The US constitution and the right to "Bear Arms"

Sparks

bananayoghurt wrote:

ok, well you should tell that to the armed forces of all nations

Nice to know that armed forces are used by nation states on a "heat of the moment" basis. I was afraid we might see all this legal mumbo-jumbo getting in the way...

that is an accident, not a deliberate malicious act

Which is exactly what we're trying to tell you applies to firearms. It just doesn't seem to be accepted. Firearms are legally owned for purposes other than shooting humans. In fact, the vast majority of firearms are owned and designed for purposes other than shooting humans. The fact that criminals misuse already-illegal firearms in illegal acts cannot be used to draft legislation for the law-abiding with any kind of ethical or moral authority.

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

That's because it's listed as "Manslaughter (Traffic Fatality)". Four reported cases in 2002, as opposed to 52 cases of "Murder" and 7 of "Manslaughter".

there have been hundreds by firearms

None of which were legally held. If an AK-47 is used in a murder in Ireland or the US or the UK or Canada, you can be pretty sure it was illegal to own that firearm in the first place. Assault rifles, don't forget, have been strictly controlled in all three states before they were even invented as the legislation for fully automatic firearms was in place before 1944 in all three countries. So banning all firearms wouldn't have stopped those murders and would only have had the effect of punishing the 200,000 odd people who own firearms in Ireland for perfectly legitimate reasons in compliance with every law out there and who contribute a total of €8.74 million to the exchequer for the privilege. The same argument applies to the vast majority of the firearms murders in the states.

because a car is a means of transport not a weapon

Really? You drive to the shops in a McLaren F1 car do you?

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.

Going to ban knives as well, are you?

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

Don't be silly. At 30mph, your chances of survival as a pedestrian hit by a car are estimated at about 3%. And besides, a pavement's not that broad that you could mount it in a car and miss a person walking on it.

As I said before, people do make a living killing people

You say that like it's legitimate. You're talking about murderers here, don't forget.

firearms are designed to fire a high speed projectile through the human body causing enough damage to render it non functional.

Nope, they're not. Not even the military ones.

LegacyUser

Sparks wrote:

In fact, the vast majority of firearms are owned and designed for purposes other than shooting humans

How can you make statements like that and be expected to be taken seriously, do you think the largest industry on the planet ie arms industry, caters for 22 sport pistol target shooters, i think not, If even 1 % of weapons produced globally were aimed at target shooting or pest control markets I would be very surprised, I could go look up some figures but the statement is too incredulous to bother.

That's because it's listed as "Manslaughter (Traffic Fatality)". Four reported cases in 2002, as opposed to 52 cases of "Murder" and 7 of "Manslaughter".

I see, a while ago you were saying all shooting deaths should be considered accidents untill proven otherwise, now you are saying people convicted of manslaughter are actually murderers, hmmmm ?,
they were listed as manslaughter because they were manslaughter, none were premeditated

None of which were legally held.

and more nonsense, it just keeps coming, no one has ever been killed in the history of the state with a legally held firearm according to Sparks, DUH
I personally know a guy who killed his girlfriend with his pest control shotgun after hearing she was cheating, a very large percentage were legally held I'm sure

Going to ban knives as well, are you?

it's already an offense to carry one

Don't be silly. At 30mph, your chances of survival as a pedestrian hit by a car are estimated at about 3%. And besides, a pavement's not that broad that you could mount it in a car and miss a person walking on it.

yes, but what happens to you after you hit the kerb and lose control ?
just step out of a car wreck and whistle dixie ?
no, just die or go to the hospital, or if you had airbags to jail with some whiplash. Thats why noone does it, its a car, not a weapon.

You say that like it's legitimate. You're talking about murderers here, don't forget.

No, I say it like it's a fact, and the people who do it dont kill with cars, they use firearms because that is what they are designed for and the do the job well

Nope, they're not. Not even the military ones.

A while back you asked me not to assume you were a cs kiddie wanting to see people hurt, now you are telling me how bullets kill people (or don't), I thought your interest was in cardboard ?
I shall rephrase it so
firearms are designed to fire a high speed projectile at the human body and empart enough of it's energy unto the human body as to make it non functional.

Sparks

bananayoghurt wrote:

How can you make statements like that and be expected to be taken seriously

Because I'm right. The majority of firearms produced annually are for hunting animals. The most popular being shotguns, and .22 rifles aren't too far behind. Military firearms are a minority, though not a tiny one, but the vast majority are designed for things other than shooting humans.

I could go look up some figures but the statement is too incredulous to bother.

Someone with ten years experience tells you something and your first instinct is not to bother to check it because it sounds like something you don't expect?
There's an interesting attitude.

I see, a while ago you were saying all shooting deaths should be considered accidents untill proven otherwise

Nope, I didn't. I said that firearms accidents were firearms accidents. They're tracked seperately from murders because they're not the same thing.

now you are saying people convicted of manslaughter are actually murderers, hmmmm? they were listed as manslaughter because they were manslaughter, none were premeditated

I think you may need to go look up past statements of Gardai regarding deaths caused by drunken driving. There was rather infamously a policy not to prosecute in those cases. I remember a great deal of outrage when this was discovered publicly to be the case.

and more nonsense, it just keeps coming, no one has ever been killed in the history of the state with a legally held firearm according to Sparks

It's customary to wait for a short period of time before misquoting someone so blatently so that people can't observe what was said originally with great ease. Otherwise they know you're doing it and the tactic doesn't work.

You said there were hundreds killed, the only possible source of that is the paramilitary and criminal murders in the last few decades. I pointed out that those weapons were illegal from day one. In the entire history of the state there haven't been more then twenty murders committed with legally held firearms by their owners or their owner's families.

a very large percentage were legally held I'm sure

Not according to the Gardai, who cite stolen firearms as the main source of firearms used in crime where the firearm came from the legal shooting community. (They also point out, however, that illegally smuggled firearms are a much more serious problem - you can't own an AK-47 legally in this country, yet they were used in quite a lot of shootings recently).
Again, criminals are the problem here, not law-abiding people who own firearms.

it's already an offense to carry one

I didn't ask if it was an offence to carry one in a public place, I asked if you were going to ban them. After all, it's an offence to carry a firearm in a public place, but you're saying that that's not enough for firearms - why is it enough for knives?

Thats why noone does it, its a car, not a weapon.

Tell me that the day after someone drives over you. I'm sure you'll appreciate the difference then. Assuming that you're very, very, very lucky that is.

No, I say it like it's a fact, and the people who do it dont kill with cars, they use firearms because that is what they are designed for and the do the job well

Firearms are not all designed to kill humans, in fact only a small minority of them are. How often must I repeat this?
And murder's illegal, by the way - so you don't "make your living at it", you're just committing several acts of homicide. It's not a career path. :rolleyes:

A while back you asked me not to assume you were a cs kiddie wanting to see people hurt, now you are telling me how bullets kill people (or don't), I thought your interest was in cardboard ?

Yup. Never fired at anything but paper in my entire life, never wanted to. But practicality insists that a range officer understand how a bullet wounds people or they can't provide decent first aid treatment in case an accident happens. Now I know that it's been 203 years since we had an accident on a target shooting range in Ireland, but that's mainly because we learn these things. It encourages you not to muck about.

I shall rephrase it so
firearms are designed to fire a high speed projectile at the human body and empart enough of it's energy unto the human body as to make it non functional.

No, they're not, no more than cars are designed to drive at 200mph.

Capt'n Midnight

U.S. Department of Justice · Bureau of Justice Statistics
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm#contents
"This site contains a series of charts that describe homicide patterns and trends in the United States since 1976. "

Homicides are most often committed with guns,
especially handguns


Homicides of teens and young adults are much more likely to be
committed with a gun than homicides of persons of other ages


Most law enforcement officers are killed with firearms, particularly handguns

Sparks

But nowhere in that entire site does it list how many firearms used in homicides were legally or illegally held Capn, and many of the graphs are somewhat strange. Look at this one, for example:



So we see that closing on 100% of gang-related homicides used a gun, 75% of felony homicides, and 60-65% of homicides related to arguments or "other".

But there's no indication of which of those four categories is the larger. And it's all done in % so there's no indication of which is the larger problem. Is it that there were tens of thousands of gang-related homicides and a few dozen argument-related? Or the other way around? And of all those firearms used, how many were legal? We know that the stereotypical gang shooting generally uses things like Mac-10s and AK-47s - but those are both illegal in the states, so to say that a homicide committed by a drug dealer with a Mac-10 should be used as an argument to ban all firearms, everywhere, is like saying that because a british au pair shook a baby to death, no briton should ever be allowed work in childcare ever again. It's called group punishment and it's judged to be immoral, unethical and even illegal in many places.

The statistic you're looking for is one where you see how many people died in firearms-related incidents in a year, and then how many of those were: accidents involving legally held firearms; accidents involving illegal firearms; murders by legally held firearms; murders by illegally held firearms; genuine self-defence acts by legally held firearms; genuine self-defence acts by illegal.
Get that statistic, then compare it to how many firearms were legally held that year, and then you'll see the true nature of the problem we're talking about.

And on the whole "ordinary people who buy guns are going to become murderers" theme:

"Research consistently shows that populations of homicide offenders and victims generally have higher-than-average rates of arrest and conviction for a variety of offenses. The National Criminal Justice Commission estimates that about 30 million Americans--approximately 15% of the U.S. population over age 15--have an arrest record (citations omitted). Studies of homicide, however, reveal that typically about 70% of U.S. offenders have been arrested in the past (usually more than once; see [Wolfgang, Marvin E. 1958. Patterns in Criminal Homicide. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press. P. 177]) and about 50% have been convicted of an offense (see Kleck and Bordua, 1983:293). ...

"Less is known about the criminal record of victims, but the same pattern is evident. In Wolfgang's (1958:175, 180) study of criminal homicide in Philadelphia during 1948-1952, almost half of the victims had a history of arrest."
--- Cooney, Mark. 1997. "The decline of elite homicide." Criminology 35:381-407.

In other words, in the vast majority of homicide cases, the accused had a criminal record already. Now it varies from state to state, but in general there's a law saying that you can't own a firearm if you've had a criminal act on your record in the last few years (In Ireland, for reference, you can't own one if you've a criminal record until five years after you finish your sentence or after your conviction if there was no jail time involved). So those firearms would have been illegally held in the first place. In other words, had the law been enforced, those murders would have been prevented.
Oddly enough, that's precisely what the NRA has been calling for for years - make it illegal for any felony offender to own any firearm, and rigidly enforce those rules.

monument

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

Oh, sorry were we talking about armies?


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.

So why are the pro-banning side going on and on about accidental shootings? And no not all guns are designed to kill humans, and there are protection uses for guns.

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 was replying to your comments on how hard it was to kill with a car, which is bs.

But never mind, instead take the amount of accidental shootings to car killings – it’s obvious that on the topic of accidental deaths, cars would be the first to be banned.

I can't pull a car out of my pocket if you piss me off

A fist, foot, knife, screw driver, scissors, hammer, rope, glass bottle, stool etc could used just as easily be used as a gun been taking out of someone’s pocket – yet, I don’t remember myself or any others advocating allowing handguns on one’s person in public.

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.

No, but a knife, syringe, etc could just as easily be used – you're continuing to blame guns for robbing, other crimes, and other problems.

You’re continuing to blame a tool for what you see as improper human behaviour. If you want to stop people from killing each other, them selves, or animals you have to change mind sets, changing the tool wont do anything.

Sparks

On an interesting side note, Mothers Against Guns, an anti-guncrime organisation in the UK, attended a conference in July in London on gun crime and gun control, in association with the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, and stated publicly that legitimate shooters are not the cause of the gun crime problem and that they are not against the legitimate shooting sports at all.

So if MAG see the situation like that, and they're a group of people who've lost children to gun crime, why do you have such an issue with it banana?

Capt'n Midnight

Sparks wrote:

..In other words, had the law been enforced, those murders would have been prevented.
Oddly enough, that's precisely what the NRA has been calling for for years - make it illegal for any felony offender to own any firearm, and rigidly enforce those rules.

No I don't buy that argument that ONLY KNOWN FELONS commit gun murders. It's like bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted. How many people were killed by Legally held fireams ?? - I assume that ALL of the Justifible Homicided were with legal weapons.

Unless you insist that gun owners carry permits at all times and have random searches such that a person is likely to be detected (not like the speed traps here) regularly AND instead of just confiscation you have an immediate arrest policy with a mandatory sentence for resisting arrest, and a miminum of a heavy fine if the person does indeed have turn out to have left their permit at home you aren't going to impact at all in the carrige of illegally held firearms. Back in Crete when the British army were there they used to hang people caught with Guns. In the UK it's a minimum of five year prison sentence and they still had 10,000 gun incidents there last year.

PS. if you click on the graphs on the site they give the stats.
Also I haven't looked up stats on injuries

Sparks

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

No I don't buy that argument that ONLY KNOWN FELONS commit gun murders.

I wouldn't either, but that's okay because that's not what I said.
What I said was that the majority of those who commit an act of homicide in the US have criminal records already (and the citation put the actual figure at 70% for arrests and 50% for actual convictions). This isn't a US-only phenonomen, by the way, it's a pretty standard criminological trend. People, by and large, don't just up and murder someone in cold blood after a lifetime of abiding by the law and not having any trouble with the police.

I assume that ALL of the Justifible Homicided were with legal weapons.

Maybe - but maybe not. I'd want to see the actual statistics first, you know?

Unless you insist that gun owners carry permits at all times

That's the legal requirement already you know - permit stays with the firearm at all times...

you aren't going to impact at all in the carrige of illegally held firearms.

Really? The actual record says otherwise. Besides, what the NRA is calling for (and I'm surprised more people don't agree with the idea) is that if you ever commit a felony, then you are never again allowed own a gun legally; and that illegal possession of a firearm be made far more serious an offence than it is today.

In the UK it's a minimum of five year prison sentence and they still had 10,000 gun incidents there last year.

Which is up quite a lot from when they banned handguns, isn't it? Odd that. You'd almost think that a ban on legally held firearms wasn't getting gun crime under control...

LegacyUser

Sparks wrote:

Because I'm right.

no sparks, you are wrong

The majority of firearms produced annually are for hunting animals. The most popular being shotguns, and .22 rifles aren't too far behind. Military firearms are a minority, though not a tiny one, but the vast majority are designed for things other than shooting humans.

funny how the most popular are shotguns when the AK 47 is the most populous weapon on the planet

Nope, I didn't. I said that firearms accidents were firearms accidents. They're tracked seperately from murders because they're not the same thing.

why not read what you said, but I'll tell you anyway, you said ALL deaths by firearms were accidents unless you want to classify someone as a murderer before they are convicted

I think you may need to go look up past statements of Gardai regarding deaths caused by drunken driving. There was rather infamously a policy not to prosecute in those cases. I remember a great deal of outrage when this was discovered publicly to be the case.

So you are trying to say someone pissed out of thier head on drink still had the ability to track and kill someone with their car, ummm no, they were just drunk drivers who hit someone

It's customary to wait for a short period of time before misquoting someone so blatently so that people can't observe what was said originally with great ease. Otherwise they know you're doing it and the tactic doesn't work.

I didn't misquote you, I mentioned nothing about paramilitaries, I said hundreds had been murdered by firearms, and you responded by saying none of those were legally held which was simply ridiculous. If you are incapable of expressing what you actually mean then it is not my fault for accurately quoting what you said but did not mean, I am not psychic.

Not according to the Gardai, who cite stolen firearms as the main source of firearms used in crime where the firearm came from the legal shooting community. Again, criminals are the problem here, not law-abiding people who own firearms.

well then, lets ban all legally held firearms, no more thefts of them to use in criminal activity.

I didn't ask if it was an offence to carry one in a public place, I asked if you were going to ban them. After all, it's an offence to carry a firearm in a public place, but you're saying that that's not enough for firearms - why is it enough for knives?

Knives are a usefull tool, firearms are for killing

Tell me that the day after someone drives over you. I'm sure you'll appreciate the difference then

If I am ever unfortunate enough to be run over I will accept it as the accident it was and not some loon with a gun fetish wanted to see up close what happens to a skull when hit by a supersonic projectile

Firearms are not all designed to kill humans, in fact only a small minority of them are. How often must I repeat this?

You can repeat it till you are blue in the face, but for every model of firearms not designed to kill humans I will give you 10 that are

And murder's illegal, by the way - so you don't "make your living at it", you're just committing several acts of homicide. It's not a career path. :rolleyes:

But they still use firearms Sparky, murderers use your toys to kill

No, they're not, no more than cars are designed to drive at 200mph

Yes they are, that is what they are designed to do, firearms were invented and designed to kill, that is their primary purpose, target shooting is a tiny tiny spinoff

Sparks

bananayoghurt wrote:

no sparks, you are wrong

Shall I say I'm right again? We could do this ad nauseum, but the facts are that you've not shown evidence that says I'm wrong, and I've shown evidence that says I'm right.

funny how the most popular are shotguns when the AK 47 is the most populous weapon on the planet

It's not, unless by "weapon" you mean "battlefield rifle". The AK-47 (and variants) is the most successful assault rifle of all time. That doesn't make it the most common firearm owned today. Remember, of the 500 million or so firearms in the world, over 300 million are in the hands of civilians and they don't hold AK-47s.
And shotguns are the most popular - look at the irish statistics today: 160,000 shotguns versus 40,000 rifles.

why not read what you said, but I'll tell you anyway, you said ALL deaths by firearms were accidents unless you want to classify someone as a murderer before they are convicted

No, I said:

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.

Go. Read it. That's what I said, in black and white. Or whatever colour scheme you're using. And for the cheap seats, that means that if there are 26600 firearms-related deaths in the US, and 16000 of them are suicides and 10000 of them are murders and 600 of them are accidents (that's close to the actual figures by the way) then the only statistic you can meaningfully look at is the 600 - because all the others are deliberate abuses of firearms and/or deliberate illegal acts, usually done with illegally held firearms. That means that 26000 of the statistics you're quoting have nothing to do with the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners and cannot be ethically used to draft laws governing them.

So you are trying to say someone pissed out of thier head on drink still had the ability to track and kill someone with their car, ummm no, they were just drunk drivers who hit someone

You know, I'm getting tired of stating something clearly, then having you come along and tell me I said something else. Go back, read my post. Then we'll talk.

I didn't misquote you, I mentioned nothing about paramilitaries, I said hundreds had been murdered by firearms

Ah, I see. You're saying that hundreds have been murdered by firearms in this country not counting the people murdered by illegally held firearms?
Well, guess what. Wrong. Garda statistics prove you're wrong.

well then, lets ban all legally held firearms, no more thefts of them to use in criminal activity

Didn't read what I said, did you?
And for those wondering, the local garda who grants you your licence can place preconditions on your licence such as secure storage; and by christmas it will become mandatory to prove you have secure storage; and most legitimate shooters already have gun safes anyway, because oddly enough, we know how much damage firearms can do and don't want to see accidents caused by improper storage - and have more motive to want to prevent that than most, because such accidents would hit us first.

Knives are a usefull tool, firearms are for killing

This is a useful tool, is it?

So why is it designed for use by the USMC for killing people with?

And firearms are no more for killing than cars are for travelling at 200mph.

You can repeat it till you are blue in the face, but for every model of firearms not designed to kill humans I will give you 10 that are

Perhaps you're not hearing me. I'll repeat, slowly, and using small words. For every one gun made to kill people, there are about twenty guns made for other purposes.

But they still use firearms Sparky, murderers use your toys to kill

I doubt it severely. Any idea how long it'd take to kill someone with an air rifle whose pellets will barely break skin unless you're within a few feet of them?

Yes they are, that is what they are designed to do, firearms were invented and designed to kill, that is their primary purpose, target shooting is a tiny tiny spinoff

Nope. You're not listening again, and this could just go round and round until JC gets tired and closes the thread, and you still won't be right, you'll just think you are. The vast, vast majority of firearms are not made to kill people.

Look, answer my question - why would Mothers Against Guns be perfectly happy to support legitimate firearms ownership and use if all guns were only designed for killing humans or if owning a gun automatically made you a murderer?

LegacyUser

Ok Sparks to cut to the chase, answer this question, would you prefer a world with or without firearms

therecklessone

bananayoghurt wrote:

Ok Sparks to cut to the chase, answer this question, would you prefer a world with or without firearms

Cut to the chase? Why not call it state the bleedin' obvious? Do you really need to ask Sparks that?

:rolleyes:

Sparks

Do I really need to answer that?

bonkey

Sparks wrote:

this could just go round and round until JC gets tired and closes the thread,

Funny that....

I'll give it till tomorrow morning to see if its worth leaving alone.

jc

LegacyUser

therecklessone wrote:

Cut to the chase? Why not call it state the bleedin' obvious? Do you really need to ask Sparks that?

:rolleyes:

Yes, it's a fair question, if he chooses without then all the arguments he makes for them are tainted, I assume Sparks that you would have said with.

therecklessone

bananayoghurt wrote:

if he chooses without then all the arguments he makes for them are tainted, I assume Sparks that you would have said with.

:eek:

What made you even suspect in the smallest possible way that he would say without?

bonkey

bananayoghurt wrote:

Yes, it's a fair question, if he chooses without then all the arguments he makes for them are tainted,

By what logic?

Personally, I'd consider anyone who thought that simply banning something legal would deal with those who commit somewhat-related illegal acts to be the one who's argument is "tainted"....but anyway...

The notion of a world without weapons is nothing less than a dream. It has absolutely no bearing on the reality of the situation. Not only that, but it doesn't even logically follow that if you want a world without guns, that the first thing you should do is simply make them illegal for citizens to own in your given nation.

A blanket ban on weapons will not solve the issue of those who acquire and use them ilegally in the first place...and these would appear to be the major problem which needs to be addressed.

So exactly how does the logic follow that if someone would prefer a world without guns that means that they must feel the best thing to do in a world with guns is a blanket ban???

Then again...I suppose a blanket ban on alcohol worked in the US during Prohibition*.

Just like a blanket ban on marijuana, heroin etc. has led to a drug-free world*.

So clearly its the right way to go...*

jc

* May not be entirely true

Sparks

At the risk of sounding evangelical, I thought I'd post this because all we've been asking is whether we can ethically ban firearms because of the illegal abuse of firearms by criminals; we've not actually seen the positive side of firearms - the benefits of shooting in other words (apart from the "defending yourself from bears" or "hunting for food" applications, that is). A while ago, the benefits of shooting were far more eloquently described by a US shooting coach than I've ever managed. So here's her take on it:

What Competitive Shooters Learn
Michèle K. Makucevich

Guns. An emotionally charged word with connotations that vary from Norman Rockwell-like images of a man and his hunting hound to gang clad teenagers and drive-by shootings. As political candidates and the media focus on firearms issues and school shootings capture the national headlines, gun-control is often called upon to supplant self-control in the public agenda.

And yet, my own view of firearms is, perhaps, very different from the norm. As a professional educator and a volunteer rifle coach for the past 16 years, I am frequently asked to, at best explain, at worst, defend, my involvement with guns and youth shooting. Often, when speaking with the media about the accomplishments of my athletes, I am confronted with politically based questions pertaining to legislation rather than sport. Unfortunately, it is no longer possible to separate the two. So, I would like to share a few of the many lessons that the shooting sports, particularly competitive shooting, impart.

Perseverance. Unlike many sports which are more dependent on physical stature or beauty, shooting is something anyone who is committed to improvement can excel at. Shooting athletes learn to continue trying even when faced with difficult challenges.

Part of learning perseverance, shooting athletes learn Patience.

With the tremendous effect the wind has on a .22 bullet at 100 yards, or even 50 meters, competitive marksmen learn to anticipate and correct for the wind's effect, and, when necessary, to wait for the return of their condition. Even when not compensating for the movement of the bullet due to wind, the competitive shooter must discipline herself to execute the shot only when her hold and sight picture are nearly perfect. Sometimes this requires taking several "holds", thus, the shooter learns not only patience, but Self Discipline.

Like any worthwhile goal, shooting, sometimes can take on the aspect of work. Practicing for hours each week with sore wrists and aching backs can wear on even the most enthusiastic competitor when the results seem slow in coming. Once again, shooting teaches the lesson that hard work, over time, will be rewarded. Those with the self-discipline to stick it out will prevail.

Problem Solving is a critical part of growing up and becoming more self-sufficient. Because of its individual nature, even beginning shooters learn to make decisions based on their performance and match conditions.

The way we view setbacks is important. Optimists attribute failure to something they can change rather than to something beyond their control. Shooting teaches Optimism. the competitive shooter searches for answers instead of dwelling on problems.

Junior shooters, then, feel more in control of their lives. They are better equipped to handle obstacles and, quite possibly, may be more successful in their future endeavors.

A large part of Optimism is to be positive in one's approach to the individual performance. As a coach, I have learned that the most successful athletes will focus on performance over score. While those who focus on score can be easily rattled by loss of points and are more subject to losing additional points, those who effectively concentrate on body control will not be flustered by an errant shot, but, instead, will analyze and correct for it.

I remember my coach telling me, "don't worry about the score, it will take care of itself. Concentrate on performance." Now that has become my mantra with my own pupils.

Even more important, perhaps, has been the effect that that simple idea has had on the various aspects of my life. As a teacher, I use the idea every day. Rather than concentrating solely on outcome, I have learned to recognize the effort and adherence to prescribed procedures when facing a difficult task.

On the range I have learned to "let the bad shot go." Yes, I analyze what went wrong. Yes, I develop a plan to prevent it form happening again. But, I have learned to accept my errors, do my best to correct them, and not let them dictate my future.

Competitive shooters learn that once the shot is down range, there is nothing you can do to change it. No amount of self-reproach will bring that 7 back, however, analysis and self-discipline will prevent it from happening again.

Concentration, one's ability to focus, and attention span, the length of time that one can devote attention exclusively to one subject, are both learned skills. Very few activities force one to unite mind and body in such an exacting way as shooting.

When parents of young children (ten or eleven years old) ask me what can be gained from participation in the shooting sports, I frequently ask them, "how would you like to see your child hold still for two hours?"

Of course, competitive shooting is about far more than merely holding still, but the point is, the ability to concentrate and focus generally has the effect of improving school grades as well. It is a learned skill.

Confidence, like concentration, is learned. Success builds upon success. For the competitive marksman, the feeling gained by mastering oneself and "beating that target" is a stepping stone to a confidence that "I can succeed in other areas as well." After shooting offhand, algebra and term papers are not so scary. Like success in shooting, they must be approached with a positive attitude. And, also like shooting, they both have a basic structure that need be adhered to, though, there is some room for adjusting to fit
the individual.

My shooters learn Responsibility as well. Certainly they gain this from a Safety standpoint, but they also gain this from a demand for Personal Accountability. When they shoot a personal best, they shot it. I may have been there to cheer them and put them in solid positions. I may have planned their training schedules and seen to it that they had the best equipment that they, or the club could afford. But, ultimately, they pulled the trigger. Conversely, when they have a poor performance, I am not the culprit. They shot the match. Maybe they went to a party the night before and didn't get adequate sleep. Maybe they tried making position changes in the middle of the competition. Maybe they just had a bad day. But, ultimately, they pulled the trigger. Shooters are held responsible for every shot they fire.

There are, of course, more lessons one learns from shooting. I honestly believe that my own involvement in the sport has helped me to become much more focused. I have born witness to the maturation of numerous youngsters through their involvement in the sport. I'm proud to say that I have had some hand in coaching a number of collegiate All Americans, some of whom, were it not for the scholarships they received, would never have attended college.

When some of my teaching colleagues invariably ask, "why do you promote shooting?" and "as a mother, how can you support guns?" My response is quite simple, "how can I not?"

As a mother, how wonderful that I have a sport that both of my children (a boy and a girl) can compete in equally. How unusual to find a sport that we can share as a family on a local, regional and national level. How fortunate I am to have a tool for teaching them perseverance, patience, self-discipline, problem solving, optimism, concentration, confidence, responsibility, and personal accountability.

As an educator, I have the opportunity, every day, to see how many of these life's lessons are sadly lacking in our youth. While it is unfortunate that the issues of gun control have caused the tools of my sport to be at the center of a maelstrom of controversy, the rifles used by myself and my athletes are no different to us than a bat to a baseball player, a racket to a tennis player, or a javelin to a track and field athlete. The focus of shooting is the ultimate control of mind over body, and, as such, it is one of the least violent of any sports. You don't tackle, check, punch or grab your opponent. Because it is a non-contact sport, it has an unequaled safety record. There are no injuries.

In this time when so much attention is being focused on respecting and recognizing differences, when politicians and school boards call for us all to find beauty in diversity, I find it disheartening and, even hypocritical, that such a cry does not extend to sport. I celebrate the differences that hold my sport separate from the rest. Shooting is the most egalitarian of all sports, men and women compete on equal terms. Our National Shooting Champions have ranged in age from 15 to their 70's. It is both a summer and winter sport in the Olympic Games. And, uniquely, it affords both individual and team events. The main reason I coach and continue to compete, however, is that shooting, as both a mental and physical discipline, fosters those attributes that I want my children to share and that I continue nurturing in myself.

Michèle Makucevich is a national record holder in both smallbore and long range rifle, a past Collegiate National Champion in air rifle, and the head coach for the Newport Rifle Club. She has been competing and coaching since 1985 and has represented the US in international competition as a member of the US Randle Team. She was recognized by the National Shooting Sports Foundation as the 1998 USA Shooting National Coach of the Year.

bonkey

Sparks wrote:

because all we've been asking is whether we can ethically ban firearms because of the illegal abuse of firearms by criminals;

Not quite. We've been discussing whether we can ethically ban firearms because people get killed by them. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that those in favour of banning them have been going out of their way to remove the distinction between illegal abuse and anything else such as accidents etc.

we've not actually seen the positive side of firearms - the benefits of shooting in other words

Do we need to?

Let me explain...

Lets say you're a pharma who produces a drug that, when used correctly, will save lives etc. etc. etc. for some number of users. Other users will get lesser benefits. Others will suffer disadvantages, and some will die as a result of taking this drug.

Do the benefits of the drug in some cases mean that it should be approved for widespread use by the FDA?

See, for me, saying that guns can be beneficial to some is like saying that the chemicals used in chemotherapy are beneficial to some. This is no excuse to allow those chemicals to be used in any situation other than the very tightly controlled circumstances that they are used in today.

Ultimately, the logical conclusion to Sparks' argument would seem - to me - to be nothing more than that we shouldn't classify all firearms together.

We don't anyway....but we don't classify them in a way that suits the target-shooting enthusiast, where most ppl seem to count most-probably-non-lethal weapons as being no different to many designed to be used on living creatures*

If guns were generally banned in the US in the morning, you'd probably still find that there would be exceptions - pest control being a major one for weapons designed to actually kill, and target-shooting would be another where it is actually difficult to make a reasonable case to say that the item in question should be banned without simply lumping it into a "super-class" definition with other items which should arguably be banned.

jc

*Note: while Sparks has argued that the vast majority of guns are not produced to kill people, the reality is that the vast majority of guns are produced to kill something. The gun doesn't care whether its aimed at a person or an animal. Its a bit like saying a car isn't designed to be driven on a runway: it isn't, but it won't really notice much difference when you do it.

civdef

Sparks wrote:

At the risk of sounding evangelical,

Preach the good news to the heathens Brother Sparks!

Sparks

bonkey wrote:

See, for me, saying that guns can be beneficial to some is like saying that the chemicals used in chemotherapy are beneficial to some. This is no excuse to allow those chemicals to be used in any situation other than the very tightly controlled circumstances that they are used in today.

Bit of a false analogy though JC, because you're looking at the application of one thing to all circumstances and using that as an analogy for a situation where there are a multitude of things each specifically designed for individual circumstances...

Ultimately, the logical conclusion to Sparks' argument would seem - to me - to be nothing more than that we shouldn't classify all firearms together.

Well, that's half of it - I'd like for people not to classify all firearms users together as well!

*Note: while Sparks has argued that the vast majority of guns are not produced to kill people, the reality is that the vast majority of guns are produced to kill something. The gun doesn't care whether its aimed at a person or an animal. Its a bit like saying a car isn't designed to be driven on a runway: it isn't, but it won't really notice much difference when you do it.

Doesn't really work that way JC. An airgun designed for killing animals like rabbits would be useless for killing a human unless you physically beat them about the head with the butt of the gun until you'd bludgeoned them to death. Smallbore rifles designed for hunting things like rabbits and foxes have the potential to kill humans, but generally only from a very (un)lucky shot - you'd have to hit a very small target area, pretty much either the cranium or the heart, whereas with guns designed to kill humans, like the M-16, the bullet is designed to fragment inside the body like a small bomb going off - the result being that being hit anywhere is going to leave a major wound, and anywhere in the torso will usually lead to a lethal wound. The round will also have a great deal of kinetic energy - around 1,900 joules compared to the 90-300 or so from smallbore rifles (the variance being due to different types of ammunition). And while the larger hunting rifles will kill humans by dint of the fact that humans are the same size or smaller than the animals the rifle is designed to kill, that's not to say that that's what they're intended for - a car will happily drive over a human, for example, but that's not why we invented suspension!

And don't forget - the vast majority of types of rifles are comprised of smallbore and air rifle types, not M-16s and elephant hunting guns...

bonkey

Sparks wrote:

Bit of a false analogy though JC, because you're looking at the application of one thing to all circumstances and using that as an analogy for a situation where there are a multitude of things each specifically designed for individual circumstances...

That article you posted referred to the theurapeutic effects that one use of firearms has / can have on one particular set of firearms users. But you didn't present it that way. You presented it as an example of "the positive side of firearms".

So, if I'm guilty of offering an example that is more specific than the general context, then its only because I was responding in kind to your good self having already done the exact same thing

Kind of you to point out the flaw in your argument so succinctly though

And don't forget - the vast majority of types of rifles are comprised of smallbore and air rifle types, not M-16s and elephant hunting guns...

Forgive me for being picky, but I'm not forgetting anything.

Up to now, you were arguing that most weapons were not designed for use on humans. That doesn't exclude shotguns, rifles etc of a bore designed to hunt animals, but which are large enough to kill a human.

Nor did you go to great lengths to point out that the vast majority aren't suitable for killing humans (in the sense that they won't be very good at it).

So it could have just been clever wording....which is what I wanted to clarify

Indeed, from your earlier post :

The majority of firearms produced annually are for hunting animals. The most popular being shotguns, and .22 rifles aren't too far behind.

Maybe I'm over-estmating what a shotgun can do, but isn't it somewhat disingenuous to be correcting me on how most rifles aren't dangerous when they're only the second-most-popular category?

I'd no doubt that a small-bore shotgun loaded with birdshot mightn't kill you, but can the same rifle not be loaded with a solid-slug shotgun cartridge, or at least a fewer-shots-of-higher-mass cartridge?

Would it not just be easier to tell us where we can find the figures?

jc

LegacyUser

bonkey wrote:

A blanket ban on weapons will not solve the issue of those who acquire and use them ilegally in the first place...and these would appear to be the major problem which needs to be addressed.

Yes, a blanket ban on firearm won't stop those who acquire and use them ilegally, but it will stop an awfull lot of those who do acquire them legally and use them to kill, it would also make firearms harder to aquire ilegally by way of a smaller black market in stolen legally held weapons. People often point to the UK and the gun ban there and say what did it accomplish, but 99.99% of gun crime there was due to criminal activity anyway, it wasn't going to stop gun crime but it was going to and has taken the means away from law abiding citizens who blow their top to go on a murderous rampage or shoot their wife or their neighbour or whoever. Hundreds if not thousands of murders in the US are by law abiding citizens who wouldn't kill but for the fact they have an easy means to.

bonkey

bananayoghurt wrote:

Yes, a blanket ban on firearm won't stop those who acquire and use them ilegally, but it will stop an awfull lot of those who do acquire them legally and use them to kill,

You've been asked for, and have yet to show, any figures which back up the "awful lot" term you're using. Just how many situations are we talking about here. Also, these are all the cases where nations like Ireland and Switzerland show that simply banning the weapons is not the only option to keep these figures very low.

it would also make firearms harder to aquire ilegally by way of a smaller black market in stolen legally held weapons.

Supposition, based on an assumption that a significant percentage of the black market is based on weapons that were once-legal-but-stolen...which is yet another figure I notice you've been happy to assume but not provide.

People often point to the UK and the gun ban there and say what did it accomplish, but 99.99% of gun crime there was due to criminal activity anyway,

But by your logic, the decrease in black-market availability should have had a significant effect on said criminal activity. Has it?

it wasn't going to stop gun crime but it was going to and has taken the means away from law abiding citizens who blow their top to go on a murderous rampage or shoot their wife or their neighbour or whoever.

Again, I point to nations like Switzerland where weapons are legal which don't have this problem and ask why the solution could not to learn how they've done it, rather than just assuming that it can't be done or shouldn't be tried?

Hundreds if not thousands of murders in the US are by law abiding citizens who wouldn't kill but for the fact they have an easy means to.

No. "Hundreds, if not thousands" (yet another figure you don't supply numbers for, but hey...why break a habit) are murders by otherwise-law-abiding citizens who haven't been trained sufficiently in the use of the weapons they hold to prevent them using them in a crime of passion, or haven't been subject to strict enough qualification criteria in the first place which should have prevented them from obtaining those weapons.

Anyone who premeditates murder can find an alternate method, so we are only talking about "spur of the moment" here. Again, I point you at other nations which don't have these problems despite gun-availability and suggest that gun-possession is not the source of the problem.

I'm curious...if there are a handful of nations in the world where wife-beating is statistically way above the international average, would your proposed solution be to ban marriage and/or mens fists in those nations, or would you actually look to see why these nations have a problem and - more importantly - why others do not before coming to your conclusions about what to do?

jc

Sparks

bonkey wrote:

So, if I'm guilty of offering an example that is more specific than the general context, then its only because I was responding in kind to your good self having already done the exact same thing
Kind of you to point out the flaw in your argument so succinctly though

*hehe*
Well, fair point - but I did point out three seperate groups in that post (the target shooting was the main point of the post, and the "defence from bears" and "hunting for food" reasons were mentioned too). And there's a neat example from Ireland I didn't post, which is that air rifle shooting is used here for physiotherapy of stroke victims because it promotes the development of fine muscle control.

Up to now, you were arguing that most weapons were not designed for use on humans.

Haven't changed my argument, you know...

That doesn't exclude shotguns, rifles etc of a bore designed to hunt animals, but which are large enough to kill a human.

With shotguns it's not the bore, it's what you've loaded into the shotgun. And it does exclude them because it's simply invalid to say "well, this could be abused to kill a human so we should assume that's its sole purpose". I mean, I can use a car to kill a human, but that's not its sole purpose!

Nor did you go to great lengths to point out that the vast majority aren't suitable for killing humans (in the sense that they won't be very good at it).

Apart from pointing out the relative kinetic energies involved and making the point that to kill someone with the firearms I own, you'd have to bludgeon them with the stock?

So it could have just been clever wording....which is what I wanted to clarify

No, it wasn't some semantic debate trick, I'm just trying to counter the semantic argument that because you could abuse a thing to kill someone it's designed for that purpose.

Maybe I'm over-estmating what a shotgun can do, but isn't it somewhat disingenuous to be correcting me on how most rifles aren't dangerous when they're only the second-most-popular category?

Thing about shotguns is, even the largest-bore ones won't be suitable for killing people if loaded with birdshot. But get one proofed for buckshot (if it isn't proofed, it may well blow up in your face) and yes, it's quite dangerous. Doesn't mean it's designed for use on humans though - there are shotguns which are (the SPAS-12, for example, a semi-automatic "assault shotgun" affair), but they're not the majority either in number made or number of types made.

bonkey wrote:

Supposition, based on an assumption that a significant percentage of the black market is based on weapons that were once-legal-but-stolen...which is yet another figure I notice you've been happy to assume but not provide.

Since firearms on the black market like Mac-10s and Uzis and fully-automatic AK-47s have never been legal to own, it's not even a supportable supposition.

No. "Hundreds, if not thousands" (yet another figure you don't supply numbers for, but hey...why break a habit) are murders by otherwise-law-abiding citizens who haven't been trained sufficiently in the use of the weapons they hold to prevent them using them in a crime of passion, or haven't been subject to strict enough qualification criteria in the first place which should have prevented them from obtaining those weapons.

Actually, the statistics show that half those who commit murder with a firearm in the US have criminal records already and 75% have been arrested - this suggests that the majority of those who abuse firearms for homicide are not otherwise law-abiding people.

monument

bananayoghurt wrote:

Knives are a usefull tool, firearms are for killing

I repeat..

You’re continuing to blame a tool for what you see as improper human behaviour. If you want to stop people from killing each other, them selves, or animals you have to change mindsets, changing the tool won’t do anything.

LegacyUser

bonkey wrote:

You've been asked for, and have yet to show, any figures which back up the "awful lot" term you're using. Just how many situations are we talking about here.

20% of gun crime offenders in state prisons and 10% in Federal prisons are first time offenders according to U.S. Department of Justice

Supposition, based on an assumption that a significant percentage of the black market is based on weapons that were once-legal-but-stolen...which is yet another figure I notice you've been happy to assume but not provide.

from same source 40% of all weapons used in offences were stolen (1997), I doubt statistics have changed much since.

But by your logic, the decrease in black-market availability should have had a significant effect on said criminal activity. Has it?

i never said it would in the uk as few house have firearms whereas most in the US do

I'm curious...if there are a handful of nations in the world where wife-beating is statistically way above the international average, would your proposed solution be to ban marriage and/or mens fists in those nations, or would you actually look to see why these nations have a problem and - more importantly - why others do not before coming to your conclusions about what to do?

Obviously you can't ban mens fists, but to turn it around what if these men were using tools specifically designed to beat their wifes with, would you make them illegal or have them all go on training courses to learn how to properly use the wife beaters. I don't see what it has to be one or the other though, how about look to see why these nations have a problem and ban firearms.

LegacyUser

monument wrote:

I repeat..

You’re continuing to blame a tool for what you see as improper human behaviour. If you want to stop people from killing each other, them selves, or animals you have to change mindsets, changing the tool won’t do anything.

People will always be of a mind to kill each other, I think it's a bad idea to give them the best tools for the job.

monument

If you believe it is so futile I think it's pointless talking to you about stopping, or even decreasing, killings or any criminal activity.