An excellent piece on gun-control

[Mr Science]

I was searching around on rense.com, and I found this fantastic page about gun control, listing reasons why gun control is "good." ;) :D

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/rants/guncontrol.php?PHPSESSID=85ccd920c0f9b7eed9ac9cf80 ce937e3

I am sure some of you have read the "40 Reasons For Gun-Control" page before (http://www.rense.com/general10/reas.htm), but that actually comes from this guy's page, which lists easily 200 reasons.

Here are a few of my favorites:

That the depressed and emotionally disturbed should not be allowed to own guns that shoot bullets with 250 ft-lbs of energy, but should be allowed to own 4000 lb cars with 1,136,000 ft-lbs of energy (at 65 mph).

That the only reason to own a firearm silencer is for quiet assassinations, just like the only reason to own a car muffler is to clandestinely run over civilians.

That a gun is a symbolic penis, and the person telling you this is a psychiatrist who drives a BMW.

That rifles with pistol grips are assault weapons, just like vehicles with racing stripes are sports cars.

[Charles Owlen Picket]

The CATO Institute is an independent "Libertarian" oriented think-tank that turns out some fun stuff to read. Along those lines with gun control was an article written by David Kopel back several years ago when the Brady Bill sunset-ed. When things are well written I save them; especially if I have family members who enjoy a good debate on issues so heart-felt.

This piece was actually the gist of a debate on an NBC affiliate that had some folks so angry that they shouted from the audience. The "pro-gun control" people couldn't stand it and it makes for a very complimentary bit of ammo for debates.

Executive Summary:


"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1) Those who fear and distrust the people . . . . 2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe . . . depository of the public interest."

-- Thomas Jefferson

Few public policy debates have been as dominated by emotion and misinformation as the one on gun control. Perhaps this debate is so highly charged because it involves such fundamental issues. The calls for more gun restrictions or for bans on some or all guns are calls for significant change in our social and constitutional systems.

Gun control is based on the faulty notion that ordinary American citizens are too clumsy and ill-tempered to be trusted with weapons. Only through the blatant abrogation of explicit constitutional rights is gun control even possible. It must be enforced with such violations of individual rights as intrusive search and seizure. It most severely victimizes those who most need weapons for self-defense, such as blacks and women.

The various gun control proposals on today's agenda-- including licensing, waiting periods, and bans on so-called Saturday night specials--are of little, if any, value as crime-fighting measures. Banning guns to reduce crime makes as much sense as banning alcohol to reduce drunk driving. Indeed, persuasive evidence shows that civilian gun ownership can be a powerful deterrent to crime.

The gun control debate poses the basic question: Who is more trustworthy, the government or the people?

[Rbick]

Ha I enjoyed that list. I just spent the last hour or so reading them.

I have a feeling the whole gun control situation is going to start going down hill after this next presidential election. It sucks, but I want to see what happens if they do try and take away guns. We'll have the liberal hippie faggots on one side throwing flowers and all the true american patriots on the other throwing 180 grains of lead at 2600 fps from their .308 ARs.

My personal favorite was this:

That the Army could save a lot of money taking the precision adjustable sights and optical sights off M16s, since they are "designed to be spray-fired from the hip." (According to Sarah Brady.)

This just goes to show how people take movie as fact. It really is pathetic how people base reality off of shit that Hollywood spews onto the public. Anyway, I could go on forever, but you guys already know what I'm going to say, so... Rock on dudes :)

[Charles Owlen Picket]

This election will either have a larger than usual turnout or smaller, it won't be business as usual. At the time of my writing this it looks like Hillery and McCain.... {I'd like to look at this after November because I have really been following the race for a few weeks now and it looks closed up.}
I wonder who it will turn out to be when the booths open. Serious mistakes have often flushed a candidate this early on who seemed like a closer. Almost everyone who has a chance to get to the election is anti-2nd Amdt. However Gun-control is a loser's agenda and most candidates stay away from it. Abortion is also but sometimes it works it's way into a discussion; but NO candidate wants to play with gun-control as there is little to be gained.

On a local level people play with it but not in a presidential race. Gun-control & abortion are talk radio favorites (to grab callers), that's really all they are today: yet they stay mainstream-timeless. If Hillery gets elected a few secret service guys may start tying their shoes more often.

[megalomania]

Half the people in the country would sell their right to bear arms for free health care. Hell, they would sell their right to bear arms for a free ipod if someone could work out the particulars. Ironically if they do get rid of the right to bear arms those fools will need health care since it will only empower the thugs and gang bangers who already have illegal weapons.

[Goblin$]

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
George Washington

I have to agree with G.W. on this issue. Take away the publics' guns and the government knows it can do whatever it wants with impunity; an armed populace keeps the leaders straight :). However, some of the points raised are legitimate, silencers should be illegal, a loud gun kills a deer as effectively as a quiet one. Yes the quieter one doesn't have a booming report, lessening the chances of any prey within a couple kilometers running far, far away, but one deer should be enough. Assault rifles are weapons of war, not of hunting, simple as that. Although it probably is fun to cut a deer in half with a stream of hot lead, its just not necessary.

[Rbick]

I would have to disagree with you on this. I have no desire to cut a deer in half nor commit a crime with my assault weapons. The reason I do have them is because: A. I am a hobbiest and gun collector B. I enjoy the ease in which I can target shoot without having to reload with my 30 round mag C. Doing tactical shoots and CQM (close quarters marksmanship) is fun and competitive D. In the event I do have to defend my home/country from foriegn or domestic threats, I will better be able to do it.

I urge you to read the info on this web page (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp). Read the section under "Assault Weapons". There is an interesting tid bit right there. If you have the time, read the whole thing. It is a non bias account of statistical information involving firearms. It astounds me that people still want to enact gun control despite the facts keep screaming "ITS NOT GUNS! ITS SOCIETY THAT NEEDS A CHANGE!". The attempt to ban guns is an attempt to remove power from the individual and hand it over to "big brother", so if we start realizing that we're getting raped in the ass, he can slap us and all we can do is keep taking it.

As far as silencers, I like them because: A. I don't need hearing protection while shooting, which is wonderful. B. I am a hobbiest and a collector C. Having a silencer is just cool. Not because I want to shoot people with it, just because its cool, and thats it.

I mean no offense in my statements, but I always say: You give an inch they will take a mile.

[Kaydon]

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
George Washington

I have to agree with G.W. on this issue. Take away the publics' guns and the government knows it can do whatever it wants with impunity; an armed populace keeps the leaders straight :). However, some of the points raised are legitimate, silencers should be illegal, a loud gun kills a deer as effectively as a quiet one. Yes the quieter one doesn't have a booming report, lessening the chances of any prey within a couple kilometers running far, far away, but one deer should be enough. Assault rifles are weapons of war, not of hunting, simple as that. Although it probably is fun to cut a deer in half with a stream of hot lead, its just not necessary.

Why should they be illegal? You've given no legitimate reasons. How many people do you know that hunt with assault rifles and silencers? You're creating scenarios that simply don't exist. Assault rifles are weapons of DEFENSE. Simple as that. It doesn't matter what kind of defense, personal or defense of your homeland.

Let's look at all the countries with uber-oppressive gun laws. They are either under some sort of communist control, or their citizens are complete sheep and do as told without a second though - "extremists" who break this mold are arrested and never heard from again.

Who would let loose a "stream of hot lead" at a deer? It takes one bullet. Be it a .223 or a .308. How many incidents can you cite (with evidence) or someone blasting a deer down with an assault rifle? None. Once again, creating scenarios that don't exist.

As Rbick said, we're hobbyists here mostly. We collect and shoot. There should be no laws restricting our rights to do so.

[Charles Owlen Picket]

Silencers and other Class III weapons are NOT ILLEGAL! LEARN THE LAWS.....YOU HAVE SIMPLY TO Pay a TAX (STAMP) and you may own one or many. Certain STATES have laws against Class III weapons but in general if the State is in line with the Federal government; you may own a Class III weapon (or an AOW for shorty shotguns, etc).

[Rbick]

I know this, I'm working on getting my stamp now. Its 200 dollars, and the silencer I want is 600, so I have some saving to do. I'm putting it on my AR, I'm psyched :)

[Goblin$]

The reason I used hunting as the basis for my examples is because I believe hunting is the only legitimate reason for a civilian to own a gun. Using assault rifles and silencers to hunt is crazy, that was the point I was making. I agree the problem is society needs to change; our society allows civilians to own weapons designed solely for killing humans. Any sane, logical person would agree that a society that allows its citizens to own tools made solely for killing other homo sapiens as a basic right is an extremely violent society. The easiest way to get the homicide rate down is to stop idolizing violence. How can this be accomplished? Well to start, don't make the ability to possess machines of death a civil rite. "Having a silencer is just cool" Owning a tool designed to make murder easier is "cool"... is there something wrong with our society? That quote wasn't to pick on you Rbick, as that quote is the reason the vast majority of people who own silencers do so, but more to show the pervasive sickness (idolization of violence) in our society. You can't wish for society to change without changing society.

Why should guns be illegal? Do you know where the majority of "hot" guns used in crimes come from? They come from B&E's, they come from kids stealing their parents' guns and trading them for drugs or money, they don't come from Russian gangsters a la the movies. They don't need to is the simple reason: as of '93/'94 49% of households owned a gun, I'm sure after 9/11 that rocketed upwards. Offer a kid a gram or two of meth for daddy's handgun/rifle/AR/shotgun and that kid is going home and grabbing said handgun; cost for dealer to get that handgun: pennies. Another example; crackhead needs some money for crack, fairly common in our country, breaks into house and finds guns, brings guns back to dealer for an 8-ball. If we make all guns illegal these very common scenarios disappear completely and we are left with criminal organizations importing guns; with our psychotic homeland security measures I'm fairly confident the smugglers will be caught, compared with the almost non-existent chance of recovering the civilian pilfered guns. The epidemic of school and workplace shootings, an American phenomenon, don't need to explain that in detail I hope.

Lets take a REAL look at the countries with gun laws, not just say that. To set the tone, the U.S.A had a homicide rate of 5.9 per 100 000 in 2003, higher than Northern Ireland, 2.48 in 2002, "Encroaching apocalypse" Iran, 2.93 in 2004, even more than the terrorist haven that our media portrays as Palestine, 4.04 in 2004. Obviously our laws need some tweaking, and yes I know not every homicide was committed with a gun, these facts are to set the tone of the argument as I said at the start. Canada has much stricter gun control laws compared to the U.S.A, Canada also has a homicide rate of 1.95 in 2004, vastly superior civil rites, didn't have its leadership stolen, and is ranked 6'th compared to the U.S's 8'th in the the U.N.'s "most livable countries". Japan has the harshest gun control laws in the "democratic" world and correspondingly the lowest rate of gun crime, it also ranked 7'th in the U.N.'s M.L.C study. Many European nations, especially the smaller ones, have stricter gun control laws than the U.S and who's citizens also possess much more democratic rites than our "Patriot Act" possessing oligarchy.

I didn't say silencers were illegal if that was directed towards myself Charles, I said they should be.

I didn't say guns should be banned, I said they were an integral part of our rapidly dwindling civil liberty. However, I strongly believe they do need to be fixed; many nations are superior to the States in numerous aspects, especially crime related, the majority of these nations also possess stricter gun laws... it's not a coincidence.

[Charles Owlen Picket]

Why should not a little old lady have the right to defend herself ???? Why should not persons who are physically disabled have the right to defend themselves ??? Firearms have a place in self defense or you would have a jungle of strongest and most able forcing their will on the populous. Law Enforcement was NEVER tasked with defending or protecting those lives - they simply enforce the law! Don't ever look to a cop to protect your elderly parents; that won't happen!

[Rbick]

You keep bringing up drugs and crackheads in your supposed scenarios. So why are we focusing on guns as the problem and not the crackheads and drugs? If you didn't have guns, you could just as well say: A crackhead wants some crack, a common thing in this country. He breaks into a guys house and steals a butcher knife, and trades it for an 8 ball. Or worse yet, he beats the hell out of the home owner who didn't have a gun to defend himself from the crazed drug addict.

Also, if criminals want guns, stupid gun laws will not stop them from obtaining them. As a matter of fact, it will make it hard for the law abiding citizen to get, and not the criminals! Since its obvious you didn't read the statistics on this site (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp), I'll quote a few for you. The site is a non-bias report of incidences and statistics involving firearms throughout the United States.

Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. Thats over 2000 times a day :eek:

In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim
I actually have a friend who made a citizens arrest w/ his handgun on a guy trying to steal his car.

Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12% Coincidence? I think not...

Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:

homicide rate
-36% -FLA
-0.4%-US

firearm homicide rate
-37% -FLA
+15% -US

handgun homicide rate
-41% -FLA
+24% -US
Wow, it seems the right to carry law drastically improved the level of violence! Don't look at me, the statistics speak for themselves.

As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life

In April of 1999, Bill and Hillary Clinton held a press conference on gun control legislation. Hillary Clinton stated:

"And since the crime bill was enacted, 19 of the deadliest assault weapons are harder to find on our streets. We will never know how many tragedies we've avoided because of these efforts." (25)


* Assault weapons were involved in less than 1% of homicides before the assault weapons ban took effect in 1994. The same is true as of 1998. (3)

Need I go on? If you didn't read the above statistics and just jumped to this sentence, go back and read them. So could it be society that needs tweaking and not gun laws? After it all, the guns don't fire themselves.

[joffe]

Hope I'm not digressing, but I'm sure you all will appreciate this article from the "British Medical Journal" on how to prevent knife attacks - ban pointed knives... No, I'm not kidding. Read the article and weep.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7502/1221?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=knife+ban&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

[Charles Owlen Picket]

No this is common; focus on the symbol or thing instead of the behaviour.
No one will be able to effectively legislate behaviour. So they assume that the thing, the object is definable and controllably. The Aussies tried this with swords and the Scots tried this with knives to a great extent within the last few years. It's laughable. We keep going and at this rate we will have a fucking Kindergarten of a country with soft hammers and rounded corners on furniture.

Weapons are symbols (within this context) of the activity, no more. They are inactive and inanimate. But they are terrific vote-getting devices and they are safe to attack. To verbally attack a weapon instead of a person the politician risks never being called to task for any remedy that demands tough choices.

This is not fucking high-level science, this is not bold, this is common sense. From a political perspective, attacking a thing is a safe way to defuse anger, angst, and a feeling of helplessness. What is a problem is when all this bullshit runs it's course and the problem still exists. That's when the Brady's and the Shumers of this world look to other scapegoats and typically it's either class inequity or other unresolvable issue that is safe to rant over..... God forbid they ever have to choose between safe streets and locking a "kid" away.

[Mr Science]

I was going to make a thread regarding the NIU shootings, but it might as well be discussed here (regarding gun control)

Here is a link I found; NIU Parents Call For More Gun Control (big surprise)
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/skokie/news/798433,g1-oaktonniu-022108-s1.article
The day a gunman killed five students at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, it was more than an hour before Dr. Connie Catellani knew that her son Tony Skelton, an NIU senior, was safe.

"That was easily the longest hour of my life," she said.

The longtime Skokie resident and mother of four was so appalled by the tragedy that took the lives of five students and injured many others that she was galvanized to hold a press conference Saturday morning, less than 48 hours later, at the Skokie Campus of Oakton Community College. With other parents and gun-control advocates at her side, they called on the presidential candidates to put gun control at the forefront of their campaigns.

"This man legally went in and bought guns at a gun shop," Catellani said. "He didn't have a criminal record, he was a good student."

The day of the shooting, Catellani spent the longest hour of her life trying to talk herself down.

"My son's an art student so he never answers his phone," she said. "It's off or it's shoved down in the bottom of his bag. But when it came close to an hour, the panic was rising."

Catellani called all the hospitals in the DeKalb area but they couldn't release the names of victims. Finally, her son sent her a text message, letting her know he was all right.

"He was in class in a building where phones didn't work," she said. "The teacher had received word of what was going on and the building was locked down."

So her son was safe, but Catellani was thinking about the other students, the other parents.

"I was complaining to a friend who suggested that I call a press conference," she said. "I called some other parents I knew and asked if they would come."

On Saturday, more than a dozen parents of NIU students and Catellani joined together to demand better gun control legislation.

"This is an election year and we're tired of hearing that the NRA (National Rifle Association) and the gun lobby are too strong," she said.

Catellani also said that those assembled mourned for alleged gunman Steven P. Kazmierczak and his family as well.

"We must weep for Steve Kazmierczak and his family and friends," Catellani said. "We are told that he suffered from a psychiatric condition and who among us has not had a friend, a family member who suffered from such an illness. Most of us have been spared such a tragic conclusion."

Mass destruction

Catellani described the guns used as "weapons of mass destruction" and said that no one should be able to obtain them.

"Think of how many (people) are on anti-depressants in this country," she said. "If someone goes off their medication does that mean we should hand them a weapon of mass destruction to go and act out their despair?"

Chester Kulis, a criminal justice and sociology teacher at Oakton and a board member of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence in Chicago said that this incident, taken together with last year's shooting at Virginia Tech,showed more effective gun control is needed.

"The irony is, this could happen right here at Oakton," he said. "Our culture, our society is increasingly being defined by gun-shooting incidents. We, as a society, have to start asking ourselves why we have such availability of guns."

Skokie residents Lucy Keating and Lisa Jacob came to the press conference, though they didn't have children at NIU.

"Like most people, you just feel a total helplessness when these things happen," Keating said. "It could have been our children. It doesn't take that much imagination to put your child in this situation. This has to stop."

Jacob said she felt that more funding needed to be put towards mental health services.

"I think there should be more focus on mental health," she said, though she also believed in more gun control. "I don't think these kinds of guns belong in anyone's hands, sane or not sane. And law enforcement doesn't need these kinds of guns in people's hands."

John and Sharon Roszkowski, of Downers Grove, are parents of a student at NIU and came all the way to Skokie for the press conference. Sharon said she was primarily looking for what she as an individual could do to help prevent similar events from happening in the future.

"I think there are just too many shootings," she said.

The press conference didn't give her a good idea of what she could do, but at least, "I feel like I have a direction," she said.

I wish there was a DVD or a pamphlet people could buy to debunk the myths of assault weapons and gun control's effectiveness as a whole...and this would have to be a PRIMER, not immediately jumping into the hypothetical overthrow of the fedgov. Lets remember the kind of sheeple/brady bunch people we will be talking to. They need to hear OUR side of the story for once, and just to remove the 'gun nut' image, and to show logic and reason in our facts. If there isn't such a disc, I think action should be taken by some members to put one together, and to make a torrent of the ISO to spread it around.

[Charles Owlen Picket]

I am sure many of you have noticed that Hillery preformed the stereotypical "duck-hunting" milieu while campaigning recently. When her husband did that, many responded with a bumper sticker to the effect of the "2nd Amd. is Not About Duck Hunting" or something similar. While bumper sticker-speak is somewhat trite; it's actually correct from a Constitutional perspective.

It's fucking amazing how many times we hit the same old tired ground. But I will make this a prediction......She would NOT have postured in this manner if she was not planning to give back to Sarah Brady in some fashion when she gets elected.
We will have another fuck-house ass-clown gun-control agenda. Mark my words on this! The reasoning is that gun-control for the majority of liberals is a very, very safe issue that goes after a symbol, appears to "be doing something", and is politically neutral to those to whom it is not a heart-felt issue. For many urban dwellers, they have never even seen a firearm - those from Europe have never had those rights to begin with....It's fairly safe legislation. What's more it's plastic! It can be anything the legislator wants it to be. It can be a safety program for the children, it can be a crime Bill, it can even be a national security issue.

If you wanted to buy something in the way of a firearm.....buy it NOW. She will have some serious gun control as sure as the sun rises. This gals' going to be elected!

[Rbick]

I'm so tired of this crap. I'm sorry, but I keep pointing you guys here: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp. Its facts pointing towards guns actually helping people more than harming!

Why can't liberals pull their heads out of their asses and look at the facts for once. The only thing they pay attention to is the stories CNN broadcasts and accepts them as truth. I wonder if they know what selective listening is. Its something 5 year olds do often when they throw a tantrum and don't want to admit they're wrong or can't get their way. It seems strange the media fails to tell everyone about the THOUSANDS of incidencies per week where an innocent person defends themselves with a gun. And those are just reported incidences...

The first law they pass against firearms, I hope to see something proactive happen on our part. I agree with Mr. Science, we need an informational DVD so people stop getting these ideas that have been thrown out there by the media about people who own firearms. And hey, if worse comes to worse, we'll be the ones with firepower in the end. I will not stand by and watch my country become a bunch of sheeple idiots with big brother watching over with a wooden spoon to spank them with! DAMNIT I HATE SOCCER MOMS! :mad:

[Jetex Kid]

Nobody has mentioned that firearms are most valuable and effective when nobody but you has them. Gun control for thee, but not for me, optimizes my firearms' value. Everybody carries guns in a war, but wars can be unsafe.

[Mr Science]

Charlton Heston passed away about two hours ago. :(

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iCJ-e6C_uhl6oe1hmPU7Yo0fePbQ

[Charles Owlen Picket]

I was generally always turned off to Micheal Moore but when he bothered Heston at his home when he was ill, trying to make points for his "Bowling for Columbine", I started to despise him. Only a true low-life would attempt to make points with the sick or infirmed. It showed me what type of coward and slimeball that fat fuck was.

[Hirudinea]

Chuck Heston's dead? I wonder if the anti-gunners will try to pry the gun from his cold dead hands now?