The US constitution and the right to "Bear Arms"

omnicorp

fine but the Atom bomb is one of the worst and pollution?
And I mean ANY hunting be it with a big stick or a shotgun.

Sparks

omnicorp wrote:

fine but the Atom bomb is one of the worst

Indeed - but it's been used a total of twice in anger. (And several times in testing, granted). And it's led to the development of nuclear power, which erg for erg is the most pollution-free and safe way of generating energy

and pollution?

Well, pollution generally needs an industrial base, so I'd have to say no...

And I mean ANY hunting be it with a big stick or a shotgun.

Hmmm. So you're saying all hunting is bad? And you're planning on feeding all of earth's carnivore predators how?
Look, we eat meat. And there are so many of us, we have to farm meat animals to do it. And that means that, in the same way that grain/vegetable farmers have to weed, meat animal/dairy farmers have to cull predators. It's not a philosophical choice, it's a practical necessity. So either get rid of meat animal farming alltogether; or else accept the necessity and seek to make it as humane as possible while taking steps to ensure that not too much of an environmental change is made.
That's about the only rational choice there is to make here.

LegacyUser

Sparks wrote:

Indeed - but it's been used a total of twice in anger. (And several times in testing, granted). And it's led to the development of nuclear power, which erg for erg is the most pollution-free and safe way of generating energy
QUOTE]

Wind power, solar power, hydro electric power, bizarre statement Sparks. It has also led to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, no doubt 2 will become 3 4 5... someday. Whatever advancement came from the development of nuke's doesn't justify their use as you appear to do in a roundabout manner. It's not surprising though, most people fascinated with handguns are fascinated with all weaponry. and like to watch them in use or see the effects.

Sparks

bananayoghurt wrote:

Wind power, solar power, hydro electric power, bizarre statement Sparks.

Nope. All three of those suffer from the small problem of not being able to produce a stable supply of power, as they vary based on environmental factors. Now solar has potential, I'll cede with happiness, but only if you put it in orbit. Other than that - well, put it this way, "the energy in sunlight is spread so diffusely that we must collect it from large areas with correspondingly large collectors in order to obtain appreciable amounts of power. To produce the power generated by a large nuclear plant would require covering an area 5 miles in diameter with solar cells."
(http://home.pacbell.net/sabsay/nuclear/chapter14.html)

Plus, don't forget, solar power is just nuclear power using electromagnetic radiation as a delivery mechanism

Besides, you're complaining about nuclear fission plants. Fusion plants shouldn't have as many problems as they do. And compared to things like gas, oil and coal, nuclear fission is far cleaner, safer and cheaper. Yes, you have a small amount of highly radioactive waste, but compare that to the SO2 and slag that coal produces, or the number of people killed every year mining coal...

It's not surprising though, most people fascinated with handguns are fascinated with all weaponry. and like to watch them in use or see the effects.

Big round hairy genitalia. I'm not fascinated with handguns, I'm interested in target shooting. The pistols, shotguns or rifles used are a tool, a means to an end - you wouldn't say Tiger Woods was fascinated with golf clubs, would you? No, you'd say he was fascinated with golf. There's a difference.

And would you please stop trying to imply that I'm fascinated by the idea of seeing people hurt by weapons like some kind of immature boy-racer counterstrike player type? Thank you.

LegacyUser

Sparks wrote:

Nope. All three of those suffer from the small problem of not being able to produce a stable supply of power, as they vary based on environmental factors.

you didn't say nuclear energy is the most stable source, you said erg for erg its the most polution free and safe way of creating energy, so I can't see how your nope comes into it, for every erg generated by nuclear power there could be another chernoble, for every erg generated by wind or solar there could be hmmm ... nothing, i guess the wind turbine might fall over and hit a cow perhaps same goes for polution, your statement was incorrect and that is a simple fact.

Sparks wrote:

Now solar has potential, I'll cede with happiness, but only if you put it in orbit. Other than that - well, put it this way, "the energy in sunlight is spread so diffusely that we must collect it from large areas with correspondingly large collectors in order to obtain appreciable amounts of power. To produce the power generated by a large nuclear plant would require covering an area 5 miles in diameter with solar cells."
(http://home.pacbell.net/sabsay/nuclear/chapter14.html)

and deserts cover how much of the planets surface ?, I'm not going to pretend I know anything about the cost of solar cells but I would hazard a guess that covering 5 square miles with them would cost less than building a nuclear power plant

Sparks wrote:

Besides, you're complaining about nuclear fission plants. Fusion plants shouldn't have as many problems as they do. And compared to things like gas, oil and coal, nuclear fission is far cleaner, safer and cheaper.

and you are talking about science fiction now

Sparks wrote:

Big round hairy genitalia. I'm not fascinated with handguns, I'm interested in target shooting. The pistols, shotguns or rifles used are a tool, a means to an end

Maybe you are, but if its true you are interested in keeping your arm steady, which is all target shooting is, its the only 'sport' a vice grips can beat a human at :eek:

Sparks

bananayoghurt wrote:

you didn't say nuclear energy is the most stable source, you said erg for erg its the most polution free and safe way of creating energy

Yes, I did. And since we need a set amount of ergs per day, you have to have a serious amount of excess capacity if you use wind and wave power to compensate. This, coupled with their low energy density, has consequences. First, you have to build all those plants. That creates pollution and carries safety risks. Then there's the eyesore factor, and then there's the little things like landslides that tend to happen around our wind farms for some reason...

for every erg generated by nuclear power there could be another chernoble

If you're allowing for cheap unsafe construction, then can I say that a wind farm might break down and the blades fly off and kill someone?

nothing, i guess the wind turbine might fall over and hit a cow perhaps

Or the construction could cause landslides, like they did earlier this year here...

and deserts cover how much of the planets surface ?

Not enough. Not if you're going to cover all the world's energy needs with solar power.

I'm not going to pretend I know anything about the cost of solar cells but I would hazard a guess that covering 5 square miles with them would cost less than building a nuclear power plant

Doubtful. The last estimate I saw came to around $400 per square metre for thin-film photovoltaics (that was for '95). 5 square miles = 12,949,940 square metres = $5179976000 = €4,137,691,509. Your typical nuclear power plant costs around the $800-$1200 million mark.
Read this Oct.2004 economic report: http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

and you are talking about science fiction now

No, I'm talking about the current fission reactors we have. And fusion reactors aren't science fiction. Look up tomorrow when you're outside - that bright light up there is a fusion reactor...

Maybe you are, but if its true you are interested in keeping your arm steady, which is all target shooting is, its the only 'sport' a vice grips can beat a human at :eek:

Actually, humans outshoot benchrest vices. It's a well-known fact amongst target shooters with emperical evidence to back it up - and not just outdoors in varying wind and light, but on indoor test ranges. The human body is a better absorber of recoil than a lump of metal, it seems. And target shooting is not all about keeping perfectly still, it's about far more. Judging wind and light conditions, perfecting your technique, perfecting your technical setup and equipment, and above all else, mental focus and discipline.

LegacyUser

Sparks wrote:

Yes, I did. And since we need a set amount of ergs per day, you have to have a serious amount of excess capacity if you use wind and wave power to compensate. This, coupled with their low energy density, has consequences. First, you have to build all those plants. That creates pollution and carries safety risks. Then there's the eyesore factor, and then there's the little things like landslides that tend to happen around our wind farms for some reason...


If you're allowing for cheap unsafe construction, then can I say that a wind farm might break down and the blades fly off and kill someone?


Or the construction could cause landslides, like they did earlier this year here...


Not enough. Not if you're going to cover all the world's energy needs with solar power.


Doubtful. The last estimate I saw came to around $400 per square metre for thin-film photovoltaics (that was for '95). 5 square miles = 12,949,940 square metres = $5179976000 = €4,137,691,509. Your typical nuclear power plant costs around the $800-$1200 million mark.
Read this Oct.2004 economic report: http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm


No, I'm talking about the current fission reactors we have. And fusion reactors aren't science fiction. Look up tomorrow when you're outside - that bright light up there is a fusion reactor...


Actually, humans outshoot benchrest vices. It's a well-known fact amongst target shooters with emperical evidence to back it up - and not just outdoors in varying wind and light, but on indoor test ranges. The human body is a better absorber of recoil than a lump of metal, it seems. And target shooting is not all about keeping perfectly still, it's about far more. Judging wind and light conditions, perfecting your technique, perfecting your technical setup and equipment, and above all else, mental focus and discipline.

Sparks, you may have said it in an earlier post, but the one I quoted mentioned nothing about stability, just that it was the safest and least polluting, its about four up and it's still wrong, be honest and admit you are wrong, and comparing a propellor flying off with a major nuclear catastrophy does not deserve comment. As for deserts, not enough is also incorrect, if every square foot of desert were covered in solar panels it would power this planet umpteenth fold. As for looking at the sky, I see a star where fusion is triggered by the gravitational pull of mass a trillion times more massive than this whole planet, not a fusion reactor, there are none on this planet and as such it is science fiction. You may as well have talked about light speed travel and told me to switch on a torch. I will grant you that humans are currently more proficient at outdoor marksmanship than vices, given wind, and there is skill in such activities as clay pigion shooting and long distance rifle marksmanship, but indoor shooting with 22 pistols over short range I think not, lock a 22 pistol in a 50 tonne block of metal and there will be no recoil and a bullseye every shot, granted there are no such vices but if someone wanted to prove a point they could, I would imagine becoming proficient at indoor 22 target shooting is alot easier that becoming proficient at darts or pool.

Sparks

bananayoghurt wrote:

Sparks, you may have said it in an earlier post, but the one I quoted mentioned nothing about stability

Fine. On an erg for erg basis, a wind turbine produces less pollution than a nuclear plant. Unfortunately, we can't use wind or wave or solar power as a sole means of producing energy, so instead you get them used as supplementals to a gas-powered system, as is the case in Ireland - and the end result of that is a system that, erg for erg, produces more waste and pollution than a nuclear system.
Which was what I had in my mind at the time - after all, I can rig a hamster wheel to a generator for even less pollution, but I couldn't power the country off of hamster farms.

As for deserts, not enough is also incorrect, if every square foot of desert were covered in solar panels it would power this planet umpteenth fold.

It'd be unlikely to have that much excess capacity; and you'd bankrupt everyone by trying, not to mention the drain on the world's iridium supply (which is, don't forget, one of our least plentiful elements on this planet).

As for looking at the sky, I see a star where fusion is triggered by the gravitational pull of mass a trillion times more massive than this whole planet,

So you see a fusion reaction (or more accurately, light generated by a nuclear reaction).

there are none on this planet and as such it is science fiction.

There are many fusion reactors on this planet, just all experimental ones whose energy output hasn't yet exceeded their energy input. The margin, however, has grown smaller every year, and to say it's far-future sci-fi is to ignore reality.

I will grant you that humans are currently more proficient at outdoor marksmanship than vices, given wind, and there is skill in such activities as clay pigion shooting and long distance rifle marksmanship, but indoor shooting with 22 pistols over short range I think not

And you'd know this how? I've been shooting for a decade. How long have you been doing it for?

lock a 22 pistol in a 50 tonne block of metal and there will be no recoil and a bullseye every shot

There is always recoil - immobilise the barrel and you just expend the energy of the recoil in stressing the metal and damaging the firearm. And by embedding a firearm in a solid chunk of metal, you affect the harmonics of the barrel's resonance when you fire the shot, and thus its accuracy. You may find you don't get a bullseye every shot. And what about rapid-fire pistol? Five shots, four seconds, five seperate targets. How does your piece of metal cope with that?

if someone wanted to prove a point they could

Ammunition companies built such vices. Humans outshoot them. It's not conjecture, it's documented fact.

I would imagine becoming proficient at indoor 22 target shooting is alot easier that becoming proficient at darts or pool.

They're wholly different skills, and not comparable.

bonkey

/me looks at the thread title.
/me looks at the bickering which has been going on in the past day or so.

Any chance you guys could get back on topic???

omnicorp

yes sir.
Should people be allowed to bear arms for protection? antwhere?
I don't think so.

Sparks

Why not? Bears carry bigger arms than we generally do...

xm15e3

vibe666 wrote:

i agree that nobody needs an assault weapon (or just anything that looks scary) because you really don't need them. you don't need one to go hunting or pest control and you sure as hell don't need them for target shooting. in fact the only thing you really need them for is killing a lot of people really quickly, and aside from anti-terrorist units and the army i don't think anyone has a need, so get rid of them.

Ironically, hunting and shooting "varmints" are not rights. The RTKBA is solely for the purpose of killing and self defense. Whether it is an intruder or a government that has overstepped it's constitutional bounds (with or without majority support). In US vs. Miller, the US Supreme Court ruled that the ONLY arms US citizens have a right to bear are those in current military, or that support current military issue. Deer rifle and non-crew served machine guns included. It was a crap ruling, but to date is the only interpretation of the 2nd amendment we have. All other gun laws have been challenged and defeated or supported on other grounds.

AR 15s are the rifle of choice in service rifle competitions in the US now. Even out to 1000 yards. They will only become more dominant if the US adopts the 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC. (fingers crossed)

monument

Sparks wrote:

Why not? Bears carry bigger arms than we generally do...

[AGAIN] You don’t need a gun to rob someone, kill someone, kill yourself, or kill an animal.

Ranting about the idea of banning guns and saying it’ll have an effect on suicide numbers is PERFECT for a country that has hidden suicides in the numbers of nighttime one-car crashes.

The idea of banning guns is just like every typical ignorant idea that banning thing actually makes them go away. Or should I say every typical ignorant idea of trying to fix a problem at its end, rather then in source...

People, who have strong urges to kill them selves, or others, belong in a [err, good] mental healthy system. The vast majority of people who rob don’t do it for fun, but money – ban money? I think not. And if Omnicorp or others like in or not, hunting is legal, so it is a side issue.

Tackling the actual issue of what any constitution says - a constitution will of course normally lay something out, but legalisation will define what it actually means. Who is or has been in power will decide the definitions. Saying other wise is bs as even in the United States the law rules and restricts a number of constitution rights.

All of which just makes me think the original question was extremely flawed.

omnicorp

so the people who get killed by guns aren't important.
Do you want to tell their families that or shall I?

sceptre

omnicorp wrote:

so the people who get killed by guns aren't important.
Do you want to tell their families that or shall I?

I'd suggest a read of this and this

Sparks

omnicorp wrote:

so the people who get killed by guns aren't important.
Do you want to tell their families that or shall I?

Tell you what, you tell the families of those that get killed by car accidents, I'll tell those whose loved ones died from firearms accidents.

That gives you 367 families (maybe a bit less for those cases where several family members were all in the same car) for 2003 to get through; I've got none. In fact, if I spoke to every family who lost someone to a firearms accident since the founding of the state, I still wouldn't have as many to talk to as you do from just last year.

monument

I was going to reply with the whole guns don’t kill people, people do. However, that would only be going around in circles…

In light of sceptre’s post, do you have any other arguments for why guns should be banned? Because others and myself have explained why your current arguments are flawed, but all you can say in return is more emotive nonsense which [again] we’ve explained flawed.

LegacyUser

Sparks wrote:

Tell you what, you tell the families of those that get killed by car accidents, I'll tell those whose loved ones died from firearms accidents.

That gives you 367 families (maybe a bit less for those cases where several family members were all in the same car) for 2003 to get through; I've got none. In fact, if I spoke to every family who lost someone to a firearms accident since the founding of the state, I still wouldn't have as many to talk to as you do from just last year.

Sparks, here I was thinking you were for the right to bear arms yet have put forward the best argument for their banning, I wonder why there haven't been many accidental deaths, I'd guess it's because we can't go down the local kmart and buy a quart of milk, a doughnut and a 9mm semi auto which the kids are going to play with sooner or later.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

do you have a degree in missing the point?

LegacyUser

monument wrote:

I was going to reply with the whole guns don’t kill people, people do

The whole guns don't kill people, people do, is very true but a more accurate statement would be 'Guns give people who want to kill people the means to do so in an incredibly effective manner', I'm sure some will say but if they didn't use a gun they would just use something else, like a knife or a car or a blender, I'm sure some would, but a very small minority, especially in heat of the moment incidents, to pull out a gun and shoot someone takes a couple of seconds, to go home and get your car and go find the person lets most cool off.

bonkey

Sparks wrote:

Tell you what, you tell the families of those that get killed by car accidents, I'll tell those whose loved ones died from firearms accidents.

That gives you 367 families (maybe a bit less for those cases where several family members were all in the same car) for 2003 to get through; I've got none.

I'm still finding myself looking at the topic, and wondering....

How, exactly, do you make out that there were no victims of firearms accidents in the US last year? Or were you generalising and taking the whole world?

Seriously guys....I don't see how anyone can use Ireland as any sort of a relevant counter-point to the US. Sure, we've a better record, but we have that in the absence of a gun-culture. Whether or not things work here at present have no real relevance to whether or not they work in the US (if we are to nod in the direction of the topic once in a while), nor do they necessarily have any bearing on what the situation in Ireland might be if the rules were to change here. I don't think its a reasonable assumption to say that because the laws aren't leading to deaths that they should be relaxed.....but I do agree with some of what Sparks says concerning the notion that we need to distinguish between sports-firearms and firearms.

<aside>
I recall, interestingly, hearing from a friend who was into archery that someone who is qualified, and wearing competition whites, can legally carry an assembled bow in public. If I'm correct in that, isn't it somewhat funny how bows are considered "sports weapons", but target-pistols and target-rifles aren't, considering the damage-capability of an arrow vs. small-bore ammunition.
</aside>

At best, I think the strongest point which could be made about firearms in Ireland is that our laws are not unduly lax, given the lack of firearms-related accidents. That doesn't make a compelling case for anything except possibly to say that the US could be better off....but that in itself would be ignoring so many other relevant factors which have already been pointed out.

jc

LegacyUser

Mordeth wrote:

do you have a degree in missing the point?

No, I got the point, omicorp was asking about people killed by firearms and their importance and Sparks starts talking about car accidents again, 'Killed' means murdered too Sparks, stop talking about accidents, they are just that and have no bearing on ANYTHING. Oh yea, back to Mordeth, sparks was attempting to imply the safety of firearms by comparing accidental deaths in ireland by car with those of firearms, firstly, its a silly comparison and secondly he goes against himself as there are tight gun controlls in this country, hey presto, very few if no accidental deaths by firearms, so on the one hand he is saying guns dont kill people people do and gun control is not an answer etc etc, while on the other hand he is celebrating the minimal casualties of firearms in a country with very strict gun control :eek:

Sparks

I wonder why there haven't been many accidental deaths, I'd guess it's because we can't go down the local kmart and buy a quart of milk, a doughnut and a 9mm semi auto

Sorry, that doesn't fly. Not with 160,000+ shotguns and 40,000+ rifles in the country. If accidents were as common and as fatal as you imply, we'd see a lot more accidental deaths.

a more accurate statement would be 'Guns give people who want to kill people the means to do so in an incredibly effective manner'

Take a knife to your femoral or carotid arteries and you'll bleed to unconciousness in a little under thirty seconds and to complete exsanguation in ninty seconds to two minutes. I call that rather effective. And not a firearm in sight. And how many people carry penknives today?
Or what about hitting someone in the head with a brick or a two-by-four?
Or what about driving into them? Don't tell me that you'd have to go home to get your car, you're ignoring road rage.

And for a factual comparison, look at muzzle energy (the kinetic energy of the bullet as it leaves the end of the barrel). An air rifle has less than 7 joules (for the ISSF ones olympic shooters use - hunters might use ones with up to 20 joules for rabbits and the like). A .22lr round, whether from rifle or pistol, 190 joules. A 9mm round, up to about 600 joules. An AK-47 (just for comparison), 1,900 joules. A .50 calibre round, intended for materiel destruction (the most powerful round I could think of, short of mounted weapons) has a muzzle energy of about 17,000 joules.

Now your average car's kinetic energy? Say 1000kg, doing 40 mph - that's 160,000 joules, give or take. The NRA (no, not that one) says that speeding is a factor in most accidents, so let's say the car was speeding at the time and doing (say) 70mph (we're assuming this isn't on a motorway here). The kinetic energy is now about 490,000 joules.

Now you see why cars are more dangerous.

LegacyUser

bonkey wrote:

<aside>
I recall, interestingly, hearing from a friend who was into archery that someone who is qualified, and wearing competition whites, can legally carry an assembled bow in public. If I'm correct in that, isn't it somewhat funny how bows are considered "sports weapons", but target-pistols and target-rifles aren't, considering the damage-capability of an arrow vs. small-bore ammunition.
</aside>

I'd imagin a good bow would develop alot more fp than a target pistol, so ye
a, if it's true tis a bit odd

Sparks

Okay, first, yes I was talking about Ireland JC. The stats for the US say there were 600 fatalities from firearms accidents in 2000. That year, they had 41,821 people killed in auto accidents.

bananayoghurt wrote:

No, I got the point, omicorp was asking about people killed by firearms and their importance and Sparks starts talking about car accidents again, 'Killed' means murdered too Sparks

Certainly it does. Are you now saying that anyone who owns a gun is automatically a murderer?

See, if you abuse a thing to commit a homicide, that doesn't mean that banning that thing will prevent homicides in the future. Let's say, for a moment - and you have to throw out a lifetime of precedent for this - that I want to murder you. Well, the first thing I'd do is get a bottle of whiskey and my car and run you over at about 60mph and then drain the bottle, thus setting myself up for a death by dangerous driving charge, which carries a much lighter sentence. Failing that, I could buy a 9mm pistol on the black market, buy a sword from a martial arts shop on the open market, buy a knife from any kitchen shop, buy drain cleaner from any DIY store... the list is rather exhaustive, and unless you chop off my hands and knock out my teeth, there will be some things you just can't ban that I could conceivably kill you with.

Basicly, you need to address the motive, not the means; or failing that, address the deterrent.

stop talking about accidents, they are just that and have no bearing on ANYTHING.

On the contrary, unless you believe in condemning someone as a murderer before they even consider committing a crime, then accidents are the only statistic you can look at.

secondly he goes against himself as there are tight gun controlls in this country, hey presto, very few if no accidental deaths by firearms

Nope, that doesn't fly either. There are 200,000+ firearms in the country at the moment, and while the firearms laws aren't lax by any means, they're not restrictive either. If you're over 18, haven't had a criminal record in the last 5 years, and have a place to shoot and a reason to want to shoot, you can have a firearm. That's the firearms act summed up in a single phrase, really.

while on the other hand he is celebrating the minimal casualties of firearms in a country with very strict gun control :eek:

No, I'm saying that firearms aren't as dangerous as you make them out to be. They're like power tools for the most part - point either at your head and you'll have a bad day, but used properly, they're a useful tool and noone gets harmed. It's criminals you're pointing to when you say guns are dangerous - and you'll note that despite our excellent safety record for legally held firearms, the safety record for firearms held by criminals (and we're talking 9mm pistols and AK-47s here literally) is dire, because these people deliberately shoot other people. (And stab them, beat them and so on).

In other words, you look at criminals, say they're dangerous, and propose to solve the problem by slapping the law-abiding people with laws that the criminals won't follow.

It won't work, basicly put.

Sparks

bananayoghurt wrote:

I'd imagin a good bow would develop alot more fp than a target pistol, so ye
a, if it's true tis a bit odd

Hunting bows get up to around 90 joules. So not quite a .22lr round, but more than the .22 short round that was used for the olympic rapid-fire event up to this year (65 joules).

LegacyUser

Sparks wrote:

Certainly it does. Are you now saying that anyone who owns a gun is automatically a murderer?

no, I am saying the 15,000 odd firearms owners who do murder someone every year are murderers, but you ignore them and just talk about accidental deaths

See, if you abuse a thing to commit a homicide, that doesn't mean that banning that thing will prevent homicides in the future. Let's say, for a moment - and you have to throw out a lifetime of precedent for this - that I want to murder you. Well, the first thing I'd do is get a bottle of whiskey and my car and run you over at about 60mph and then drain the bottle, thus setting myself up for a death by dangerous driving charge, which carries a much lighter sentence. Failing that, I could buy a 9mm pistol on the black market, buy a sword from a martial arts shop on the open market, buy a knife from any kitchen shop, buy drain cleaner from any DIY store... the list is rather exhaustive, and unless you chop off my hands and knock out my teeth, there will be some things you just can't ban that I could conceivably kill you with.

Contrary to popular opinion it is rather hard to run a particular person over, if I hear a reving engine approaching I would look, see you coming and hop over the nearest wall while laughing as you crash in your vain attempt to hit me, were this a viable method there would be a hell of alot more hit and run fatalities, people kill people for a living you know, if it was an option it would be used but it isn't hence it's not and talk of it is ridiculous. If firearms were banned in the US and a concerted effort to remove all weapons from the streets there would be a drop in murders commited by firearms, it's impossible to say what the drop would be but there would be one, and the longer the ban stayed in force the lower the figures would go.

Basicly, you need to address the motive, not the means; or failing that, address the deterrent.

so why ban heroin or cocaine ?

Nope, that doesn't fly either. There are 200,000+ firearms in the country at the moment, and while the firearms laws aren't lax by any means, they're not restrictive either. If you're over 18, haven't had a criminal record in the last 5 years, and have a place to shoot and a reason to want to shoot, you can have a firearm. That's the firearms act summed up in a single phrase, really.

There are firearms and there are firearms, I can't walk around the city center with a double barrell shotgun tucked down my trousers.

No, I'm saying that firearms aren't as dangerous as you make them out to be. They're like power tools for the most part - point either at your head and you'll have a bad day, but used properly, they're a useful tool and noone gets harmed.

A firearm used properly results in the death of a person, they are not for putting holes in cardboard cutouts, a nailgun used properly will result in a something being constructed, a firearm used properly with result in a death

It's criminals you're pointing to when you say guns are dangerous - and you'll note that despite our excellent safety record for legally held firearms, the safety record for firearms held by criminals (and we're talking 9mm pistols and AK-47s here literally) is dire, because these people deliberately shoot other people. (And stab them, beat them and so on).

In other words, you look at criminals, say they're dangerous, and propose to solve the problem by slapping the law-abiding people with laws that the criminals won't follow.
It won't work, basicly put.

You talk about criminals like they are a seperate species, heres a shocker for you, every last criminal was a law abiding person untill they commited a crime, and every one of the future murdering criminals is one of the law abiding people you speak about, and you want them to be able to buy the weapons they will use to kill

Sparks

bananayoghurt wrote:

no, I am saying the 15,000 odd firearms owners who do murder someone every year are murderers, but you ignore them and just talk about accidental deaths

So you've verified that those 15,000 murderers all bought their firearms legally and had all the paperwork up to date? Because I would love to hear how you can do that when Mac-10s have been used to kill people in the US and they cannot be legally owned over there.

You're blaming the law-abiding for acts of criminals again. Now a car insurance company might be able to use that principle, but legislation drafters cannot.

Contrary to popular opinion it is rather hard to run a particular person over

The 86 pedestrians killed by cars last year would beg to differ, if they weren't unable to.

if I hear a reving engine approaching I would look, see you coming and hop over the nearest wall while laughing as you crash in your vain attempt to hit me

Is there a reason for this fantasist viewpoint, or do you just not accept the fact that the gardai reported 1120 pedestrians injured in car accidents in 2002 as well as 86 killed? A car moves at 60 mph, a human at top speed can hit 23mph (and that's the olympic record - can you match that? If so, John Treacy would like a word...). The math is pretty simple.

people kill people for a living you know

Really? Must have missed that in school at the career day. Or are you saying that criminals who murder people are pursuing a valid career?

If firearms were banned in the US and a concerted effort to remove all weapons from the streets there would be a drop in murders commited by firearms, it's impossible to say what the drop would be but there would be one, and the longer the ban stayed in force the lower the figures would go.

Handguns were banned in the UK and a concerted effort made to remove all of them from the streets. Now, a few years later, firearms crime is up by a large margin (as evidenced by a Home Office report released in the last few days). This margin averaged at 35% over all the UK, but was running at nearer 200% in some areas in London. Therefore, gun crime levels and gun control are not necessarily linked as you say they are.
If the UK's too odd for you, you can look up the Australian case, which is similar; or Canada; or Lott's description of the same phenonomen over 25 years in every county in every state in the US.

so why ban heroin or cocaine ?

Because both of these have physiological effects that negate the deterrent and require actual medical treatment to eliminate a dependance on.

There are firearms and there are firearms, I can't walk around the city center with a double barrell shotgun tucked down my trousers.

One would hope you wouldn't try. Firstly because it'd be a certain way to remove yourself from the gene pool and secondly because it's illegal to do so.

A firearm used properly results in the death of a person

Bull hockey. You're stating that all firearms are designed to kill humans; they're not. A minority of rifles designed for police and the military are - but those are a minority.

they are not for putting holes in cardboard cutouts

Really? Mine are.

a firearm used properly with result in a death

Or a gold medal. Or a meal to put on the table. Or the elimination of a pest that prevents the farming of meat animals. Or just a fun day spent on the range shooting at targets, be they paper, clay or metal.

You talk about criminals like they are a seperate species, heres a shocker for you, every last criminal was a law abiding person untill they commited a crime

Here's a further shocker, most people who murder someone have a criminal record already. And aren't permitted to own a firearm. And therefore are breaking the gun control laws when they murder someone.

So, if they're already breaking the law and killing people, why would another law stop them?

and every one of the future murdering criminals is one of the law abiding people you speak about

And every man's a rapist too, I suppose?

and you want them to be able to buy the weapons they will use to kill

To use a fictional (but highly accurate and expressive and concise) quote on the matter, supposedly delivered to a female journalist expressing the same concern on hearing of boy scouts being taught firearms safety because she thought they were being equipped to become killers; "Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?"

monument

“especially in heat of the moment incidents, to pull out a gun and shoot someone takes a couple of seconds, to go home and get your car and go find the person lets most cool off.”

You just don’t get the point, you don’t need a gun, or a car, or a knife to kill someone. In ‘heat of the moment incidents’ humans are ‘incredibly effective’ killers with or without additional weapons.

“Contrary to popular opinion it is rather hard to run a particular person over, if I hear a reving engine approaching I would look, see you coming and hop over the nearest wall while laughing as you crash in your vain attempt to hit me,”

To paraphrase omnicorp, do you want to tell that to the families of the victims of bus crash on the quays or shall I? [sic] In a city, town, or even on the side of a back road, people are of course cautious, but most people don't think drivers are out to get them, and they don’t know when a driver might lose control or target them. And in most cases you have realistically just about as much of a chance of dodging bullets as dodging a car heading straight for you.

LegacyUser

monument wrote:

You just don’t get the point, you don’t need a gun, or a car, or a knife to kill someone. In ‘heat of the moment incidents’ humans are ‘incredibly effective’ killers with or without additional weapons.

ok, well you should tell that to the armed forces of all nations, 'yo, lads, forget them guns, just throw a slap or two :eek: '
might free up valuable money to be invested in more worthy causes

monument wrote:

To paraphrase omnicorp, do you want to tell that to the families of the victims of bus crash on the quays or shall I? [sic] In a city, town, or even on the side of a back road, people are of course cautious, but most people don't think drivers are out to get them, and they don’t know when a driver might lose control or target them. And in most cases you have realistically just about as much of a chance of dodging bullets as dodging a car heading straight for you.

there are millions of vehicles on the road, of course people are going to die in accidents, but that is an accident, not a deliberate malicious act. I still don't understand how you guys can't distinguish an accident from a deliberate murder. NOBODY was convicted of murder by car in this country in I don't know how long, I don't think there has even been a conviction of murder by car in the history of the state, If I'm wrong in saying that then maybe one or two but there have been hundreds by firearms, and as for the states which is what we are talking about there have been hundreds of thousands of murders by firearms and I doubt if even a couple of hundred by car. Why ?, because a car is a means of transport not a weapon, i can't drive a car into your house and run you over, or into a pub and run you over, or sneak up behind you in a car, I can't pull a car out of my pocket if you piss me off, i can't point a car at a bank teller and say give me your money or ill get in this car and run you over. Just for a second consider the logistics of trying to kill someone with a car, firstly you could only do it as they cross the road because to mount a standard kerb at the speed nescessary to kill would cause instant loss of control of the car, uncertainty of actually hitting the person after loss of control, certainty of causing yourself serious harm and certainty of capture. To be able to hit someone as they crossed the road you would have to follow them around while keeping a few hundred yards behind, waiting for them to cross the road so you can hit the accelerator, not likely. As I said before, people do make a living killing people, and they use firearms, not cars because cars are designed to get you from A to B and firearms are designed to fire a high speed projectile through the human body causing enough damage to render it non functional.