Subject:
|
Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Jul 2001 04:06:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
631 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> >
> > Let's be realistic here: there is no *carnage*! I don't even agree that we
> > have a "gun problem". The fact is - *less than* ONE PERCENT of firearms are
> > used illegally! Doesn't sound like much of a problem to me.
>
> I think you missed the path of the discussion - my comment was based on an
> earlier one that said everything would be peaceful and wonderful if
> *EVERYONE* walked around with a gun.
You're right, I did miss most of the thread. A thousand pardons Sahib!
But I did see that comment by Chris. I was reacting to the word carnage in
my comments above.
Although, I do think the world would be safer if more responsible citizens
were packing heat. That guy who shot up that Jewish daycare center is a
perfect example: he passed up a few other potential targets because there
were armed personnel on the premises. If that particular site had had an
armed person those kids would not have been shot (I admit that it's
reprehensible that we even need to discuss having armed personnel at a
daycare!). The presence of a legally and responsibly wielded weapon would
have protected lives.
>
> Now, as to your statement, I take it you have never had a gun pointed at you
> (Smith and Wesson, .38 with a six inch barrel). Or, like my wife, who had a
> cousin shot and killed.
My condolences to your wife regarding her cousin. However, personal
experiences cannot cloud the issue. Each individual, subjective, anecdotal
life story has no bearing on the discussion - otherwise each individual,
subjective opinion would carry equal weight.
As to my experiences with firearms (I live in Miami, need I say more?): Yes,
as a Marine in armed conflict on foreign soil and in law enforcement, I have
been on both ends of a firearm. I happen to have a 1 inch hole under my
right shoulder blade. Does that make my point any more or less valid? I
happen not to think so. We must objectively consider the noumena and not the
phenomena of firearms.
>
> Percentages are meaningless if there are 10 million handguns - 100,000 being
> *reported* used illegally (think of all the morons firing live rounds on
> July 4th) as a sizeable number.
What urks me about the liberal mentality is the incessant desire to limit
the freedom of law abiding citizens because of the actions of a very
miniscule minority (inherent in that mindset is the presupposition that
everyone is irresponsible). If people were firing weapons into the sky on
the 4th then go after them and leave me and Charleton Heston alone. The
point was made in the last campaign that the Clinton administration, for all
its clamor on guns, did not even enforce existing laws. We have too much
restriction already. Punish the law breakers under existing statutes and
leave the law abiding alone.
>
> >
> > There are over 200 million guns in the hands of private citizens.
>
> Egads! You don't think a million-odd guns used illegally is a problem!?!
Out of 200+ million, that's less than half a percent. No. I don't think
that's a problem at all.
The actual number of murders in 1996 involving firearms was 9,266 (CDC #'s)
- granted, that's 9,266 TOO MANY, but hardly a problem warranting total
confiscation. With 260 million people and even more guns, that's not even a
blip.
As I said, if there were more armed, responsible citizens, that number would
greatly decrease.
Freedom comes with great responsibility, not everyone can handle it; that's
why we build prisons. Law breakers are a given in a free society, that
places even more responsibility on the law abiding to remain vigilant.
What I find alarming is the cavalier attitude toward life and death in this
country. Many warned that legalized abortion would lead to just that. We
have cheapened life and are reaping the benefits. My opinion. Not trying to
stir up that debate.
>
> > There are more than one million incidents of defensive uses of firearms to >>prevent violent crimes.
This comment above is worth noting a second time. 9,266 taken - more than
one million preserved. This cannot be ignored. The benefit far outweighs
the loss. Take away guns and the death toll would rise (under the assumption
that the bad guys would still be armed). Why do liberals ignore the lives
that are saved by guns? Could it be that they have ulterior motives?
> > 30,000 deaths, while regrettable, is hardly carnage -
> > considering the largest percentage of those deaths are self inflicted. How
> > many suicides are committed without guns? As I noted elsewhere, the "under
> > 21" figure includes police shootings of juvenile offenders. So,
> > realistically, the actual number is more like 15,000 gun deaths. 200 million
> > guns and only 15,000 deaths - c'mon?!
>
>
> Like I said, you missed the discussion thread, so none of the above applies
> to my comments.
It applies to the use of the word "carnage" generically.
>
> >
> > January 1997 "Journal of Legal Studies" showed that concealed-carry weapons
> > permits reduced crime rates.
No comment on this one?
There are numerous other studies done in localities where firearm ownership
is encouraged and/or facilitated all showing remarkable drops in crime.
> >
> > Switzerland, New Zealand, Finland, and Israel have high gun-ownership rates
> > and low crime rates.
>
> Isreal has a low crime rate!?! The body count hits the front page on a
> daily basis.
The Palestinian/Israeli violence is not considered crime by most. Terrorism
is an act of war. That type of violence is handled primarily by the military
not the police. Robberies, muggings, murders, etc. are quite low.
It is interesting to note the similarities between Palestinian/Israeli
violence and Irish/British violence in kind, yet the stark difference that
Britian is said to have so little gun violence due to their gun ban. Both
models have the same kind of violence, one with a gun ban and the other
without, yet the one with the ban is always touted as the model we should
follow - and the outcomes are identical! - high terrorism, low crime!! Go
figure.
>
> The purpose of these is not for anti-crime (well, not sure about New
> Zealand) but for invasion preparation. All are small population countries
> that turn out a large proportion for military duty, with the rather large
> difference that they are trained and these are military weapons, not
> handguns, and they are not walking about with them.
Regardless, the presence of weapons wielded by responsible individuals is a
deterrent to crimes of violence. Predators prey on the weak.
>
> >
> > The banning of guns in the UK was a direct reaction to the tragedy of
> > Dunblane, the act of a deranged person, not a cool, calculating criminal.
>
> I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with what you are refering to - handguns in
> the UK have been rare for a very long time.
Laws restricting the possession of guns in Britain date back to 1820, but
were not comprehensive until after the 1996 school shooting in Scotland.
Small bore handguns were still legal until then. The point was that the perp
in Dunblane was nutz, you can't make laws to predict/prevent such acts. Gun
bans restrict the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves in
the absence of law enforcement officers.
But, the British had the same debate we have: take the guns from the law
abiding and the only ones left with guns are the bad guys. Can you say "Open
season"?!
>
> > You don't need guns to kill lots of people anyway, take a look at Rwanda,
> > 800,000 people hacked to death in 100 days, a figure unmatched even by the
> > Nazis.
>
> This misses the point entirely - you can't walk around with a sword as it
> is, and in fact illustrates the opposite point (a deadly weapon is a deadly
> weapon is a deadly weapon....).
Actually, it makes the point squarely. The problem is not the inanimate
weapons - it is the human beings that raise them with malice in their hearts!
>
> Bruce
Respectfully,
William, the perforated
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) This is certainly a valid point, and close to home since a co-worker in the next building over from mine had his son involved in this very incident (thankfully unharmed). But it was the presense of armed guards, not Joe Blow with a concealed (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) I think you missed the path of the discussion - my comment was based on an earlier one that said everything would be peaceful and wonderful if *EVERYONE* walked around with a gun. Now, as to your statement, I take it you have never had a gun (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
182 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
