Slashdot Mirror

There are 100s of stories every day of police taking 10 minutes to arrive - and that's in an urban setting. In rural settings police are often 30+ minutes away. You're dead or raped in that time.

The media's coverage of defensive gun use is close to non-existent. Not because it doesn't happen but because they are, in this arena, propagandists. Depending on what is constitutes defense gun use the stats run from over 1000/week to 10,000 a week.

The following article, using a very strict definition of DGU estimates a bit over 1000/week.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/jus...

According to you pre-WW1 technology semi-automatic riffles are "assault weapons." I stressed pre-WWI because there is very little about today's AR-15 - or any other semi-automatic rifle that separates it from earlier semi-automatic rifles: at least as far as accuracy, speed of delivery, and magazine capacity are considered. Don't believe me? Look at what is banned - it all ergonomically and safety related add-ons.

Expandable stocks,
thumbhole stocks,
pistol grips,
suppressors (makes it less loud) Bullets break the sound barrier there is no "silence" for that. Suppressors lessen the noise of the expanding gas. It reduces it from EAR DAMAGING FUKIN LOUD to simply very LOUD.

This could've made sense if you provided a reference to backup such a ridiculous claim. Here allow me to help: http://www.vpc.org/press/state...

Look at what that "report" shows and compare it to my claim. I said that stricter gun laws correlate to higher murder rates. What does VPC claim? Look closely. They claim stricter gun laws reduce gun death rates. Do you see the distinction? I am looking at murders regardless of the weapons used because I'm not a heartless bastard that thinks stabbing people to death is somehow "better" than shooting a person to death.

Then look at how "gun deaths" are defined.

The deaths include gun homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings.

They include a self inflicted gun shot resulting in death, a suicide, as a "gun death" for their statistics. Four of those top five states on the VPC "report" have suicide rates above the national average, and the fifth? That is Louisiana with a suicide rate so close to the average that it is difficult to find the difference from the national score.

When looking at the 5 lowest "gun death" states we see Hawaii has an above average suicide rate, by a small margin. The other four are below average on suicide rates.

It seems the evidence shows mostly that those that choose suicide tend to do so with a gun. There is also a tendency for an armed populace to reduce murders,and an unarmed populace to choose suicide by some non-firearm means.

References:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/...

I

There is a tendency for stricter state gun laws to coincide with higher murder rates in those states.

Where people are able to carry weapons freely the violent crime rate tends to be low.

This could've made sense if you provided a reference to backup such a ridiculous claim. Here allow me to help: http://www.vpc.org/press/state...

In the more populous states, which tend to also have restrictive laws on the carry of weapons, murder rates are high.

Wrong. Alaska was the highest state in the link above and without even looking it up I'm guessing it one of the least populous
I know you want to believe your gun is what's saving you from the dragons, but the facts say otherwise.

Interesting to note that in the US, 'gun crime' overall has dropped steadily over the last 2 decades, even as gun sales have increased.

That's because the percentage of US households that own guns has also dropped steadily over the past two decades. The increase in guns is because your average gun owner now has 8 guns.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/own...

I would argue the opposite.

Out of 310,000,000 million guns in the country (Data from The Congressional Research Service, 2009), 0.0028% of them were used in homicides in 2012

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/c...

And according to the violence policy center, defensive gun use (Justified homicide and non-fatal use) from 2007 to 2011 was 338,700. That would come to about 84,675 per year, which would be 0.027%.

Meaning that defensive use occurs 9.64 times more often than unjustified homicide.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/jus...

Unless I seriously fucked up my math, it is extremely unlikely to be killed by a criminal with a gun in the United States.

Would you accept a report by the anti-gun Violence Policy Center that concludes there are 67,000 valid defensive uses of a firearm each year, making it slightly more likely that a firearm will be used for defense rather than for committing a crime? Reality probably lives somewhere between the points (VPC and NRA), but in either case - it's more than the criminal use of firearms.

http://www.vpc.org/press/1104blood.htm

Funny how they protect the gun manufacturers from gun owners:

Um..in exactly what way are they doing that? Gun owners presumably...want guns to stay legal. Gun manufacturers also...want guns to stay legal.

I really don't see a conflict of interest here.

O RLY?

http://www.vpc.org/press/1104blood.htm

Funny how they protect the gun manufacturers from gun owners:

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/nraindus.htm

It's the biggest gun manufacturers' industry group because it uses unwitting gun owners as puppets to do all the work.

O RLY?

http://www.vpc.org/press/1104blood.htm

Funny how they protect the gun manufacturers from gun owners:

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/nraindus.htm

It's the biggest gun manufacturers' industry group because it uses unwitting gun owners as puppets to do all the work.

I see where you're coming from. Somehow I neglected the "between then and [...]". I don't think I'd average it out like that though. Particularly now that I followed the links they gave in the article. The $38.9M number comes from a Violence Policy Center study entitled "Bloodmoney". Here's the relevant portion, quoted from the fourth page in the pdf:

Contributions to the NRA from the firearms industry since 2005 total between $14.7 million and $38.9 million.

The figure is repeated on the pdf's ninth page (numbered 6):

Contributions to the NRA from the firearms industry since 2005 total between $14.7 million and $38.9 million.

The article takes these numbers and turns it into "as much as $38.9 million". Given a second look, I might even suspect your guess was generous.

It doesn't just seem sneaky; it was an conscious decision on the author's part. An author is perfectly justified in saying "as much as" when the range is relatively restricted. But when they lower end of the range is only worth 38% of the figure given, an author only leaves it out by choice.

I admit that I didn't read closely enough the first time to catch the "between then and [...]". Sloppy reading; summer does that to me. But really this article wasn't written for me anyway. Following the headline, "Whom does the NRA really speak for?", the section names IT SPEAKS FOR JOE SIX-SHOOTER, IT SPEAKS FOR GUN MAKERS, and IT SPEAKS FOR RIGHT-WING IDEOLOGUES, left me disposed to assume that I was not the intended audience. The intended audience here wants to see the role of gun manufacturers inflated as much as possible. Sure, the author concludes: "It would be reductive to call it a mere corporate lobbyist." But what he could mean by, "in any event, it's clear the NRA isn't just representing your average Joe Six-Shooter" is mystifying unless his precise intention to leave the impression that the NRA does not represent your hunting, target shooting, or pro-2nd amendment but otherwise likable neighbor (whom he nonetheless scurrilously labels "Joe Six-Shooter") as some evil interests, in it for the money. The target audience is one that wishes to believe this. I have to say, however, that this is a step up from the report the article cites, which claims:

The mutually dependent nature of the National Rifle Association and the gun industry explains the NRA’s unwillingness to compromise on even the most limited controls over firearms or related products (such as restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines) and its support of legislation that clearly favors gunmakers over gun owners (such as legislation limiting the legal rights of gun owners killed or injured by defective firearms). The NRA claims that its positions are driven solely by a concern for the interests of gun owners, never mentioning its own financial stake in protecting the profits of its gun industry patrons.

They say this as though manufacturers aren't just as happy to sell us three 10 round magazines rather than one 30 round magazine. And, further, as though gun owners and sellers might not have some interests in common (I suppose they would think people wouldn't want vegetables if it weren't for the profit-seeking efforts of grocers). I came away from reading their report rather surprised about how little certain companies care about the matter (sub $100k include: Browning, DPMS, Glock, S&W, Cheaper than Dirt (okay, not much of a surprise there), H&R, Hornady, Marlin, Remington, Sig--most of whom are plastered on the front of the report). Thanks for the link, in any case. The report had its opposite intended effect and in spite of their best efforts (and my lazy reading) I may have come away knowing more than than I did before.

Why? This makes perfect sense.

Feinstein has to be doing something, that is how she will get reelected. The NRA is willing to do anything the gun manufacturers want, that is who they really represent.

Either one will support anything that does not infringe on the groups they actually represent, the rich and the gun manufacturers respectively, the more publicity the better for them.

Evidence : http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/nraindus.htm

You're quoting a hard core gun control group known to fabricate "evidence" and hoping to capitalize on people's confusion to trick them into supporting their agenda as "proof" that the NRA really represents the "rich and gun manufacturers"? You've got to be kidding me.

VPC: "The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

Translation: "We can lie to people and encourage them to think that we're talking about machine guns when we're really talking about simple rifles that look scary!"

Source: http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

Why? This makes perfect sense.

Feinstein has to be doing something, that is how she will get reelected. The NRA is willing to do anything the gun manufacturers want, that is who they really represent.

Either one will support anything that does not infringe on the groups they actually represent, the rich and the gun manufacturers respectively, the more publicity the better for them.

Evidence : http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/nraindus.htm

You're quoting a hard core gun control group known to fabricate "evidence" and hoping to capitalize on people's confusion to trick them into supporting their agenda as "proof" that the NRA really represents the "rich and gun manufacturers"? You've got to be kidding me.

VPC: "The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

Translation: "We can lie to people and encourage them to think that we're talking about machine guns when we're really talking about simple rifles that look scary!"

Source: http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

Why? This makes perfect sense.

Feinstein has to be doing something, that is how she will get reelected. The NRA is willing to do anything the gun manufacturers want, that is who they really represent.

Either one will support anything that does not infringe on the groups they actually represent, the rich and the gun manufacturers respectively, the more publicity the better for them.

Evidence : http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/nraindus.htm

But one of those survivalists could probably take out helis with 1/100th of his arsenal.

You could take out most helis with a high powered sniper rifle as long as you are willing and able to wait for the right shot(s). http://www.vpc.org/graphics/50Helicopters.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_M82

The Apache is supposed to be able to take 23mm shots at the engines and rotors, but I wonder how many shots it can take.

I wonder how many RPG or similar weapons are in civilian nonmercenary hands in the USA.

So the Barrett, or any "sniper" rifle in .50 BMG, in the hands of some Walter Mitty, is not likely to be an effective weapon against the Apache. Keep in mind, one of the key ingredients in the sniper's bag of tricks is concealment. Unless he is in an extraordinary position, he's not going to get a shot that can reliably bring it down. So he must shoot again, and again, risking discovery. At that point, if the pilot decides to engage, the Apache wins.
As for the survivalists, recognizing that there are exceptions, they exactly the type of dumb-ass would-be targets that I'd expect to mowed down when faced with any challenge by trained and disciplined military opponents, especially when the opponent's have weapons and ordinance that the yokels don't. The Branch Davidian fiasco was a fair fight until somebody (not going to get into that here) set the building on fire. Survivalists, holded up, building. Take your pick of weapons and tactics for that scenario.

But one of those survivalists could probably take out helis with 1/100th of his arsenal.

You could take out most helis with a high powered sniper rifle as long as you are willing and able to wait for the right shot(s).
http://www.vpc.org/graphics/50Helicopters.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_M82

The Apache is supposed to be able to take 23mm shots at the engines and rotors, but I wonder how many shots it can take.

I wonder how many RPG or similar weapons are in civilian nonmercenary hands in the USA.

Liberal idiots whip themselves into a frenzy because rifles look scary. They associate rifles with the military and wars. Rifles are an easy target for mass hysteria for the same reason that ignorant reporters fixate on them.

Exactly. The Violence Policy Center is actually counting on public ignorance and confusion about firearms to gain support for legislation.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

Search for the word "confusion." Yes, let's take advantage of public ignorance to deprive them of their rights. That's the way our politicians develop policy of all kinds, whether guns, health care, entitlements, etc.

> Having access to a firearm is the most common method of suicide in the United States,

Blaming the symptom doesn't fix the root cause. ANY tool can be used for either good or bad but by your logic we should ban cars because they kill the same amount of people as guns.

"In 2009 there were 31,236 gun deaths nationwide for a rate of 10.19 per 100,000 and 36,361 motor vehicle
deaths (both occupant and pedestrian) nationwide for a rate of 11.87 per 100,000 (both totals include data only for
the 50 states). Source: WISQARS database, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention."

http://www.vpc.org/studies/gunsvscars.pdf

The obsession of some Americans with owning arms strikes much of the rest of the world as strange. It's a holdover from a revolutionary era. The net result of increased gun ownership is increased gun deaths.

Your sense of security from your ammunition is delusional.

He may not have been talking about that. Let's look at the US Civil War - approx 625,000 dead. WWII comes a close second at 405,000+.

From 1990 to 1997, there were 293,781 firearm deaths - homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings. Even with more than half of those deaths being suicides, that still leaves a lot of Americans being killed, intentionally or accidentally, by their fellow citizens in less than a decade, albeit one with a peak in gun violence. And while only about 90,000 (or 1/3) of those were homicides using handguns, there's some more deaths from accidental shootings, as well as murders with other guns and knives. With more than 10,000 homicides in each year since 1975, it's pretty likely that the number of "peacetime" killings of Americans by other Americans significantly exceed the number of deaths in the US Civil War.

Hmmm... seems every one of my guesses at the statistics was 180 degrees off. Literally, every one of them. ;) A 2005 misleading press release (called "States with Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death") by the Violence Prevention Center did conclude that "More guns means more gun death and injury. Fewer guns means less gun death and injury. It's a simple equation." Unfortunately, their pronouncements on the five-state statistics only prove that you can make a small subset of a dataset say the opposite of what the whole dataset says.

I grabbed stats for gun ownership rates by state from the Washington Post, and you can get violent crime rates from a variety of sources (e.g. violent crime rates by state for `04 and `05, or gun crimes by state for 2009).

If you merge all that together, it shows a mildly negative correlation between per-capita gun ownership and gun homicide (-0.2612653943), and similarly between gun ownership and robberies with firearms (-0.2144191759) [varies depending on the years you compare & whether you include Puerto Rico, etc.]

Hmmm... seems every one of my guesses at the statistics was 180 degrees off. Literally, every one of them. ;) A 2005 misleading press release (called "States with Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death") by the Violence Prevention Center did conclude that "More guns means more gun death and injury. Fewer guns means less gun death and injury. It's a simple equation." Unfortunately, their pronouncements on the five-state statistics only prove that you can make a small subset of a dataset say the opposite of what the whole dataset says.

I grabbed stats for gun ownership rates by state from the Washington Post, and you can get violent crime rates from a variety of sources (e.g. violent crime rates by state for `04 and `05, or gun crimes by state for 2009).

If you merge all that together, it shows a mildly negative correlation between per-capita gun ownership and gun homicide (-0.2612653943), and similarly between gun ownership and robberies with firearms (-0.2144191759) [varies depending on the years you compare & whether you include Puerto Rico, etc.]

I'm very aware that in your opinion the U.S. is an evil slave state that is irredeemable. I'm just asking that you provide some actual proof of the wild accusations you're making.

Welcome to my "idiots" list.

http://www.vpc.org/press/9805bog.htm

there, was that so difficult? It's the second Google hit for "slavery second amendment" -- and it's referenced in the first hit.

What's wrong is that this guy had easy access to handguns when he was going through a very difficult+emotional time in his life.

Gun control laws should be tighten up. It's not really suprising that this happens in States with ZERO gun control. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_Unite d_States_(by_state)#Virginia and http://www.vpc.org/press/9904col.htm It'll keep on happening every couple of years until people wise up and realize that YES, guns do kill people. There's an interesting webapp that gives a state-by-state break down of gun-related fatalities http://www.campaignadvantage.com/services/websites /archive/agsfoundation/asp/gundeaths.asp It's good to note that the states with tighter gun laws have lower gun-related deaths/10000 people.

If the kid who did this is insane but without access to two handguns, maybe he could try to stab 30 people to death or done some crazy martial arts on them. He won't have succeed.

Ben

Actually, Virginia has very liberal (conservative?) buyer and concealed carry laws. Just about anyone without a record can obtain both with little effort, so by your logic, we should be seeing shooting sprees all over VA. In reality, the firearm death rate was below the median for 2003 (only year I could find), and the murder rate has been about average (usually below, sometimes above) for the past decade.

I lived in Blacksburg about a decade ago, and my sister is a recent VT alumni who used to live in West AJ, where the shootings started. Many of my friends and family are VT alumni, and while I'm now half a world away, this tragedy hit rather close to home, although obviously not nearly as close as for current students, faculty, residents, and their families. Nonetheless, I can't help but wonder what might have happened if someone with a concealed carry permit had been nearby, or in the class, and had been able to take action. Instead, firearms are completely prohibited on campus -- which makes sense, but only if the playing field is leveled by bag checks and metal detectors at all building entrances. The "honor system" for this sort of thing only harms those who follow the laws and regulations of the state and campus.

I'm personally shocked by this event. As anyone who's ever been to Blacksburg can attest, it's not at all the sort of place where you'd expect anything like this to happen. (Not to say there's anywhere you would expect a massacre, but some places are obviously better candidates than others.) It's a very small-town atmosphere, despite a university population (including faculty) of about 35,000. The environment is very casual and laid back, and people are generally very friendly and trusting. It's almost impossible for anyone to not find a group of peers to which they can "belong," in such a place, especially where so many so-called "nerds" and other social "misfits" abound. Unfortunately, there are always people who feel isolated, alone, and without support, as most of us have from time to time, whether real or imagined, no matter how friendly and open the community is. My deepest sympathy and condolances go out to all who were affected by this tragedy.

First off, stick what what you said. You said Democrats take the most liberal interpretation of all amendments, which is not true, since Democrats are pushing for gun control and restictions on video games. Unless those are the bad leaders you're kicking out of the party. So when is Hillary Clinton going to be kicked out?

There's no national gun control legislation or even court cases in the works anywhere. And, that's the way it's going to stay.

What an uninformed ass. I guess you never heard of the Brady Bill or know anything about these proposals?

Also, why do you qualify gun control laws with 'national?' Are the democrats supporting state level gun control laws?

Georgia Firearm Laws

* No licensing or registration requirements related to purchase or possession of any firearms.

* No waiting period for purchase of handguns, shotguns, or rifles.

* There are no age restrictions related to possession of rifles or shotguns.

(yes, i know there are responsible youth gun owners, but which requires more responsibility... guns or video games?)

The US is neither a Libertarian nor a totalitarian society. You talked about an existing example of Libertarian society, and how it would shoot all the criminals, and I gave you a (non-unique) example of a society that shoots all the criminals.

You give the modern US West as an example of a society where many people flaunt guns, a feature of its easy gun ownership. Another feature of that gun society (not limited to the West) is how often men kill women, with guns. Violence is pretty bad in old western Texas, especially among people licensed to carry hidden guns. Wearing holstered guns isn't the same as shooting all the criminals - concealed guns are better for that.

Of course, some of these topnotch American guns are being used by desperadoes and foreigners. It's no surprise that the less gun dealers, the less crime in states formerly known as the "Wild West". As we know here in NYC, bringing a gun to a fight guarantees only that it's a gunfight. And criminalizing communities in LA on the flimsy pretext of drugs has made communities of criminals. "Round them up and deal with them", and "show them the door" are deceptive ways to say "kill them all". If you heard yourself say that, you'd realize that it wouldn't work, that the killings would destroy society, that we'd create more criminals than we'd killed. Unless you're willing to try the Big Guns, and nuke everyone. Even that won't really work.

The US is neither a Libertarian nor a totalitarian society. You talked about an existing example of Libertarian society, and how it would shoot all the criminals, and I gave you a (non-unique) example of a society that shoots all the criminals.

You give the modern US West as an example of a society where many people flaunt guns, a feature of its easy gun ownership. Another feature of that gun society (not limited to the West) is how often men kill women, with guns. Violence is pretty bad in old western Texas, especially among people licensed to carry hidden guns. Wearing holstered guns isn't the same as shooting all the criminals - concealed guns are better for that.

Of course, some of these topnotch American guns are being used by desperadoes and foreigners. It's no surprise that the less gun dealers, the less crime in states formerly known as the "Wild West". As we know here in NYC, bringing a gun to a fight guarantees only that it's a gunfight. And criminalizing communities in LA on the flimsy pretext of drugs has made communities of criminals. "Round them up and deal with them", and "show them the door" are deceptive ways to say "kill them all". If you heard yourself say that, you'd realize that it wouldn't work, that the killings would destroy society, that we'd create more criminals than we'd killed. Unless you're willing to try the Big Guns, and nuke everyone. Even that won't really work.

The US is neither a Libertarian nor a totalitarian society. You talked about an existing example of Libertarian society, and how it would shoot all the criminals, and I gave you a (non-unique) example of a society that shoots all the criminals.

You give the modern US West as an example of a society where many people flaunt guns, a feature of its easy gun ownership. Another feature of that gun society (not limited to the West) is how often men kill women, with guns. Violence is pretty bad in old western Texas, especially among people licensed to carry hidden guns. Wearing holstered guns isn't the same as shooting all the criminals - concealed guns are better for that.

Of course, some of these topnotch American guns are being used by desperadoes and foreigners. It's no surprise that the less gun dealers, the less crime in states formerly known as the "Wild West". As we know here in NYC, bringing a gun to a fight guarantees only that it's a gunfight. And criminalizing communities in LA on the flimsy pretext of drugs has made communities of criminals. "Round them up and deal with them", and "show them the door" are deceptive ways to say "kill them all". If you heard yourself say that, you'd realize that it wouldn't work, that the killings would destroy society, that we'd create more criminals than we'd killed. Unless you're willing to try the Big Guns, and nuke everyone. Even that won't really work.

The US is neither a Libertarian nor a totalitarian society. You talked about an existing example of Libertarian society, and how it would shoot all the criminals, and I gave you a (non-unique) example of a society that shoots all the criminals.

You give the modern US West as an example of a society where many people flaunt guns, a feature of its easy gun ownership. Another feature of that gun society (not limited to the West) is how often men kill women, with guns. Violence is pretty bad in old western Texas, especially among people licensed to carry hidden guns. Wearing holstered guns isn't the same as shooting all the criminals - concealed guns are better for that.

Of course, some of these topnotch American guns are being used by desperadoes and foreigners. It's no surprise that the less gun dealers, the less crime in states formerly known as the "Wild West". As we know here in NYC, bringing a gun to a fight guarantees only that it's a gunfight. And criminalizing communities in LA on the flimsy pretext of drugs has made communities of criminals. "Round them up and deal with them", and "show them the door" are deceptive ways to say "kill them all". If you heard yourself say that, you'd realize that it wouldn't work, that the killings would destroy society, that we'd create more criminals than we'd killed. Unless you're willing to try the Big Guns, and nuke everyone. Even that won't really work.

The US is neither a Libertarian nor a totalitarian society. You talked about an existing example of Libertarian society, and how it would shoot all the criminals, and I gave you a (non-unique) example of a society that shoots all the criminals.

You give the modern US West as an example of a society where many people flaunt guns, a feature of its easy gun ownership. Another feature of that gun society (not limited to the West) is how often men kill women, with guns. Violence is pretty bad in old western Texas, especially among people licensed to carry hidden guns. Wearing holstered guns isn't the same as shooting all the criminals - concealed guns are better for that.

Of course, some of these topnotch American guns are being used by desperadoes and foreigners. It's no surprise that the less gun dealers, the less crime in states formerly known as the "Wild West". As we know here in NYC, bringing a gun to a fight guarantees only that it's a gunfight. And criminalizing communities in LA on the flimsy pretext of drugs has made communities of criminals. "Round them up and deal with them", and "show them the door" are deceptive ways to say "kill them all". If you heard yourself say that, you'd realize that it wouldn't work, that the killings would destroy society, that we'd create more criminals than we'd killed. Unless you're willing to try the Big Guns, and nuke everyone. Even that won't really work.

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons--anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun--can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

For some reason, most gun owners automatically think they are being targetted by those activities.

Because we are.

Or do you think that this website, operated by the Violence Policy Center is only going after criminals?

It's not paranoia if they really ARE out to get you. ALL of the major gun control groups have made statements along the lines of "we want to ban all guns" over the years.

I don't know any gunowners (and I know ALOT of them) that don't want to keep firearms out of the hands of crminals. The problem is that most of the solutions involve restricting the rights of the law abiding to no good purpose on the off chance that you'll succeed in reducing the use of guns by criminals.

Chicago and Washington DC banned handguns. New York has almost done so. Those places don't seem to have a shortage of armed criminals though, do they? So who, I ask you, is really affected by the law? The good guys, or the bad guys?

You think the people at the Violence Policy Center are runaway slaves? You're an even bigger moron than I thought ...

You think the people at the Violence Policy Center are runaway slaves? You're an even bigger moron than I thought ...

Handguns are made for killing people. All opinions aside, that's a basic fact. Handguns are a tool designed for killing, and specifically for killing people. Arguing that they have some other practical use is just silly.

Before continuing to demonstrate your ignorance on this subject, you might wish to visit this site and enlighten yourself. At the very least, you might consider at least not automatically taking what these maroons say as gospel. This is also highly-recommended reading.

It's just a suggestion...take it or leave it, but I'd rather not engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. It's too much like shooting fish in a barrel...it quickly gets boring.

• A folding or telescoping stock
• A pistol grip
• A bayonet mount
• A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
• A silencer
• A grenade launcher.

While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design, a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession.

Oh, and there's nothing illegal about owning an AK either.

New laws designed to limit public ownership of assault rifles are being passed all the time. Remember Intratec, the company that made the 9mm pistol that could be fully concealed by the palm of your hand, and the Tec-9, the semi-automatic submachine gun that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn (hence was really only useful for drive-bys)?

P.S. As far as I know, though, it's even legal to transport a firearm on an airplane. Just not in the cabin, and not assembled.

Mr. dotslash: Most guns are used [...] illegaly in the commission of crimes.

Mr. FallLine: [...] most guns are NOT used for the commission of crimes

Neither of you two have substantiated your claims with a hard statistic.

The presence of a gun in the home makes it nearly three times more likely that someone will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner.
- Source

Read the above, twice if necessary: its an example of a quotation, citing my source and substantiating my otherwise baseless claims. This is where you start your argument. From the cited fact, all discussion stems.

As is, you and dotslash's comments mean nothing. You haven't backed up any of your information. You're saying "X is Y", but others are saying "X is Z". Who am I to believe? None of you.

Back up your facts, or back up that ass.

Here is an analysis which is biased from both sides: http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm .
I hope it proves helpful.

The study documents for the first time gun industry funding of NRA activities. Tax-deductible money donated by manufacturers of firearms, ammunition, and related products is funneled through the NRA's tax-exempt sister organization, The NRA Foundation. The VPC has uncovered at the very minimum hundreds of thousands of gun-industry dollars donated to The NRA Foundation. These funds are then transferred to the NRA in the form of "grants." The NRA then uses these "grants" to fund the Eddie Eagle program and other activities

National Rifle Association (NRA) is the nation's largest lobbying organization for gun owners/gun industry with over 3 million members and an annual budget of $168 million (Source: The Washington Post, August 6, 2000).

If you want to make decisions about political questions that touch on the sovereignty of the individual and the balance between that and the good of the community based on a joke by a grade-B homosexual transvestite commedian, be my guest.

And, of course, making personal attacks on the voice of an idea completely discredits the idea itself. Good show.

I prefer to rely on actual statisitical studies of the effects of various choices together with an analysis of the ethics involved in those choices.

I will, however, have to agree with you here. Sooooo ....

It's "they're." The question is what happens in places where its illegal to have guns and a "loose screw" gets one and starts to go to it, vs. places where people can legally carry. And the answer is, where people can legally carry they stop the "loose screw" before he does much damage. Not to mention the fact that fewer people try to commit violent crimes in places where the victim pool can arm themselves legally.

After all that I'm still waiting for a solid statistic or citation. As a starting place, try this page at the Violence Policy Center, that actually cites research into gun violence. (Hint: they disagree with your "facts".)

I realize that my comment isn't funny, but perhaps you would be better served by using it as a starting point then Eddie Izzard or Bart Simpson.

How so? You a) failed to provide any statistics about an issue on which you took a high moral and ethical ground, b) demonstrated your own egotism about said issue and debating techniques, and c) failed to be even remotely entertaining.

Bzzzzzt! Sorry, try again.

-jdm

You seem to be falling into the trap of thinking that your armchair rationalizations have some basis in reality.

You obviously think I hate some people based not on what they have done, but on their race, sex, sexuality, or religion. I can understand why you'd think that. After all, I did praise Charlton Heston's speech to the Free Congress Foundation "in which he made inflammatory remarks regarding women, gays and lesbians, and African Americans; while at the same time trivializing the Holocaust." (according to this Violent Policy Center's article). In praising the speech, I am in very bad company (David Duke, Stormfront, etc.) so I should have expected their stink to rub off on me. However, if you think for a moment, you'll see that agreeing with someone on one point doesn't necessarily make you agree with them on another point unless the latter follows from the former. So the question is, does "I hate niggers" follow from "I like the Heston speech"?

No. It doesn't. Most people who are racist will probably like the speech, but being a racist isn't the only possible reason for liking the speech. Similarly, x=0 => sin(x)=0 but sin(x)=0 !=> x=0.

If you're interested in this subject, read the speech and the condemnations. You might want to also read the thread that the poster I'm replying to is talking about.
--

You obviously think I hate some people based not on what they have done, but on their race, sex, sexuality, or religion. I can understand why you'd think that. After all, I did praise Charlton Heston's speech to the Free Congress Foundation "in which he made inflammatory remarks regarding women, gays and lesbians, and African Americans; while at the same time trivializing the Holocaust." (according to this Violent Policy Center's article). In praising the speech, I am in very bad company (David Duke, Stormfront, etc.) so I should have expected their stink to rub off on me. However, if you think for a moment, you'll see that agreeing with someone on one point doesn't necessarily make you agree with them on another point unless the latter follows from the former. So the question is, does "I hate niggers" follow from "I like the Heston speech"?

No. It doesn't. Most people who are racist will probably like the speech, but being a racist isn't the only possible reason for liking the speech. Similarly, x=0 => sin(x)=0 but sin(x)=0 !=> x=0.

If you're interested in this subject, read the speech and the condemnations. You might want to also read the thread that the poster I'm replying to is talking about.
--

You obviously think I hate some people based not on what they have done, but on their race, sex, sexuality, or religion. I can understand why you'd think that. After all, I did praise Charlton Heston's speech to the Free Congress Foundation "in which he made inflammatory remarks regarding women, gays and lesbians, and African Americans; while at the same time trivializing the Holocaust." (according to this Violent Policy Center's article). In praising the speech, I am in very bad company (David Duke, Stormfront, etc.) so I should have expected their stink to rub off on me. However, if you think for a moment, you'll see that agreeing with someone on one point doesn't necessarily make you agree with them on another point unless the latter follows from the former. So the question is, does "I hate niggers" follow from "I like the Heston speech"?

No. It doesn't. Most people who are racist will probably like the speech, but being a racist isn't the only possible reason for liking the speech. Similarly, x=0 => sin(x)=0 but sin(x)=0 !=> x=0.

If you're interested in this subject, read the speech and the condemnations. You might want to also read the thread that the poster I'm replying to is talking about.
--