The US constitution and the right to "Bear Arms"

bonkey

bananayoghurt wrote:

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

And how many would not have comitted the crime had they not had access to a gun, but would have tried the same thing in a different way?

See - it doesn't matter how you massage the figures, you still are making assumptions as to quantity.

from same source 40% of all weapons used in offences were stolen (1997),

Yes, but you still end up needing to know if it was "stolen and used" or "stolen and sold on the black market and then used", because the black market will be able to source more weapons.

Note - I'm not denying that you'll reduce crime...I'm suggesting that you won't get anywhere near the "ideal" solution you seem to think, and in the process will effectively punish an awful lot of people who have done, and will do, nothing wrong.

And why? All because you don't like guns. Its that simple - you are (apparently) incapable of making (or unwilling to make) any sort of distinction between sports-related firearms, hunting firearms, firearms-which-are-a-necessary-part-of-life-where-some-people-live (or do you think the Alaskans etc. should just let the bears eat them when they turn nasty), and firearms-for-personal-protection and instead lump all of them together into the last group which you conviently rename something like "guns for killing people".

If I were to use the same (warped) logic, I could just as easily every knife (and sword and bow) on the planet is for killing people. But no...you'll argue that this is just ridiculous. And why? Because millions of people have knives and don't use them for killing people, at a guess. Well guess what.....millions of people have guns and don't use them for killing people either.

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

Which then backs up the point I've just made at the top of the last bit there....the UK was not significantly effected because its guns were not stolen-and-used, but instead predominantly come from a different source - the black market.

The black market will not run short of guns anytime soon....no matter how optimistically you want to look at it.

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,

And there you go again. What if they were using tools designed for beating other things. A Horse-whip, for example has exactly one purpose - beating an animal which is larger and thicker-skinned than a human. That can be - and is - used for beating humans, so should it be banned? No? Then why should a gun designed for shooting holes in paper/rabbits/foxes/bears be banned either because people use it for shooting holes in people?

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.

Well, for a start because banning firearms isn't going to happen in the US anytime soon. So personally, I'd rather encourage responsibility that can realistically be obtained than look for the impossible.

Look - even the NRA, who are the biggest opponents of gun control are massive proponents of gun responsibility, and (as someone mentioned earlier) have some of the most draconian suggestions as to what disqualifies one from owning a gun....a criminal record == no legal gun for you, ever.

Suggesting that giving up guns (Stateside, or worldwide) is the solution is about as realistic as suggesting that a world without criminals would be the solution. Gun-responsibilty and limited gun-control can and does work, and is something that has far more support....

So I guess I'd agree that its not one or the other....its one or neither....and I'll go for the one, thanks.

jc

omnicorp

well, if we had to sacrifice target shooting and hunting to ban guns and save lives, that wouldn't be too bad.

If we only ban some guns, it will be harder to police, if we ban all guns, the Gardai could could confiscate ANY gun.

:eek:
:eek:
:eek:
:eek:
:eek:
:eek:
:eek:
:eek:
:eek:
:eek:

Sparks

well, if we had to sacrifice target shooting and hunting to ban guns and save lives, that wouldn't be too bad.

I think that you probably can guess what I think of the idea of banning an olympic sport, especially when it wouldn't save any lives.

If we only ban some guns, it will be harder to police, if we ban all guns, the Gardai could could confiscate ANY gun.

Excuse me, but according to the firearms acts, the gardai can currently confiscate any gun, either in individual arrests or nationwide using the Temporary Custody Order introduced by the 1964 Act. And yes, that's been done in the past, in 1972.

So basicly, that post is completely wrong. In fact, it's not just wrong, it's unethical - it's advocating group punishment.

omnicorp

fine, come up for a solution to gun crime in the USA then. only helping...

Kev_ps3

I wantz to play my banjo !

omnicorp

kev boy wrote:

Of course, in the US they NEED to bear arms, its a melting pot of differnt race and religions and the white man needs his rifle to protect his childern from mongrel races//

you Are wrong.
No one NEEDS guns or any weapons.
Hunting is a cruel sport.
People can live without target shooting.
America is not the "LAND OF THE FREE" it pretends to be.
Remember Florida 2000?

Kev_ps3

All I want for Christmas is a Cerebellum

omnicorp

kev boy wrote:

"you Are wrong.
No one NEEDS guns or any weapons.
Hunting is a cruel sport.
People can live without target shooting.
America is not the "LAND OF THE FREE" it pretends to be.
Remember Florida 2000?"


you are abviously a homosexual

No, I'm not.
Do you know the rules of the forum?
blatant prejudice & personal insults are not allowed.

And please, stick to the point.

If only I was a moderator...

Kev_ps3

No I am the moderator and you have been owned and banned twit - [Gandalf]

Sparks

omnicorp wrote:

No one NEEDS guns or any weapons.

Wrong. There are places in this world where the predators are slightly bigger than foxes and will happily hunt and kill humans for food. That's one need. There are those that want to go to the Olympics - they need firearms as sports equipment to do so. And there are other examples of genuine needs.

Hunting is a cruel sport.

Hunting (real hunting) is not a sport, it is a way of putting food on the table.
Trophy hunting, well, that's just disrespectful to the animal.

People can live without target shooting.

And if there was a good reason to do so, we might. But there isn't, and even if we did live without it, it wouldn't affect gun crime. So why should we, who are innocent, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, be denied a harmless sport which has the best safety record of any sport and which is the most egalatarian of all sports?

omnicorp

Ok, but if I were to say to you that you could save ONE human life by banning target dhooting, would you ban it?

Sparks

omnicorp wrote:

Ok, but if I were to say to you that you could save ONE human life by banning target dhooting, would you ban it?

No, I'd have you arrested.
The only way that you could know that someone would die because of target shooting (especially since we have 200-odd accident-free years on our record at the moment), is if you were planning on killing them yourself.

But let me put a question to you: we can reasonably infer from past experience that if we do not ban driving, we will see somewhere around 370 people die on our roads in car accidents next year. Should we ban driving therefore?

omnicorp

I would welcome far more restrictions on it at least.
It seems as if anyone waiting for a driving test can hop into a car and drive at
120mph

Sparks

It seems as if anyone waiting for a driving test can hop into a car and drive at
120mph

Actually, I think you'll find that's illegal...

monument

omnicorp wrote:

well, if we had to sacrifice target shooting and hunting to ban guns and save lives, that wouldn't be too bad.

What's to stop someone from using any other weapon? You just dont get it do you?

omnicorp wrote:

:eek:
:eek:
:eek:
:eek:
:eek:
:eek:
:eek:
:eek:
:eek:
:eek:

:rolleyes:

omnicorp wrote:

fine, come up for a solution to gun crime in the USA then. only helping...

Stop calling crimes them "gun crimes". Do you actually have any basses to think guns increases crime? Don’t try the latest Garda figures, as they show that “gun crime” [sic], or the use of guns has increased, BUT (and it’s a big but) crime in general and killings (murders/manslaughters) have decreased!

omnicorp wrote:

Hunting is a cruel sport.

Hunting is legal, if you want to talk about banning hunting I suggest starting a new thread.

omnicorp wrote:

People can live without target shooting.

People can live limited to very few things, that doesn’t mean they have to.

omnicorp wrote:

Ok, but if I were to say to you that you could save ONE human life by banning target dhooting, would you ban it?

On that basses we should ban cars, sticks, all knifes, hammers, all glass, screw drivers, well, all nearly all electric tools, any thing… sharp, heavy, or dangerous in anyway… banning humans and all animals would probably be easier… in other words you’re talking total BS.




It looks as if you’re more obsessed with guns then any target shooter, hunter, or soldier could be, more correctly you’re obsessed with a foolish authoritarian like idea that banning guns will be effective - or save any human or animal life.

LegacyUser

Sparks wrote:

No, I'd have you arrested.
The only way that you could know that someone would die because of target shooting (especially since we have 200-odd accident-free years on our record at the moment), is if you were planning on killing them yourself.

Sparks, numerous times throughout this thread you have refered to genuine reasons for using firearms, ie. your sport, which I would recognise as much as any other (despite silly comments while slighty annoyed ), probably moreso if I really think about it as it is probably one of a very very few where you can be happy to feel good for the winner knowing they are not pumped up on drugs, in fact if I was to start banning Olympic sports target shooting would be about the last for the same reason, but you yourself can't seem to draw a distinction between the sport and firearm ownership itself. You equate an argument against poor uneducated kids with no hope of a job being able to pop down the local and buy a 9 milli with an attack on your sport, and that is where you let yourself down.

Sparks

but you yourself can't seem to draw a distinction between the sport and firearm ownership itself

That's mainly due to past experiences. Look, in the UK, a mentally disturbed man with a long history of breaking firearms laws and being kicked out of gun clubs and who was suspected of being a paedophile and who'd been reported to the cops for assault with a firearm, walks into the primary school in Dunblane and kills 16 children and their teacher.

Now to me, that says that the police have serious questions to answer regarding how they enforced the law, because had it been enforced, Hamilton would be in jail and those children and their teacher would be alive today. Instead, every pistol shooter in the country (bar the air pistol and black powder pistol shooters) was punished for Hamilton's actions by having their firearms confiscated. (Which is where I first heard omnicorp's line of "if it'd save one life we ought to sacrifice target shooting"). Now there's an omnious lesson here that noone seems to have learnt, because ten years prior to Dunblane, we had Hungerford. After Hungerford, where a mentally unstable man walked through the town shooting people with a rifle, instead of seeing the firearms acts enforced properly, or the mental health services strengthened, particular types of firearms were banned. The claim was that this solved the problem. Ten years later, Dunblane happened because the cause of the problem (the lax enforcement of the firearms acts) had not been addressed. Well, after Dunblane, particular types of firearms were banned, the claim being that this solved the problem. Dunblane was eight years ago. Are we going to see another Dunblane in two years time because the lesson wasn't learnt?

And what will be banned then? Will it be my firearms even though I've never gotten so much as a parking ticket on my record and I have a real reason for having them? Look, I've been one of the first to say that there are shooting disciplines I have serious problems with, mainly because of what they shoot at. I have no respect for trophy hunters, and gun fetishists (the real ones, not just the lads who happen to think a firearm can also be an excellent piece of engineering - I mean, if you know anything about metalwork then the precision that goes into these things is quite impressive) just plain worry me - but I have the unique perspective of seeing people like omnicorp and others lumping me in with criminals who shoot people with illegal sub-machine guns. So I'm all in favour of sensible firearms legislation; but banning all firearms from legitimate ownership because of the acts of criminals isn't sensible, it's just plain wrong.

(And for what it's worth, you can ban handguns in the UK and poor dumb kids can still pop down the local and buy a 9mm sidearm. Why? Because the black market's allready illegal and they figure you might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.)

LegacyUser

Thats understandable, but as much as you feel annoyed by it others with opposite views just get the impression of don't give an inch or they will take a mile. I think everyone knows the issue isn't about sports shooting and legislating against firearms ownership or emposing tighter restrictions wouldn't impede upon the likes of yourself. Personally I have the view that if you live in a civilised society you delegate certain responsibilties to it, one of them being security, is it so bad to want to live in a world where you dont have to have a weapon under your bed to sleep soundly ?

Sparks

It's more serious than feeling annoyed banana, I'm saying it's unethical, immoral and unjust - it is group punishment.

And don't forget, in the past when an inch was given, a mile was taken. Me, I'm all for the Kantian approach to this, but that approach hasn't got a good track record because people have this notion that all guns are designed to kill people and therefore noone could possibly have a valid reason for wanting to own one...

LegacyUser

How come you're always up so late ?, do you do late shifts or something, I woulda pm'd but that ecksor bloke disabled them

Sparks

No, I just get mild insomnia from time to time.

omnicorp

Okay, Sparks, I'm not going to continue on banning Target shooting, what I am talking about though is banning Guns for "Defence" or "Collection" or trophy Hunting.

So I don't have to read your staunch defence of Target-shooting.

Sparks

How are you planning on drafting legislation that knows the difference omni?

omnicorp

em, you would have to have your gun kept at the shooting range.

Sparks

Are you nuts? I'm not leaving three grand's worth of hardware at a rifle range! I mean, seriously - you're talking about taking a lot of valuable rifles, and putting them all in one central location, nice and convienent for burgulars? No thanks!
Besides, the financial cost of providing a secure storage facility for even twenty to thirty rifles would absolutely cripple a rifle club. You'd be killing off the sport through the back door!

bonkey

Not to mention how you get it to the range when you buy it, or how you get it from one range to another when going to competitions, moving residential location, etc. etc. etc.

I also pity the Alaskans who Omni will tell can't have guns to defend themselves from bears....the only remaining animal which has man as natural prey.

jc

Sparks

Not just bears JC, there are a fair few other predators that kill humans on a regular basis in both the US and elsewhere; big cats, mostly, but also alligators, crocadiles, and a few others. Plus, there are non-predators that kill humans - hippopotami are far more dangerous than any other animal in africa, for example, at least statistically. Admittedly, you don't meet many walking the streets of Jo'berg, but then again, walking the streets of Jo'berg is a highly dangerous activity in itself these days, depending on where you're walking...

LegacyUser

Sparks wrote:

How are you planning on drafting legislation that knows the difference omni?

that wouldn't be too hard actually, any weapons /ammunition which generate more than x ft-lbs are illegal

Sparks

That's done in the UK banana. Has been for years (you can't have a rifle with more than 10,000 foot-pounds if I remember correctly). Thing is, it hasn't stopped gun crime. In fact, gun crime is totally unaffected by it.

civdef

Omnicorp, you've clearly demonstrated you know very little about firearms. This renders you ill-equipped to start pontificating on the subject. Worrying about a subject you know little or nothing about only makes you look stupid.