. Do you think it is more or less likely that death would have
occured if there were no guns involved?
The problem for you is that you can't ever get rid of guns. There will
never be society without guns.
Yes there can, or at least almost. I reckon that in my city, there is a
pure maximum of about 3 guns, excluding the barracks, and maybe
exluding the political city extending onto farmland.
I have never seen a gun outside a meuseum. People don't notice any
"ban"; Gunlessness is just a way of life.
That is until some criminal with a gun decides to take advantage of the
situation.
After all, if banning guns to law abiding citizens is supposed to be so
effective, then why do police still carry guns in nations that have banned
private gun ownership?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
23 Feb 2005 09:14:29 AM |
|
|
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1109149208.979170.319060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Maaxx wrote:
After all, if banning guns to law abiding citizens is supposed to be so
effective, then why do police still carry guns in nations that have
banned private gun ownership?
It would depend on the nation. This is mostly untrue of Britain.
The same Britain considering arming its bobbies?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
22 Feb 2005 01:18:05 PM |
|
|
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1109069713.479949.97010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Scout wrote:
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108993915.635079.190590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Maaxx wrote:
<snip>
A society without guns is a society without people getting shot. No
guns means:
1) Milder(if anything) injuries
2) Less(if anything) confidence in one's ability to assail and
therefore less assult.
We have tried societies without guns......
Yes. One of them is Britain in the second half of the 20th century,
when there are only about 60 murders per year, which proportionally
puts the U.S.A. to shame.
Since Britain banned handguns in 1997, the murder rate has risen to its
highest level since records began being kept 100 years ago.
In Switzerland, every household is required to own an assault rifle. Crime
is lower there than it is in Britain.
If gun-owning is so dangerous and such a cause of social ills, then surely
the most dangerous place in America - if not the entire planet - must be
Kennesaw, Georgia (a suburb of Atlanta), where since 1982 a law has
required every household to have a firearm and ammunition.
Right? Wrong.
There has not been a single reported crime of domestic violence in
Kennesaw since the law was passed. There have been no injuries to children
involving guns since the law was passed.
Furthermore, violence has actually dropped since 1982. Burglaries per
thousand inhabitants fell from 11 to less than 3. There hasn't been a
single murder since 1986. All this despite the fact that the population in
Kennesaw doubled in that time.
Firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens deter crimes and save lives.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
22 Feb 2005 01:17:56 PM |
|
|
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1109069713.479949.97010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Scout wrote:
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108993915.635079.190590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Maaxx wrote:
A society without guns is a society without people getting shot. No
guns means:
1) Milder(if anything) injuries
2) Less(if anything) confidence in one's ability to assail and
therefore less assult.
We have tried societies without guns......
Yes. One of them is Britain in the second half of the 20th century,
when there are only about 60 murders per year, which proportionally
puts the U.S.A. to shame.
The British government recently reported that gun crime in England and
Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.
Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet,
since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up
by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen
by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery
rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.
The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done,
shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in
the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly
have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since
soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S.
Lack of guns does NOT translate into less violence.
It depends how you quantify violence.
So you think that guns make people commit crimes?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
23 Feb 2005 01:21:07 PM |
|
|
The fact is that an armed populace lowers crime. Switzerland is arguably the
most armed country in the world (guns and rifles are even carried openly in
public) yet it is one of the safest places on Earth.
All heads of household are required to keep rifles and pistols at home for
purposes of national defense. Military historians say this was a big reason
Hitler chose to avoid Switzerland in favor of conquering countries which had
strict gun control laws -- as well as registration lists which facilitated
confiscation of firearms.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
23 Feb 2005 02:33:19 PM |
|
|
"z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote in
news:1109188187.076139.3320@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Maaxx wrote:
The fact is that an armed populace lowers crime. Switzerland is
arguably the most armed country in the world (guns and rifles are even
carried openly in public) yet it is one of the safest places on Earth.
Would you care to comment on Cali, Colombia?
And what good would disarming law abiding citizens do there?
What good does disarming law abiding citizens do anywhere?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
23 Feb 2005 09:44:49 PM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The fact is that an armed populace lowers crime.
Countries that have a lot of weapons have more crime.
Switzerland is arguably the
most armed country in the world (guns and rifles are even carried openly in
public) yet it is one of the safest places on Earth.
And countries like Somalia and Sudan also have lots of weapons are
among the most dangerous places on Earth.
So you can cite ONE country that is the exception. I can cite a dozen
countries where weapons have led to vioence and crime.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
24 Feb 2005 04:40:31 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cvjijg$vh$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The fact is that an armed populace lowers crime.
Countries that have a lot of weapons have more crime.
Sorry, but the leading country for violent crime rates is the UK with
Australia right behind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
24 Feb 2005 11:14:57 AM |
|
|
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The fact is that an armed populace lowers crime.
Countries that have a lot of weapons have more crime.
Sorry, but the leading country for violent crime rates is the UK with
Australia right behind.
You're a liar. And a stupid liar too.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
25 Feb 2005 04:42:05 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cvl22h$a1r$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The fact is that an armed populace lowers crime.
Countries that have a lot of weapons have more crime.
Sorry, but the leading country for violent crime rates is the UK with
Australia right behind.
You're a liar. And a stupid liar too.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
27 Feb 2005 12:15:37 AM |
|
|
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The fact is that an armed populace lowers crime.
Countries that have a lot of weapons have more crime.
Sorry, but the leading country for violent crime rates is the UK with
Australia right behind.
You're a liar. And a stupid liar too.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902
And you're a stupid liar too, since that acticle proves you to be
wrong again.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
27 Feb 2005 08:45:16 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cvroi9$8r6$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The fact is that an armed populace lowers crime.
Countries that have a lot of weapons have more crime.
Sorry, but the leading country for violent crime rates is the UK with
Australia right behind.
You're a liar. And a stupid liar too.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902
And you're a stupid liar too, since that acticle proves you to be
wrong again.
True, it was Australia that was top and UK in 2nd. I freely admit that I can
and do make mistakes, but I note that the point being established is that
weapons don't govern violence. As such the article does establish that your
comment was wrong, and if being wrong is a lie.....then you are a self
admitted liar by your own standards.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
27 Feb 2005 12:29:58 PM |
|
|
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The fact is that an armed populace lowers crime.
Countries that have a lot of weapons have more crime.
Sorry, but the leading country for violent crime rates is the UK with
Australia right behind.
You're a liar. And a stupid liar too.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902
And you're a stupid liar too, since that acticle proves you to be
wrong again.
True, it was Australia that was top and UK in 2nd.
Stop lying, *****. The survey didn't even look at all countries.
I freely admit that I can
and do make mistakes,
You seldom admit that you've made a mistake. Such as this time.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
27 Feb 2005 12:55:43 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cvt3j6$18m$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The fact is that an armed populace lowers crime.
Countries that have a lot of weapons have more crime.
Sorry, but the leading country for violent crime rates is the UK with
Australia right behind.
You're a liar. And a stupid liar too.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902
And you're a stupid liar too, since that acticle proves you to be
wrong again.
True, it was Australia that was top and UK in 2nd.
Stop lying, *****. The survey didn't even look at all countries.
So? These are countries with few weapon (if you are to be believed) and yet
they top the scale over countries with considerably more weapons such as the
USA.
As such your assertion doesn't hold up to reality. Not much of a surprise
there.
I freely admit that I can
and do make mistakes,
You seldom admit that you've made a mistake. Such as this time.
On the contrary, I have no problem admitting to mistakes, when I make them.
However, just because you assert I'm wrong, doesn't make it so. Further I'm
still waiting for your admission that you were wrong when you stated
"Countries that have a lot of weapons have more crime"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
27 Feb 2005 06:15:15 PM |
|
|
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The fact is that an armed populace lowers crime.
Countries that have a lot of weapons have more crime.
Sorry, but the leading country for violent crime rates is the UK with
Australia right behind.
You're a liar. And a stupid liar too.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902
And you're a stupid liar too, since that acticle proves you to be
wrong again.
True, it was Australia that was top and UK in 2nd.
Stop lying, *****. The survey didn't even look at all countries.
So?
You're having a hard time admitting your "mistake".
If the study didn't look at all countries then the study didn't claim
that the UK has the highest crime rate sinec there may be many
countries with higher crime rates.
I freely admit that I can
and do make mistakes,
You seldom admit that you've made a mistake. Such as this time.
On the contrary, I have no problem admitting to mistakes, when I make them.
Which is a lot more often then you admit to making mistakes.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
28 Feb 2005 04:24:21 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cvtnqj$pn8$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The fact is that an armed populace lowers crime.
Countries that have a lot of weapons have more crime.
Sorry, but the leading country for violent crime rates is the UK
with
Australia right behind.
You're a liar. And a stupid liar too.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902
And you're a stupid liar too, since that acticle proves you to be
wrong again.
True, it was Australia that was top and UK in 2nd.
Stop lying, *****. The survey didn't even look at all countries.
So?
You're having a hard time admitting your "mistake".
If the study didn't look at all countries then the study didn't claim
that the UK has the highest crime rate sinec there may be many
countries with higher crime rates.
Perhaps. However, weapon free UK has more crime than weapon overrun USA. The
same for Austalia. Seems enough to disprove your theory that countries with
more weapons have more crime. Since clearly we have a couple of examples of
where this is NOT true.
I freely admit that I can
and do make mistakes,
You seldom admit that you've made a mistake. Such as this time.
On the contrary, I have no problem admitting to mistakes, when I make
them.
Which is a lot more often then you admit to making mistakes.
Possibly, after all, I can't admit to a mistake until I know I have made a
mistake, and logically it's entirely possible that no every mistake of mine
was brought to my attention. Simply asserting something is wrong, doesn't
make it a mistake or a lie. Further I note your removal of my comments
concerning your self admitted lie, according to your standards, about your
comment which my data does show to be wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
24 Feb 2005 09:11:38 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cvjijg$vh$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The fact is that an armed populace lowers crime.
Countries that have a lot of weapons have more crime.
Switzerland is arguably the most armed country in the world (guns and
rifles are even carried openly in public) yet it is one of the safest
places on Earth.
And countries like Somalia and Sudan also have lots of weapons are
among the most dangerous places on Earth.
Somalia and Sudan are also lawless societies. Sudan has no national
government to speak of and both countries are involved in civil wars and
thus cannot be compared to countries like the United States.
So you can cite ONE country that is the exception.
Nope. Israel, Norway, Finland and Canada are a few example of countries
that have high rates of gun ownership and low gun crime.
America's high (but plummeting) murder rate is highly due to drug
trafficking. Also, murder rates are higher in inner cities where control
is usually strict, than it is in the suburbs and rural areas where gun
control is usually more lax. Washinton DC has a ban on all guns yet it's
murder rate is one of the higest in the nation.
I can cite a dozen countries where weapons have led to vioence and
crime.
Since when does a weapon make a person violent?
Since nearly all gun crimes are committed with illegally gotten guns, what
good is prohibiting law abiding citizens from owning guns going to do?
Gun control is foolish and doesn't work, because laws are put in place to
restict law abiding citizens from owning guns. It doesn't affect criminals
at all since they ignore all gun laws anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
27 Feb 2005 12:17:20 AM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The fact is that an armed populace lowers crime.
Countries that have a lot of weapons have more crime.
Switzerland is arguably the most armed country in the world (guns and
rifles are even carried openly in public) yet it is one of the safest
places on Earth.
And countries like Somalia and Sudan also have lots of weapons are
among the most dangerous places on Earth.
Somalia and Sudan are also lawless societies.
That's kind of the point, isn't it?
Sudan has no national
government to speak of and both countries are involved in civil wars and
thus cannot be compared to countries like the United States.
But there are no restrictions on the ownbership of weapons which,
according to you, should make them very peaceful countries.
So you can cite ONE country that is the exception.
Nope. Israel, Norway, Finland and Canada are a few example of countries
that have high rates of gun ownership and low gun crime.
Canada has a "high" rate of gun ownership?!?
You're a liar or an idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
28 Feb 2005 04:53:32 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cvrolg$8tq$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The fact is that an armed populace lowers crime.
Countries that have a lot of weapons have more crime.
Switzerland is arguably the most armed country in the world (guns and
rifles are even carried openly in public) yet it is one of the safest
places on Earth.
And countries like Somalia and Sudan also have lots of weapons are
among the most dangerous places on Earth.
Somalia and Sudan are also lawless societies.
That's kind of the point, isn't it?
So you're claiming that guns turn people into criminals?
Sudan has no national government to speak of and both countries are
involved in civil wars and thus cannot be compared to countries like
the United States.
But there are no restrictions on the ownbership of weapons which,
according to you, should make them very peaceful countries.
A society that has no laws, no functioning government, and is in the
middle of a civil war is not comparable to a organized society like the
United States or European nations.
So you can cite ONE country that is the exception.
Nope. Israel, Norway, Finland and Canada are a few example of countries
that have high rates of gun ownership and low gun crime.
Canada has a "high" rate of gun ownership?!?
Yes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
28 Feb 2005 09:51:59 PM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Sudan has no national government to speak of and both countries are
involved in civil wars and thus cannot be compared to countries like
the United States.
But there are no restrictions on the ownbership of weapons which,
according to you, should make them very peaceful countries.
A society that has no laws, no functioning government, and is in the
middle of a civil war is not comparable to a organized society like the
United States or European nations.
But you claimed that guns make for peace. Now you claim that
government makes for peace. Looking at the evidence it's obvious that
guns do not make for a peaceful society and government does.
So, if government makes for a peaceful society then why the lust for
guns?
So you can cite ONE country that is the exception.
Nope. Israel, Norway, Finland and Canada are a few example of countries
that have high rates of gun ownership and low gun crime.
Canada has a "high" rate of gun ownership?!?
Yes.
You're a lying *****.
7% of the people in Canada own guns.
28% of the people in the USA own guns.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
28 Feb 2005 10:35:11 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d00osu$f3p$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
Sudan has no national government to speak of and both countries are
involved in civil wars and thus cannot be compared to countries like
the United States.
But there are no restrictions on the ownbership of weapons which,
according to you, should make them very peaceful countries.
A society that has no laws, no functioning government, and is in the
middle of a civil war is not comparable to a organized society like the
United States or European nations.
But you claimed that guns make for peace. Now you claim that
government makes for peace. Looking at the evidence it's obvious that
guns do not make for a peaceful society and government does.
The situation in Somalia isn't the result of guns. If you took away all of
their guns they would still be killing each other.
So, if government makes for a peaceful society then why the lust for
guns?
No one said that government makes a peaceful society, but a lack of
government isn't going to result in peace.
So you can cite ONE country that is the exception.
Nope. Israel, Norway, Finland and Canada are a few example of
countries that have high rates of gun ownership and low gun crime.
Canada has a "high" rate of gun ownership?!?
Yes.
You're a lying *****.
7% of the people in Canada own guns.
28% of the people in the USA own guns.
22% of Canadian households own at least one gun.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
01 Mar 2005 01:13:32 AM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d00osu$f3p$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Sudan has no national government to speak of and both countries are
involved in civil wars and thus cannot be compared to countries like
the United States.
But there are no restrictions on the ownbership of weapons which,
according to you, should make them very peaceful countries.
A society that has no laws, no functioning government, and is in the
middle of a civil war is not comparable to a organized society like the
United States or European nations.
But you claimed that guns make for peace. Now you claim that
government makes for peace. Looking at the evidence it's obvious that
guns do not make for a peaceful society and government does.
The situation in Somalia isn't the result of guns.
It isn't helped by guns.
If you took away all of
their guns they would still be killing each other.
Prove it.
So, if government makes for a peaceful society then why the lust for
guns?
No one said that government makes a peaceful society,
And yet, every peaceful society has an effective government.
Nope. Israel, Norway, Finland and Canada are a few example of
countries that have high rates of gun ownership and low gun crime.
Canada has a "high" rate of gun ownership?!?
Yes.
You're a lying *****.
7% of the people in Canada own guns.
28% of the people in the USA own guns.
22% of Canadian households own at least one gun.
50% of US households own at least one gun.
And you're still a lying *****.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
01 Mar 2005 01:41:27 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d014mr$2rt$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d00osu$f3p$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
Sudan has no national government to speak of and both countries are
involved in civil wars and thus cannot be compared to countries
like the United States.
But there are no restrictions on the ownbership of weapons which,
according to you, should make them very peaceful countries.
A society that has no laws, no functioning government, and is in the
middle of a civil war is not comparable to a organized society like
the United States or European nations.
But you claimed that guns make for peace. Now you claim that
government makes for peace. Looking at the evidence it's obvious that
guns do not make for a peaceful society and government does.
The situation in Somalia isn't the result of guns.
It isn't helped by guns.
The guns are irrelevent.
If you took away all of their guns they would still be killing each
other.
Prove it.
Let's see. Is is possible to kill someone without a gun?
So, if government makes for a peaceful society then why the lust for
guns?
No one said that government makes a peaceful society,
And yet, every peaceful society has an effective government.
Which is what I've been saying.
Nope. Israel, Norway, Finland and Canada are a few example of
countries that have high rates of gun ownership and low gun crime.
Canada has a "high" rate of gun ownership?!?
Yes.
You're a lying *****.
7% of the people in Canada own guns.
28% of the people in the USA own guns.
22% of Canadian households own at least one gun.
50% of US households own at least one gun.
And you're still a lying *****.
Having a hard time admitting you're wrong, eh?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
01 Mar 2005 09:29:39 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 07:13:32 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
If you took away all of
their guns they would still be killing each other.
Prove it.
Take a look at Rwanda....where people went nuts and comitted genocide
with machetes. People don't need *guns* to be in a lawless society that's
slaughtering each other. If the hate is there, they *will* find a way.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
01 Mar 2005 10:45:02 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d00osu$f3p$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
Sudan has no national government to speak of and both countries are
involved in civil wars and thus cannot be compared to countries
like the United States.
But there are no restrictions on the ownbership of weapons which,
according to you, should make them very peaceful countries.
A society that has no laws, no functioning government, and is in the
middle of a civil war is not comparable to a organized society like
the United States or European nations.
But you claimed that guns make for peace. Now you claim that
government makes for peace. Looking at the evidence it's obvious that
guns do not make for a peaceful society and government does.
So, if government makes for a peaceful society then why the lust for
guns?
So you can cite ONE country that is the exception.
Nope. Israel, Norway, Finland and Canada are a few example of
countries that have high rates of gun ownership and low gun crime.
Canada has a "high" rate of gun ownership?!?
Yes.
You're a lying *****.
7% of the people in Canada own guns.
28% of the people in the USA own guns.
Your figures are wrong for both countries.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
02 Mar 2005 01:35:45 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:17:20 GMT,
Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The fact is that an armed populace lowers crime.
Countries that have a lot of weapons have more crime.
Switzerland is arguably the most armed country in the world (guns and
rifles are even carried openly in public) yet it is one of the safest
places on Earth.
And countries like Somalia and Sudan also have lots of weapons are
among the most dangerous places on Earth.
Somalia and Sudan are also lawless societies.
That's kind of the point, isn't it?
Sudan has no national
government to speak of and both countries are involved in civil wars and
thus cannot be compared to countries like the United States.
But there are no restrictions on the ownbership of weapons which,
according to you, should make them very peaceful countries.
So you can cite ONE country that is the exception.
Nope. Israel, Norway, Finland and Canada are a few example of countries
that have high rates of gun ownership and low gun crime.
Canada has a "high" rate of gun ownership?!?
Rural areas always tend to have a high rate of gun ownership, but
it's because of higher rate of people with rifles for outdoorsy
things, not because of a higher rate of people with the sorts of
handguns typically used in city crimes. Note the places he listed
in Europe were in Scandanavia, where there is ample outdoor space.
And one thing Canada also has an awful lot of, is outdoors.
As far as Isreal having low incidents of gun crime, I beg to differ.
If the Palestinian territories are part of Isreal, then it has
a hell of a lot of gun crime. If not, well, then what the hell
is Isreal doing there?
Of course, trying to compare a rural area with a lot of
guns for the sake of outdoor sports, like Canada, Norway,
and Finland, to a city with a lot of guns for the sake of
using them on, or protecting ones self from, other human
beings, such as Washington DC, is an incorrect analogy.
But that doesn't stop the NRA types from trying to make it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
02 Mar 2005 06:26:18 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:35:45 +0000, Steve Mading wrote:
<snip>
As far as Isreal having low incidents of gun crime, I beg to differ.
If the Palestinian territories are part of Isreal, then it has
a hell of a lot of gun crime. If not, well, then what the hell
is Isreal doing there?
Israel doesn't have a lot of gun crime...they have a lot of terrorist
bombings though.
Of course, trying to compare a rural area with a lot of guns for the
sake of outdoor sports, like Canada, Norway, and Finland, to a city with
a lot of guns for the sake of using them on, or protecting ones self
from, other human beings, such as Washington DC, is an incorrect
analogy. But that doesn't stop the NRA types from trying to make it.
Is self defense illegitimate now? Does the *right* to bear arms somehow
end at the city limits now? How does that work? What about people who use
them for sporting *in* cities (such as at gun clubs, shooting ranges,
etc...)? Of course, we'll just ignore all that for the sake of....what,
leftist idealism? And we'll just listen to anti-gun propaganda put out by
the left instead.
What next, video games? Most of the people I've seen cry out
against them have been on the left, big names too, surprisingly. Banning
books in school? Wait, I've seen leftists try that too. Books they wanted
removed because of the content, often classic literature. The most
pro-censorship, anti-freedom people in the United States right now are the
people on the left.
Oh, what strikes me as *really* funny, get this.... Bush has said, on
the subject of TV content....that it is the *parents* responsability what
their kids watch on TV, and they can always turn that TV off.
Gee...
Not that I'm saying the nuts on the right are any good either, I have my
issues with them also. After all, I'm no right-winger myself. But I
certainly agree with them about one thing. You left wingers are nuts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
16 Mar 2005 02:43:16 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:26:18 -0600,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:35:45 +0000, Steve Mading wrote:
<snip>
As far as Isreal having low incidents of gun crime, I beg to differ.
If the Palestinian territories are part of Isreal, then it has
a hell of a lot of gun crime. If not, well, then what the hell
is Isreal doing there?
Israel doesn't have a lot of gun crime...they have a lot of terrorist
bombings though.
Which part of Israel? I'm including the occupied Palestine territories
as part of Isreal. And they do have guns and gun deaths. Not legally,
but they do have them.
Of course, trying to compare a rural area with a lot of guns for the
sake of outdoor sports, like Canada, Norway, and Finland, to a city with
a lot of guns for the sake of using them on, or protecting ones self
from, other human beings, such as Washington DC, is an incorrect
analogy. But that doesn't stop the NRA types from trying to make it.
Is self defense illegitimate now? Does the *right* to bear arms somehow
end at the city limits now? How does that work? What about people who use
them for sporting *in* cities (such as at gun clubs, shooting ranges,
etc...)? Of course, we'll just ignore all that for the sake of....what,
leftist idealism? And we'll just listen to anti-gun propaganda put out by
the left instead.
[remaining idiocy snipped]
Please restrict your comments to things I actually said, not *****
strawman fallacies of what I said.
All I said is that the analogy between rural gun ownership and urban
doesn't doesn't hold up. I actually support gun ownership, but I dislike
it when I see people using dumb arguments to support it because it weakens
the position.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JEDIDIAH" |
|
| Title: Re: 40 Reasons To Ban Guns |
16 Mar 2005 02:54:28 PM |
|
|
On 2005-03-16, Steve Mading <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:26:18 -0600,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:35:45 +0000, Steve Mading wrote:
<snip>
As far as Isreal having low incidents of gun crime, I beg to differ.
If the Palestinian territories are part of Isreal, then it has
a hell of a lot of gun crime. If not, well, then what the hell
is Isreal doing there?
Israel doesn't have a lot of gun crime...they have a lot of terrorist
bombings though.
Which part of Israel? I'm including the occupied Palestine territories
as part of Isreal. And they do have guns and gun deaths. Not legally,
No honest, sensible person does this.
Palestine is a warzone under occupation because the alleged
legal authority in that area cannot control the sub-partisan activities
of it's citizens.
It is distinct from Israel.
--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
