Guns and Gun Control

[Jeff OTMG]

Hello all! I am new here, as I am certain you are able to see in my status. If the subject line interested you enough to enter this thread, then you are the people I need to speak to. If you didn't care about the topic, you would not be here.

The posters here are primarily 'Greek' or hope to soon go 'Greek', making you generally young, predominantly female, middle to upper class, and relatively well educated. This is exactly what I am looking for. Firearms are mainly an issue of interest to middle age white guys, ie. me, yet we hear much about them in the press and, unfortunately, that is where many people not involved with firearms get the information that they have.

These are some of the things which I have noticed:

Females tend to discuss this topic from an emotional position rather than questioning information and reaching logical conclusions. Think Rosie O'Donnell.

People from major metropolitan areas (NYC, L.A., Chicago, Detroit, Boston, D.C.) tend to support gun control more than in other cities and rural areas (Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Austin, Indianapolis, Jacksonville).

Men are generally more opposed to gun control, where women tend to have no feelings on the topic or lean toward supporting gun control.

Educated people tend to oppose gun control until they reach higher levels which would permit them to teach on a university level, there they appears to be a shift and more support gun control. This is most noticeable at the traditionally more liberal schools such as U.C. Berkley as opposed to a school like Texas Tech.

The reason for all this is that I am interested in your views. Where you get your information from. If you think that there is a problem related to firearms, why and what is your viable solution? I would also like to know where you are from, sex, age, level of education, level of education you expect to reach, and 'greek' or not. The reason for the last question is that the 'greek' community as a whole is widely involved in civic and community charitable activities. Those activities tend to be more within the realm of the more 'liberal' mindset. We don't see nearly as many Republicans doing volunteer work at homeless shelters as we do Democrats.

I will go first. I am male, 43, born in N.Y., but grew up in Oklahoma City. My father is a retired FBI agent. I am a business consultant and currently live in Austin, Tx. As a consultant I travel and go where I am needed having worked in 4 states, 8 cities, doing 14 jobs, in the last 12 years, my current client being in Indianapolis, In. Past clients include federal agencies (FAA, NASA), state agencies (1 in Ok., 3 in Tx.), and private industry. I was an engineering major at Oklahoma State University and was going to pledge a frat called Triangle, but the structured lifestyle was not for me.

Hopefully this will illicit a spirited discussion and I may be able to determine exactly how this topic is being addressed, if at all, at both high school and college levels. If you make a statement as fact all I ask is that you be able to back it up with references and that those references not be an anti-gun organization or a study funded by one. How much credibility would a pro-gun poster have if all their references came from the National Rifle Association. Please no hit and run or hateful responses, I am not here to flame or get flamed and this can be an emotional topic if it is approached from that angle.

If any of you have considered or end up considering doing a paper on this topic for school, be it for the historical significance or the social impact, I have done much research over the last 20 years and would be happy to share that information to anyone who might find it helpful.

If there are few or no responses then I will assume that the topic is not really of any real interest to you which could very well be the case. Otherwise, talk to me people.

[Billy Optimist]

uh...i think people have the right to bear arms. I think some should be harder to get than others, and there should be background checks, but I don't believe in an all out ban.

[Lil_G]

Jeff,
This is a public forum so I don't it's right to ask us all about our personal background. For a point of reference, I will tell you that I'm a Canadian male who's greek and currently in my university.
I study sociology/criminology which is the nature of my argument.

There is a correlation with Guns and violent crime. The US homicide rate is by far the highest of any first-world country. Canada is right in the middle in terms of relation to other countries ( i think japan and the czech republic are the lowest). What americans don't realize is the accessibility how guns do much more bad than good. Yes violence and crime will always exist in every society - crime has to.

But then again stories of kids shooting kids in high school in other countries are almost non-existent.

Just my two cents,
Nick.

[mgdzkm433]

I am female, 23, from West Virginia (guess that probably gives away MY opinion).

I find this a very sensitive subject considering the state I live in. It's easy for people to say "ban guns" or "more control" when they have no idea what life is like in rural areas--especially in poor states such as mine. It might be the year 2001--but people DO still rely on hunting as a source of food. There isn't an answer to the gun control question because once you take them away--you have starving people, if you keep them--you have criminals. It's a lose lose situation.

At this point, the laws vary state to state and I feel that it should be left up to the state. I was on CNN's website recently and they had a site that gave the basic gun laws of each state. I'll try to find it and post the website.

As for school shootings. School shootings are statistically down. They receive more attention via the media--making them seem like they are more common. However, the statistics of deaths related to school shootings is up. Kids aren't going to school and shooting one person anymore, they are killing multipule people. I did receive this info via the internet previously, I will try to find that source again.

Obviously gun related deaths and crimes will go down with a ban on firearms, but I feel that if someone wants to kill someone--they'll do it with any means they can aquire.

Another reality that we'll have to live with is a rise of animal population. The deer population is already very high, and with 80% of the US's forests GONE--deer and other animals have nowhere to go but to towns and cities. We'll have a higher rate of starving animals, higher rate of animals being hit on the road, and a higher rate of human encounters with wild animals (which CAN be disasterous and deadly).

[mgdzkm433]

This is what I found:
Study results to date show that there were 173 incidents between July 1, 1994 and June 30, 1998. The majority of these incidents were homicides and involved the use of firearms. The total number of events has decreased steadily since the 1992-1993 school year. However, the total number of multiple victim events appears to have increased. During the past three school years, August 1995 through June 1998, there were an average of five multiple victims events per year. This is compared to an average of one multiple victim event per year in the three years from August 1992 through July 1995. Thus, while the total number of events of school associated violent deaths have decreased, the total number of multiple-victim events appears to have increased. Data collection ended with the completion of the 1997-1998 academic year.

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/fact/violence.htm

[Miami1839]

I am male, 29, from Virginia, and an Administration of Justice Graduate(so I guess there goes my opinion).

This is a very controversial and heated topic and I dont think that we'll come to a workable solution for years to come. My proposition might be a bit off the wall, but here goes. The only gliche is the fact that all Americans are given the right to bear arms as written in the U.S. Constitution. I think that firearms should be only operated in special circumstances by law enforcement and the military. Eventually what I think should happen is that guns should be phased out by law enforcement like how Canada has their Mounties. In states like West Virginia, Law Enforcement and the National Guard should be vested with the responsibility of animal control. If they dont have the resources the Governor or the local Goverment could Deputize certin citizens to help with that function. This might sound severe but I think that owning a firearm should be a felony or something that carries significant time in jail. With those that obtain firearms illegally I think that those people should receive tougher sentences. I would even be for bringing back public hangings for those that participate in multiple murders and sell illegal firearms and contraband to youth. However, I think the military should be the only ones given free reign on firearms because they have the responsibility of protecting national security.

Kevin

[This message has been edited by Miami1839 (edited April 04, 2001).]

[Billy Optimist]

"The power to disarm a people is the power to enslave them."--Thomas Jefferson

[Jeff OTMG]

Billy Optimist, you are interested in the topic, but appear to be a 'ringer' with your historical quote. You, as many people, gun owners as well, do support some gun control. You do mention 'that some should be harder to get than other.' Could you go into more detail please? What guns? What restrictions? Maybe more like the restrictions that are in place now to legally own machine guns, landmines, handgrenades, and short barrelled shotguns? The second question I have is one on background checks. How intrusive could they be? Should private mental health records come under control of the federal govt (FBI NICS background check system) for the purpose of these investigations? Since gun ownership is a right rather than a privledge, is there a problem with not being innocent until proven guilty by making the buyer prove innocence prior to making a firearm purchase? How would it be different than requiring a voter to be familiar with the issues before voting or doing a background check before being allowed to register to vote or make a speech?

[Jeff OTMG]

Lil_G, sorry I don't mean to offend. I gave out personal info and filled out my profile here much more completely than I see others do. Is there justification for the paranoia? If you have not met people who have introduced themselves to you via computer BB's you may be missing out. I am meeting 50 posters from other boards I go to this Sunday in Tulsa, Ok. I have met people from the BB's all over Indiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Tenneessee, and Missouri in the last 4 years. All those people have guns as well. That was just curiosity. Now for your comments.

You state, 'There is a correlation with guns and violent crime.' I will say that that may appear to be so, but no causal relationship can be shown where guns 'cause' people to act in a violent manner. The gun is an inanimate mechanical object, much like a car, neither are the cause of a behavior. As an example I ask that you look to our prison system. Nowhere in within the walls of any U.S. Federal or state prison are there any firearms. Not even on the guards. Yet if you look at the behavior of the people incarcerated you will find it to be EXTREMELY violent. If, as you state, there is a correlation, how do you explain the violence in prisons where there is a lack of firearms? Where is the correlation you speak of?

You state, 'The US homicide rate is by far the highest of any first-world country.' Why do you only include first world countries? Are not people of all countries humans with the same capacity of logic, intelligence, and emotion? If you leave out part of the populations I suspect that you do so due to the cultural differences of those populations. This is precisely the problem we face in the U.S. Our culture is far different than that of any other nation on Earth. The settlement of the land was the result of violent campaigns against native americans, the declaration of the U.S. as an independent country resulted in a war with England, another was fought with them in 1812, fifty years later we were killing each other in the bloodiest time in our history. I do not mention other lesser known wars and battles as occurred at the Alamo. These don't even get us out of the 1800's. I will say it is a cultural issue for us and we are a violent people.

Japan does have a relatively low crime rate, but again, look at their culture. Very restricted, based on tradition. Look also to their population, no ethnic diversity. They look like they all came from the same mold and act the way their society molded them. I would like to point out that for an amazing lack of firearms, a bit more easy to enforce a ban for an island nation, their suicide rate is more than double that of the U.S. They have a few more suicides, but one-half of our population with no guns. I believe that you will also find Switzerland extremely low as well yet all men over the age of 21 have a full auto assault rifle (SIG 550's but they have recently upgraded) in the home provided by the government. If the Swiss society were prone to violence, it would be easy to act on it with the widespread availability of military weapons by the average male citizen.

Responding to you comment about the accessibility of firearms doing more harm than good, it falls on deaf ears here. Twice in 1989 (Jan and Nov) I used a handgun to save myself from becoming a mugging vicitm in New Orleans and prevented my girlfriend from being abducted by five men from a Ft Worth gas station. In neither instance was it necessary to shoot, but without the firearm I and my girlfriend would have become victims. As part of your studies I recommend 'More Guns, Less Crime' by John Lott, the Wright-Rossi report which I am sure is part of your courses already, and all writings by criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University.

Nick, you are correct that kids don't shoot kids at school in other countries, but in China it was a soldier that shot up a school. The thing is that it didn't happen here either when I was in school. Prior to 1968 you could mail order guns delivered to your door. When I was nine years old, 1966, I would ride my bicycle about one-half mile to the 7-11 (a convienience store) and by ammunition for my rifle. In the mid-1970's I would take guns to school, they stayed in the car, so my friends and I could go shoot after classes. In rural areas it was not uncommon for kids to leave their guns in their lockers or principals office so they could hunt after school. With that easy availability of guns and ammunition by children, there was no problem. Now there is a problem and guns are more restricted than ever. I say that it isn't the guns, something else changed.

[Jeff OTMG]

mgdzkm433, I am impressed and no offense intended, but your posts make me question your claim of being 23 years old. You hit the actual drop in the number of school shootings that has been occurring, but due to media coverage we are more aware of it. You are correct that gun deaths would drop if guns were banned, but then auto accidents deaths would drop if we banned cars and drunk driving deaths would drop if we reinstituted prohibition. Your hunting reference brought back the memory of two counties in Pa. a few years ago. The city folk want to live in the country, but somehow hope to take city values with them. Enough moved to pass a ban on deer hunting in the two counties. After three years of wildly increasing auto/deer accidents they wised up and allowed hunting to continue. I would like to point out that although I do not hunt, I am a shooter, I fully support hunting programs and the benefit to wildlife conservation that those who do hunt provide. I appreciate the independent source supporting your statements as well.

[Jeff OTMG]

Miami1839, to bad that pesty old Constitution gets in the way http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif You may be surprised, but your 'solution' is not that off the wall. There are more than a few people who think as you do. Fortunately we have the writings of the founding fathers, as Billy Optimist was so kind to point out, that would prevent what you propose. Does it not bother you that only the police and military would have guns? What you propose is what is found in a 'police state', a facist form of government, or a dictatorship. I do not understand being guilty of a felony for simply owning something yet not misusing it. It would be like proposing that we cut out our tongues to prevent us from yelling 'Fire.' in a theater or arrest someone for driving a car because they might commit a hit and run. That theory could be used in many instances to prevent crime, but I don't happen to agree with it.

For some reason my signature line is not showing and I feel it especially important here:
"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." Thomas Paine

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

"If ye love wealth better than liberty...May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams

"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense..." John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788)

"On every question of construction (of the constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823,


[This message has been edited by Jeff OTMG (edited April 05, 2001).]

[Billy Optimist]

Man you write a lot. Consiceity (sp?) is a virtue, ya know http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif But yeah, there is a very good reason for lack of personal information in members profiles. Look around at some of the other threads to find out why. I think I'm gonna let someone else handle that this time. The guns I think should be harder get? Well, I think that if someone was a documented sociopath, then I just can't see the logic in him being allowed to walk around with an AK-47. I don't think backgrounds checks are "proving innocence." You have to be checked out when you vote right? And if your a felon, you lose that right. So if you are convicted of a felony, then no more guns. Landmines? I don't know. There can't be too many legitement uses for a landmine. Talking about trapping a bear! You have to read all of Amendement 2 though, not just the part you like. It says to keep and bear arms....(I forget the middle part)...well organized militia. Now, what does well organized militia mean? It could mean the armed forces. I don't think it means those guys up in Michigan. It could also reffer to myself. After all, there's only one of me! How much more organised could you get?

[This message has been edited by Billy Optimist (edited April 05, 2001).]

[mgdzkm433]

mgdzkm433, I am impressed and no offense intended, but your posts make me question your claim of being 23 years old.

Why thank you! LOL I knew what you meant http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif

You are correct that gun deaths would drop if guns were banned, but then auto accidents deaths would drop if we banned cars and drunk driving deaths would drop if we reinstituted prohibition.

It remindes me when Attorney General Janet Reno (not sure if I have the right person, but I THINK I do), when asked if pot were to become legal if there would be a drop in crime. DUH! Of course there would be! I was stating the obvious, and like you said, we could do so much to prevent crime, but at the expense of every American that DOESN'T commit a crime.

On another note, I couldn't seem to find the resource on CNN that gave the gun laws in each state. I'm sure there is SOMEWHERE on the web that has this info though.

Basically, when talking about gun control or a ban on guns, we are faced with a serious 'control' issue of our own. Do we want the government to have a say in our freedoms, or do we want to chance encounter with a offender? I personally would want to take my chances. I feel better knowing I have the freedom to own a firearm--and perhaps if I do come in contact with an offender, I'll have a chance to defend myself. I've also got to look at it from the aspect of being a woman. Before you said that most women support gun control--which is true I am sure--but I'd like to inject THIS woman's perspective. I know how to handle and shoot a gun. I was taught at age 4. I personally feel safer, myself, owning a gun and being a woman. If a man were to break into my home and attempt to rape me, I stand a much better chance with a gun than I do without. And personally, I'd rather be shot and killed in the process than have a man rape me.

[Miami1839]

Jeff,

I know my opinion seems a little bizzare to say the least, but I think we really need to make an impact on crime and our culture. You make a good point about other countries and what crime is like with their societies. We should definitely learn or think about incorporating some of their ideas. Even though our societies do have different systems of government and cultures. Granted guns are probably not the issue here but guns are the means to an outcome. I'm not hard and fast about captial punishment when someone just possesses a firearm, but I am for jail time if someone does illegally obtain a firearm. Plus if they were to fire a firearm then there should be more sanctions and jail time. Assuming that firearms were taken from the people, which would probably never happen. I do see your point with the police state with the federal and local government. I've been over that in Criminal Justice courses that I've taken. I just see it as a loose loose situation if you let everyone have access to firearms. Whatever benefits there might be because if you eliminate all firearms then you take care of the responsible citizens and the troublemakers. Firearms are probably not the source of causation but it definitely is a means.

[mgdzkm433]

If Guns were eliminated in society, would the U.S. populace be subject to any lack of freedoms?

Yes. They would. We've had guns in this country since the beginning. Taking them away, IMHO, would be a great injustice to every american who owns one--and taking away the freedom they have to use it for whatever purpose they see fit.

The freedom to provide for your family. As I pointed out before, in many rural and poor states people do still rely on hunting as a source for food. The freedom of hunting as a 'sport'. The freedom to protect their home as they see fit. The freedom of collecting them. Taking guns away would take away every freedom they are used for.

I don't see disarming all of america as a solution to the 'crime' problem. You're not just punishing the criminals, you're punishing every american who owns one for purposes aside from crimes. Those people, as I suggested above, that hunt to supply food for their family will go on welfare and then we'll be complaining about supporting them--or they starve. Because I see it first hand, maybe I've just got the mindframe that starving a family is just as much of a crime as murder.

[finest_alum]

Criminals are criminals because they DON'T FOLLOW the law. Taking the right to bear arms out of the hands of citizens will not stop these people from obtaining guns.

25, female, from a large metro. Not an advocate of hunting, don't own a gun, but the Constitution gives ME the right to make that choice.

[finest_alum]

Criminals are criminals because they DON'T FOLLOW the law. Taking the right to bear arms out of the hands of citizens will not stop these people from obtaining guns.

25, female, from a large metro. Not an advocate of hunting, don't own a gun, but the Constitution gives ME the right to make that choice.

[finest_alum]

Criminals are criminals because they DON'T FOLLOW the law. Taking the right to bear arms out of the hands of citizens will not stop these people from obtaining guns.

25, female, from a large metro. Not an advocate of hunting, don't own a gun, but the Constitution gives ME the right to make that choice.

[Miami1839]

Mikki,

I see where your coming from and why firearms are needed by responsible citizens. However everyone should remember to use them responsibly. I just think that at some point that right might be comprised because of the problems we are facing with them. Something has to be done about it. I think for those criminals that "dont follow the law" should be put in jail for life or even public execution. Hey, look at all the network stations and what makes the 5 oclock news. I'm sure that executing troublemakers on live t.v. that have used firearms in violent crimes would definitely gain ratings and put out a message. Enough is Enough. We need to set example for those criminals in our country that use firearms for illegal purposes. Granted "law abiding citizens" shouldnt have to comprimise their right to bear arms, but what are we going to do about these kids that shoot up multiple people?



[This message has been edited by Miami1839 (edited April 05, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Miami1839 (edited April 05, 2001).]

[mgdzkm433]

What are we going to do about the kids who are going to watch live exicutions on tv?

You're only replacing violence with violence.

What are we going to do about those kids shooting multiple people?

Why don't we start with education on guns? Why don't we work on family values, why don't we work on placing more emphasis on spotting troubled teens? Why don't we crack down in our schools on kids teasing each other?

Taking firearms away isn't solving the problem. The problem is deeper than that. Why don't we work on getting rid of the ANGER the kids have? The gun didn't cause the kid to shoot anyone, their anger did that--you take away the gun--and you'll still have an angry kid--and they will STILL lash out, whether it's with a knife, a bomb, a 'illegal gun', starting a fire . . . The fact is, we'll still be turning out a kid into the world/society that has issues.

Schools have rule after rule about where kids can park, what time to be in class, if they can talk in class, what to wear . . . but we don't have or enforce rules that require the students to respect each other. Why don't we start with that? Most of these kids going in and shooting people are outcasts--kids who feel left out, ridiculed--THERE is the problem!

[Billy Optimist]

Kevin, I don't think public executions of troublemakers is a step in the right direction. I just think that yeah, you do, and SHOULD ALWAYS have the right to own a gun. Just like you SHOULD ALWAYS have the right to drive a car, and the right to vote. If you mess up, you lose those rights. You need a licence to drive, you should need to take a test before owning a gun. http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif

[Jeff OTMG]

Billy O, I guess I do get a little long winded. Sometimes I need to so that I may fully explain my position and I am responding to each point from each person. After all, I don't want anyone to feel left out. http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif I assume you guys have had your share of trouble here from some trolls, that explains the lack of profile info. I don't need to know why, just sorry it happened. I agree with your comment on sociopaths. Loonies with guns bother me as well. The problem is that many people consider medical records, particularly mental health records, private. The information is a doctor/patient privledge. As a result most people object to the federal govt. (FBI) establishing a database of mental health records. Even the ACLU opposes this. Do you think that it is acceptable to limit privacy in some areas that could effect hundreds of thousands of people to help insure the safety of the rest of the population? The law prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms is a federal law and it has been upheld as a reasonable restriction, as the prohibition on felons voting or the restriction on free speech disallowing one to yell 'Fire.' in a theater. I do have a problem with a background check being too intrusive, but believe that they do serve a purpose. The weapons, land mines, are considered Class III weapons, specifically a mine or other exploding ordnance or launcher (anything over .50 caliber) is considered a 'destructive device' (DD) under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA '34) and is restricted in the same way as machine guns. Legal to own according to the federal govt, but about 15 or 20 states do have some state law restricting possession of some items. Generally the people who own the DD weapons are very high end military armament collectors. Remember that few things we buy require us 'need' them. We buy things because we 'want' them. I don't 'need' to drive a BMW, but I 'want' a BMW. You ask about what the militia is. I can only offer you the legal definition contained within U.S. Code and the Supreme Court ruling of U.S. v. Miller (1939):

U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 311:
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

This can be found at: <A HREF="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode10&STEMMER=en&WORDS=militia+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/uscode/10/311.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match" TARGET=_blank>http://www4.law.corn ell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode10&STEMMER=en&WORDS=militia+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&
URL=/uscode/10/311.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match</A>

As far as the Supreme Court, here is a portion of their ruling:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Found at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174

You are correct, as I would guess that you are not active duty military, you are a member of the militia. The key thing to remember when people claim the militia mentioned in the Constitution is the National Guard is that the Constitution was ratified in around 1789 and the National Guard did not exist until the early 1900's, over 100 years later.

[This message has been edited by Jeff OTMG (edited April 05, 2001).]

[Jeff OTMG]

mgdzkm433, here is a link to most state statute. It is geared toward people wanting to carry concealed or transporting firearms across state lines. Most if not all of the states pages actually have links to the state home pages with firearms laws.
http://www.packing.org/

I must say it is refreshing to see a 23 year old female so vigorously defend a freedom. Many people today would surrender some freedom for a feeling of more security. We have seen this in England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in the last 5-10 years. The U.S. has a history of being rebellious though.

[matthewg]

Originally posted by mgdzkm433:
If Guns were eliminated in society, would the U.S. populace be subject to any lack of freedoms?

Yes. They would. We've had guns in this country since the beginning. Taking them away, IMHO, would be a great injustice to every american who owns one--and taking away the freedom they have to use it for whatever purpose they see fit.

The freedom to provide for your family. As I pointed out before, in many rural and poor states people do still rely on hunting as a source for food. The freedom of hunting as a 'sport'. The freedom to protect their home as they see fit. The freedom of collecting them. Taking guns away would take away every freedom they are used for.




Wait a minute - wouldn't you agree that personal freedom ends where it limits the freedom of others?

I think uncontrolled guns truely limit the freedom of all those who prefer living in a slightly (caution! - understatement) safer environment.

And the argument of hunting is invalid in so far as it would certainly no problem to pass a bill and hand out hunting licenses to people that prove responsible use and knowledge of the respective weapons.
And if you are caught drunk driving or committing a fellony, you show a lack of responsibility and your hunting license/license to own a weapon is revoked. Just that simple.

I would rather have that limitation than having to be scared about children being shot at school because of an over abundance of weapons .....

[Billy Optimist]

Well said, Matthew.

[Jeff OTMG]

Miami1839, I am glad that we agree that there may be other things that we could look at to solve the problem and I agree that guns are often the means to the outcome, though the criminal will use whatever they can to get the upper hand as the Wright-Rossi report found in interviews with over 1500 incarcerated felons. I am from Texas so that should tell you how I feel about capital punsihment. It was once suggested that since 85% of all crime is committed by repeat offenders, if all repeat offenders were executed crime would drop 85%. I believe that is not necessarily a bad idea and would be worth exploring. I totally agree with you on crimes committed with firearms and criminals obtaining or possessing firearms illegally. The NRA Crimestrike program, dubbed Exile by cities that have adopted it, has been more effective in reducing crime than any gun control law has by targeting criminal misuse of firearms. I do agree that there should be some restrictions, but maybe not to the extent that you would like to see. The thing that I disagree with you on is when you say, 'if you eliminate all firearms then you take care of the responsible citizens and the troublemakers.' That is not exactly true. If guns are banned and people must turn them in, the only ones turning them in will be the law abiding citizen. The criminal, by definition, does not follow the laws, hence the term 'criminal'.

OOPS! I didn't see the reply from finest_alum before writing mine, sorry about that. Let me just say, 'Yes, what she said!'

[This message has been edited by Jeff OTMG (edited April 05, 2001).]

[Lil_G]

Originally posted by finest_alum:

Criminals are criminals because they DON'T FOLLOW the law. Taking the right to bear arms out of the hands of citizens will not stop these people from obtaining guns.

25, female, from a large metro. Not an advocate of hunting, don't own a gun, but the Constitution gives ME the right to make that choice.


Yes you're right, I don't think the mafia would say 'well guns are illegal now, time to stop using them'. But is that a feasible aim of gun control legislation? Aren't we trying to prevent the accidental use of guns that kill eachother? I can't remember the exact statistic but doesn't it say guns are more likely to be used against a family member than an intruder?

Mikki you mention that guns are needed as a method for survival in some parts. Okay, that means that those who need guns would be more willing to do the extra effort to get the guns because they need them. Here in Canada, they've added stricter laws to acquire and maintain guns. You need to show a license just to buy ammo. The average user who would otherwise have a gun would then not what to go through this to have his gun that he or she may rarely if ever use.
Thus, a lot of the accidental injuries caused by firearms such as road rage or some school shootings would be reduced. Guns would be much tougher to get a hold of, maybe by that time the instant aggression of getting cut-off in traffic or losing a fight would prevent someone getting killed.

[Jeff OTMG]

Lil_G, sure glad you like the response. You responded to my post, it is only fair that futher explain myself so you have no questions. I appreciate you taking the time to address my questions as well. Agian, I don't excuse Columbia, Brazil, or any other country. Each has people of a different culture and that culture is solely responsible for the way people behave, good or bad. Your reference to Germany is an excellent point. Two things that you must realize about gun control in Germany though. They most stringent gun control was passed in 1936 when Hitler was in power. He could not have armed people opposing his ideas. This information is deatiled on the website of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), I believe that the link is www.jpfo.org (http://www.jpfo.org) So before the U.S. entry into WWII Germany already had strict gun control in place and enforced by Nazi's. After WWII the Allied powers oversaw that Germany would not have access to many weapons for fear of a repeat of the post WWI build up of arms. As an additional point Sen Thomas Dodd (D-Ct) and father of current Sen Christopher Dodd (D-Ct) asked the National Archives for an English translation of the German gun laws back in 1967. This translation of the Nazi law was the basis for our Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA '68). To directly address your question, 'If Guns were eliminated in society, would the U.S. populace be subject to any lack of freedoms?' I must say that, beyond the loss of the right to be free to own guns, I don't know. It would depend on many things and the only way to find out would be to try it and if it didn't go well it would be too late to go back. To your last point about the British. I happen to have some friends who are British, some came to the U.S. and are looking forward to citizenship since the UK passed the sweeping gun control laws a few years ago. Since that time, Sept '97 I believe, handguns have been completely illegal yet they are recording a record number of firearm deaths and injuries. These are primarily due to the increased activity of Jamaican Posse drug gangs. If you can get drugs into a country you can get guns in and Great Britain is easier to police being an island nation like Japan. It is so bad that the bobbies may start carrying guns. They didn't have to in the past, but that was then and this is now: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/001023/79/amxti.html

[finest_alum]

You really think road rage is "accidental use of a gun?" I have to disagree.

Violent people will be violent with or without guns.

I fully agree that something needs to be done about truly accidental shootings (such as with a young child) but the answer to that is for parents; educate your child, lock your gun up where the child CANNOT get to it, or get rid of it while your children are small enough not to understand how dangerous it is.

Irresponsible use of a gun by a few, however, should not eliminate the right of the responsible. That is like saying "well, people die from drunk driving so no one should be allowed to drive anymore, because cars are the problem" The car isn't the problem, it's the driver.

[Jeff OTMG]

Miami1839, the hard line against criminals is a hard sell. I am not saying I disagree with you at all, it would work, but it would never happen so, unfortunately, it is not a solution. Something does need to be done, even with accidental deaths due to firearm at an all time low. I attended a forum at Butler University in Indianapolis, In last Sept. The panel was 14 people running for state and local elected offices. One of the students asked outright what would they do about people killing people with guns if they were elected. Nothing can be done. It is already against the law to kill someone. You don't need a law beyond that. The point is that no legislation is going to solve the problem. What does work is if individuals get involved. I teach a gun safety program in an inner city public school. There are 500 students from K-5 that are learning to not touch a gun if they see one without proper training. If you want something done you have to do it yourself. I have seen great things from young people involved in mentoring programs. The problem with violence is that it is a cultural issue, for the person to develop a sense of right and wrong someone must give them direction and tell them the difference. Mentoring programs have been successful in doing this and I highly recommend people get involved if they are really interested in making changes in peoples lives.

[Jeff OTMG]

Billy O, you say, people 'SHOULD ALWAYS have the right to own a gun. Just like you SHOULD ALWAYS have the right to drive a car, and the right to vote. If you mess up, you lose those rights.' Only a point of clarification here. Owning a gun and voting are rights, driving a car is a privledge. A fine but significant difference. A right is something that you are born with, a privledge is something that must be earned. That is why it is okay to license drivers, but not gun owners. To license gun owners would be like requiring a journalist to pass a test before their work could be published, which would mean that none of the rest of us could ever get a letter to the editor of the newspaper published.

[Jeff OTMG]

matthewg, welcome to the discussion. To respond to you I can only reassert a couple of quotes from the founding fathers:

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

"On every question of construction (of the constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823,

What you suggest is so that others would 'feel' safer. Remember that we live in a republic, not a democracy. A democracy is where 2 wolves and sheep are going to vote on what to have for dinner, a republic is the same thing only the sheep has a gun. In other words a democracy works for the majority so that the most people can get what they want, but only until it begins to infringe on the rights of the minority.

[Jeff OTMG]

Lil_G, I know your last post was not directed at me, but I wanted to jump in here. You mention the 'more likely to be used against the family' stat. That is actually 43 times more likely, but was from a study done by Kellerman in 1986(?) comparing the gun death rate between Seattle, Wa. and Vancouver, B.C. There were a number of problems with that 'study'. First, it was funded by Handgun Control Inc. and Kellerman's conclusions were made before the study was ever conducted or he would not have gotten the money to do it. Kellerman used the wrong statistical model when he presented it in an attempt to make his numbers look better. Fortunately he did include the raw data in his study and we found that he had classified the families by risk level. If you looked only at the 'low risk' households the presence of a firearm was actually around 1.3 times more likely to be used for the benefit of the family, but Kellerman included the 'low risk' families and those figures were so skewed the other way that by lumping 'high' and 'low' risk factor families together he was able to get the '43 times more likely' figure. What he really did was prove that his criteria for evaluating the risk factor was what determined the danger and misuse of firearms in the home. You may rest knowing that the total number of accidental gun deaths and the rate of accidental gun deaths is at its' lowest point ever in the U.S. There were about 1200 accidental gun deaths in 1999 (maybe 1998) for a population of nearly 270 million people. The rate was highest in the 1920's where we had a much lower population and higher number of deaths. It has been in steady decline. Education has been the key with reducing the number of accidental gun deaths just as selt belt education and drunk driving programs have had an impact on reducing vehicular deaths. I want to point out that in your road rage example that the availability of firearms has nothing to do with it. This was a common cry in Texas in 1994 when Texas was going to pass their concealed carry legislation. Since then over 200,000 Texans, myself included, have obtained permits which allow us to legally carry a concealed handgun and there have been no shoot outs over fender benders. Now a person was killed by a permit holder in Dallas after an accident when the truck driver began to beat on the guy he hit. The person in the car, in lawful self defense, shot and killed the truck driver. We knew it would be okay because many states have had concealed carry for years, like here in Indiana, and it has not caused a problem. I fully understand your concern, many before you have had the same concerns, but it just doesn't happen.

[Corbin Dallas]

Jeff, where are you in Indiana? I'm in Terre Haute. I've been around guns all of my life. When I was young, my dad kept his guns on a gun rack in his bedroom. I NEVER touched them, because I respected them, and feared if he found out that he would be VERY MAD!

In reply to your post, and Lil_G's post, didn't you know that 37% of statistics are made up??? http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif

I know if the government ever decides to collect guns, I "won't" have any. http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Steve Corbin
Lambda Chi Alpha
Theta Kappa Chapter
Rose-Hulman Inst. of Tech.

[matthewg]

Originally posted by Jeff OTMG:

In other words a democracy works for the majority so that the most people can get what they want, but only until it begins to infringe on the rights of the minority.



And the Republic???

I am sorry, but if you use your sheep/wolf picture you have got a school of sheep and one little wolf that has a gun going after the sheep.....

The point in gun restriction laws is that it might restrict the rights of some people - I agree on that one - but it promotes safety for the unprotected majority!!!!

And now you decide what is worth more: a single life saved or reasonably applied restrictions.....

And please don't argue with cites from the dark ages of the war for independence. Things have changed quite a bit since then and people have a lot less common sense than in these days.

[Lil_G]

Jeff,

Wow you are very educated on this matter, are you a professor who lectures this material at a university? http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif

Kind of a weird coincidence happened tonight while I was watching an old episode of SNL.

Phil Hartman and his wife were about to go out for the night when his wife stated her concerns that their son (played by fred savage, who's probably only 12 or 13) might find the father's gun and start playing with it. Phil convinced her it was alright because the gun was hidden behind a stack of playboys and the bullets were in the liqour cabinet - and that kevin wouldn't go in either of those places http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif
Well he obviously gets the gun, loads it and starts playing around to find his father standing at the doorway. Kevin then pulls the gun on Phil and begins to negotiate, how there are gonna be a few changes in the household. While Kevin has the gun pointed at phil the wife (blond chick forget her name) comes home and pulls another gun on kevin. They then send him to his room like no big deal.
The moral of the story is about firearm education being told by kevin neilon in the epilogue (sp?). As he's talking he gets startled by Phil and pulls the gun on him which happens again less than a minute later by Julia (?) which causes him to drop the gun and setting it off. It was pretty funny, espicially considering how we're discussing this right now.

Anyways, this thread alone is taking up too much of my time that i should instead be doing for schoolwork. It seems like there's only a small crop of us greeks trying to prove you wrong, where's everyone else?

But there is one more thing I will challenge you on. Do you honestly believe severe punishments serve as a detterence to crime? I really don't think it does. Crime is vital to the progression of society, it will always be around.

- Nick

[Jeff OTMG]

Corbin Dallas, my current client has me working in Indianapolis. My father was an FBI agent for 21 years, about 3 years spent as a firearms instructor (9 years Air Force OSI before the Bureau) and his gun would come off the belt loaded and sit openly on top of the dresser. I could touch it, but there were rules to be followed. I used the same approach of removing the mystique of firearms with my son as he grew up, now 23 and hopes to be a police officer soon. This was necessary as I own just under 100 firearms and some are kept loaded.

matthewg,
I am sorry, but if you use your sheep/wolf picture you have got a school of sheep and one little wolf that has a gun going after the sheep. Right, and as happened in San Diego recently an armed individual stopped him. The guy happened to be an off duty cop as well, but that was not the case in Pearl, Ms where the shooter was apprehended by the school Vice Principal who had a mod 1911 in .45 ACP in his car which he retrieved and held the wimpering coward at gun point until the police arrived. Out of curiosity, why do you suppose that police officers don't get mugged? Do you think it is because of the shiney badge or the nice uniform? I will tell you it is the gun they carry.

"The point in gun restriction laws is that it might restrict the rights of some people - I agree on that one - but it promotes safety for the unprotected majority!!!!"
Obviously some restrictions are permitted. The problem lies in what is 'reasonable'. I would bet that my definition of reasonable is different from yours. The unprotected majority are unprotected by choice. The Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no obligation to protect you the individual, but serve to protect the community as a whole. As a result you cannot sue the police for not protecting you if they don't show up or show up late when you call them. I have made a choice to provide for my own protection and not to rely on others. If you chose to put your safety into the hands of others that is you decision to make, but do not attempt to restrict my rights to conform to your beliefs.

"And now you decide what is worth more: a single life saved or reasonably applied restrictions." I think that having saved my life once and my girlfriends on another occaision, both while actually violating some well meaning restrictions, makes my decision easy. Who is to say what life is worth more? Why is someone who chose not to carry a means with which to defend themselves more important than me?

I don't understand the comment about the cities from the dark ages, sorry. I don't think people in general have less common sense, I think some people have less common sense, but as your statement suggests, the attitude and personality of the people are the problem not the gun itself. I do agree that things have changed, but firearms are still a superb choice for self defense as they have been since 1776. They are THE most effective method, probably why police carry them. A firearm is the only thing that one of the young ladies here would be able to effectively employ against someone of my size. I am 6', tall 220 pounds, have a 46" chest, 34" waist, and 17" biceps. A 5'3", 110 pound, female even with a bat would not stand much of a chance against me. With a gun it would be another story.

[Jeff OTMG]

Lil_g, thank you for the compliment, but I do not teach at a university level. I have been a gun rights advocate for over 20 years and have debated gun rights for much of that time. I have appeared on television in editorial rebuttals and wrote the original version of the concealed carry legislation for the State of Oklahoma back in the 1980's, though they did not pass a version until arond 1994 after I had left the state. The internet has been a great resource in providing information on the topic and making that information available to everyone who is interested. That may account for the small turn out on the topic. We may have many lurkers and few posters. I did ask in my original post that emotional arguments be excluded and that was for a reason. You cannot imagine how hateful some of the anti-gun groups can be. I attended a protest rally against the Million Mom March in May 2000 held on the mall in Washington, D.C. By the way I was there and they only had 45,000 people at the peak and 30,000 when I went by. If you check for turnout from the U.S. Park Service you will see 800,000, come to find out the Park Service now uses figures submitted by the organizations rather than counts done from aireal photos, hence the wide discrepancy. Anyway, a couple of our people went over to check them out and when the 'mean mommies' realized that there were spys amoung them our people were encircled, spit on, and kicked until park police came in to rescue them. As a result when our group of 4,000 marched past the mean mommies to a park next to the U.S. Capital we had police protection the whole way and the police had their backs to us, the gun people. During the march I was called a Nazi by two screamming mommies. It took them off guard when I started laughing and walked over to them to explain that the Nazi's only wanted the police, military, and party elites to own guns, that I wasn't the Nazi, THEY WERE. I was laughing the whole time and continued on my march with my little picket sign while they stood the quietly with their mouths open.

As far as the SNL skit goes I am sure it was amusing, but many gun owners cringe when we see guns portrayed in such a way. I found it offensive when a gun dealer had a commercial on TV in Huntsville, Al and they swung the shotgun so it was pointing right at the camera. Misuse of firearms is the problem and exposing people, especially children, to things like that sends the wrong message.

Nick, you don't have to spend all your time on this thread, just pop in every once and awhile when it is active to see what is going on. I leave for Tulsa tomorrow and won't be checking in on Sat at all.

As far as you question regarding punishment as a deterence I can only say that I don't know. I have not studied the subject beyond knowing that the crime rate in the U.S. has been on a steady decline since 1992 and that the incarceration rate has doubled. So whether it is a deterence or the fact that people who commit crimes are being locked away, I do not know. I do know that according to demographics that we are due a rise in crime between 2004 and 2010, due to the high number of 15 year olds. Don't know how it is related, but that is what they tell me. There was a retired Chicago PD detective on the Phil Donahue show. The show was about the death penalty. He didn't say much for the entire show, when Phil asked him directly his opinion he stated, 'I don't have a bunch of fancy degrees and I haven't studied human behavior, but I know that when I arrest someone and they get the death penalty, I never end up arresting them again.'

[Billy Optimist]

Originally posted by Jeff OTMG:
There was a retired Chicago PD detective on the Phil Donahue show. The show was about the death penalty. He didn't say much for the entire show, when Phil asked him directly his opinion he stated, 'I don't have a bunch of fancy degrees and I haven't studied human behavior, but I know that when I arrest someone and they get the death penalty, I never end up arresting them again.'


Never again, huh? Gee, thats good, cuz I thought it was like in that movie "Schocker." http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/rolleyes.gif The death penalaty is not an effective deterent. We've executed lots of people over the years, we still have murders. We either need to change our crime/prison system so that it can bring people back into mainstream society, or just kill everyone in there because there are way too many of them.

[Lil_G]

Originally posted by Billy Optimist:

Never again, huh? Gee, thats good, cuz I thought it was like in that movie "Schocker." http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/rolleyes.gif The death penalaty is not an effective deterent. We've executed lots of people over the years, we still have murders. We either need to change our crime/prison system so that it can bring people back into mainstream society, or just kill everyone in there because there are way too many of them.

Hahahahahahha ahhh jezz...but seriously, rehabilitation is the least important of the four main purposes of the justic system in the view of the general public. I think it's getting more worse now as private prisons are replacing public institutions. These corporations are making money off human bodies, while taxpayers are happy they are paying less (or will be) for the prison system in the united states.
One of my profs suggested that now is a really good time to invest in these private firms (e.g. Wackenhut), especially because crime rates rise in lower economic periods.

[Miami1839]

Wow. Look at all this. LOL

Mikki, I agree with you on some things but not necessarily on others. I worked as a psychiatric counselor with at risk youth for 2 years and I agree with you on the stand point that the majority of the problem is the angry kids. where are the parents? Which is another thing I'd like to bring up. From my experience many of these low income one parent families are the ones that have the highest risk of producing these angry kids. Of course any kid has the potential of becoming a perpretrator if he doesnt have a proper amount of support from various levels. So, yes, I agree Education and Prevention is something our country needs to make a top priority. Another thing. Look at the military families. If I ever got in trouble as a kid you could be rest assured that my Dad would hear about it from his CO. What I think is their is a lack of parenting and accountability on the part of the parents. There should be more intervention on the part of the local governments and the schools to see that parents do their job and if they dont then someone needs to step in before its too late.

As for public executions. why did we get rid of public hangings anyway? I could see how you would think it would be violent but look at the message its sending to everyone. I think theres lots of violence on t.v., rap(songs that recruit gang members), violent movies, etc. It might be quite a shock, but I think it would be something worth a try. You could always send your child to their room or give them something to do. Maybe that doesnt sound realistic but what I'm trying to say is we really need to take a stand and make a change. One that sticks and doesnt fall after 4 years of a presidential admnistration.

One idea I have which would probably only apply to those in high school but why not target those high risk kids in families and direct them in some kind of career mentoring/coop program. Just as you suggest Jeff. I think that would be pretty effective. I know from experience that is a useful tool. I'm not sure if it would ever happen but what about 1 year of required service in either the Conservation Corp. or in the U.S. Military upon H.S. graduation.

Jeff, Thanks for the kind words, yeah, I worked at a maximum juvenile correctional facility here in Virginia for a few months. I never had a firearm, because of state law and for obvious reasons relating to Virginia Juvenile Justice Law. The juveniles in our system that are incarcerated for felonies are kept until they are 20 and a half. Most from my experience were gang affiliated and had that street sense so that when they go into the facility they are at home. It really blows you away. Then they go through the rehabilitation program and get all the avenues of support. Then when their done the state releases them. Thats if they havent tacked more time on while inside. When they leave they have nothing. They go right back to where they came from and a lot of them go back to their high risk families if they have them. The ones in gangs, which are most of them end up being major targets when they leave the system. So as far as those kids that have served time I'm not really sure what the solution is. Most of those kids were more focused on modeling the adult criminals and basically play lip service. So my opinion of those incarcerated isnt very optimistic but then there is a small percentage that does make it to the outside and serve a productive life.

Originally posted by mgdzkm433:
What are we going to do about the kids who are going to watch live exicutions on tv?

You're only replacing violence with violence.

What are we going to do about those kids shooting multiple people?

Why don't we start with education on guns? Why don't we work on family values, why don't we work on placing more emphasis on spotting troubled teens? Why don't we crack down in our schools on kids teasing each other?

Taking firearms away isn't solving the problem. The problem is deeper than that. Why don't we work on getting rid of the ANGER the kids have? The gun didn't cause the kid to shoot anyone, their anger did that--you take away the gun--and you'll still have an angry kid--and they will STILL lash out, whether it's with a knife, a bomb, a 'illegal gun', starting a fire . . . The fact is, we'll still be turning out a kid into the world/society that has issues.

Schools have rule after rule about where kids can park, what time to be in class, if they can talk in class, what to wear . . . but we don't have or enforce rules that require the students to respect each other. Why don't we start with that? Most of these kids going in and shooting people are outcasts--kids who feel left out, ridiculed--THERE is the problem!

[Lil_G]

Well shut my mouth, I was not expecting that detailed and informative response http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif

I used the reference to first world nations because they have relatively equal stability and living standards. It's not fair to include Columbia and it's war on drugs as a means for comparing homicide rates. Neither is it realistic to use countries in the Bulkans that have not gone more than 50 years without a war in their entire history.

Yes, your reference to Swizterland and Japan does perhaps suggest that a correlation with violence is endemic to the cultural history of a society. The United States was founded on violence, and has moulded it's identity around military strength. But could the same not be said for Germany, for example? Here's a nation that has always maintained strong nationalism and also has a very detailed history of wars and violence, yet the importance of guns is inconsequential.

Yes the quote from Billy and your reference to it was an important example for the need for guns 200+ years ago, but is it still valid in the 21st Century? If Guns were eliminated in society, would the U.S. populace be subject to any lack of freedoms? I look to England as another example here, Bobbies do not even carry guns, they don't have to.



[This message has been edited by Lil_G (edited April 05, 2001).]

[mgdzkm433]

geez--guess I need to get the internet hooked up at home!

Ok--where to begin? LOL

Wait a minute - wouldn't you agree that personal freedom ends where it limits the freedom of others?

yes--you take away guns, you limit the freedom of every gun bearing American--limiting their personal freedom. I know that's not what you meant--but it goes both ways and freedoms will be 'limited' regardless. Driving my car limits the freedom of others right to clean air, smoking a cigarette does the same . . . the argument can hold true for an abundance of things.

I think uncontrolled guns truely limit the freedom of all those who prefer living in a slightly (caution! - understatement) safer environment.

I never said anything about uncontrolled guns. I said I don't believe in banning guns, and I don't agree with extremely tough gun laws--but the way things are now--I think it's fine. Things are controlled to a point, but being OVER-controlling is 'limits the freedom of all those who prefer to live with a gun in their home.'

I would rather have that limitation than having to be scared about children being shot at school because of an over abundance of weapons .....

And I would rather not have to pay for the mistakes of others and their irrisponsibility by the government limiting MY freedoms.

Mikki you mention that guns are needed as a method for survival in some parts. Okay, that means that those who need guns would be more willing to do the extra effort to get the guns because they need them. Here in Canada, they've added stricter laws to acquire and maintain guns. You need to show a license just to buy ammo. The average user who would otherwise have a gun would then not what to go through this to have his gun that he or she may rarely if ever use.
Thus, a lot of the accidental injuries caused by firearms such as road rage or some school shootings would be reduced. Guns would be much tougher to get a hold of, maybe by that time the instant aggression of getting cut-off in traffic or losing a fight would prevent someone getting killed.

We're only 'masking' the problem, creating a temporary 'out' when we make 'tougher' laws and attempt to 'ban' guns. People who 'kill' because of road rage or lose a fight have BIGGER problems and taking a gun away won't solve those problems. We need to get to the root of the problem, not 'quick fix' it. LIFE is a risk--there will ALWAY be people out there with problems, but I don't think making things tougher on everyone is the answer.

I think theres lots of violence on t.v., rap(songs that recruit gang members), violent movies, etc.

Yes, You're right about that--there IS lots of violence on TV. Mostly fiction though, and that allots for something. I think that some of it affects children, but for the most part, they understand the difference between real and unreal. There's lots of talk about banning cartoons (looney tunes) because of supposed violence (walking off cliffs, blowing things up)--but for the most part people understand that these things don't really happen. But when you put a REAL execution on TV--what are you supposed to tell your kids? That it's not real? Sure, we can do that--but then your message is lost. It reminds me when I was little and I would see a dead animal on the side of the road--my mother would tell me that it was just sleeping. Why? Because kids don't understand death and shouldn't have to at such an early age.

You could always send your child to their room or give them something to do. Maybe that doesnt sound realistic

Sorry, no, it doesnt sound realistic. I agree with you when you mentioned the decline in family values--lack of parenting. When I worked for an after-school program and summer program for the YMCA 2 years ago--I saw it SO MUCH. The reason I say the above ISN'T realistic is because we need to attack the family values part before we can trust people to 'send their kids to another room'.

but what I'm trying to say is we really need to take a stand and make a change. One that sticks and doesnt fall after 4 years of a presidential admnistration.

I am not in disagreement with that. I'm not trying to send the US back in time to where everyone carries a gun and we shoot each other in the street. I'M FOR certain gun 'laws' such as background checks. I just feel that BANNING guns or OVER-restrictions is the wrong approch. It's a way to 'quick fix' our real problems.

Limiting the freedoms of the majority to maske the problems of a few is not a realistic approch. IMHO.

I must say it is refreshing to see a 23 year old female so vigorously defend a freedom. Many people today would surrender some freedom for a feeling of more security. We have seen this in England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in the last 5-10 years. The U.S. has a history of being rebellious though.

young AND female--I've always defied the norms though http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif

[matthewg]

Originally posted by Jeff OTMG:

matthewg,
I am sorry, but if you use your sheep/wolf picture you have got a school of sheep and one little wolf that has a gun going after the sheep. Right, and as happened in San Diego recently an armed individual stopped him. The guy happened to be an off duty cop as well, but that was not the case in Pearl, Ms where the shooter was apprehended by the school Vice Principal who had a mod 1911 in .45 ACP in his car which he retrieved and held the wimpering coward at gun point until the police arrived. Out of curiosity, why do you suppose that police officers don't get mugged? Do you think it is because of the shiney badge or the nice uniform? I will tell you it is the gun they carry.



But it would not have been a problem if the kid would not have had a gun in the first place! Where did he get it from? It certainly did not drop from a truck! I think that is the problem.
Over and out - permanently. You won't convince me and I won't convince you. So I don't see a point in further aguing over it.

[AXO Alum]

Originally posted by Corbin Dallas:
didn't you know that 37% of statistics are made up??? http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif


Nuh-uhh, Corbin....its 61% of statistics that are made up on the spot! http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/biggrin.gif

[mgdzkm433]

You won't convince me and I won't convince you. So I don't see a point in further aguing over it.

I don't think anyone is arguing over anything, I think we are just having a healthy debate. I'm not out to convince people my ideas are right (I know they are http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/tongue.gif ). I think we are just talking over certain ideas and situations. I just wanted to mention that because I'd hate anyone to take this too personally or to heart. I don't think anyone wants to upset you.

But it would not have been a problem if the kid would not have had a gun in the first place! Where did he get it from? It certainly did not drop from a truck! I think that is the problem.

It would have still been a problem if there had not been a gun. The outcome might be a little different but we'd still have an angry child in society--that will always be a problem. Where did he get it from, it sure could have been 'dropped from a truck!'. The black market maybe? It will always exist. People are not trustworthy--no matter WHAT they do. Even if we were to have an all out ban on guns--SOMEONE would be illegally selling them in the US. Look at how easy it is to buy drugs--they're illegal--but you can find someone so easily to buy from. The same would happen with guns (and it already DOES happen with guns). If someone--including a child--wants to commit murder, they'll do it by any means they can. The gun isn't the problem, the person BEHIND the gun is the problem.

[Jeff OTMG]

I am so happy to see such a spirited dicussion!! To bad more aren't joining in, but at least they are reading.

I will use this opportunity to respond and to add some references that I mistakenly left out. I do not expect anyone to accept what I say as true that is not a logical derivation or supported by a reference.

Regarding the reference of a wolf with a gun and a flock of unarmed sheep that was used against me when I used it to explain the difference in a Democracy and a Republic, that is actually the example of a dictatorship.

I would say that he would get his gun the same place that he would get his drugs. Cocaine is not produced here, but there does not seem to be much of a shortage and there sure doesn't seem to be a shortage of illegal guns in England since their complete ban a few years ago, reference the link to the story about why bobbies carry guns above. Easier and much more effective if the killer would just poison everyone rather than trying to shoot them all. Shooting takes skill, poisoning doesn't.

I mentioned a court decision where police were not liable for not protecting the individual, but failed to give references:
Link to the latest occurrance in Boston: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_regional/rob04052001.htm
Court ruling:
“. . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”
--Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

I also left out references to the reports debunking Kellerman I find conflicting dates of 1986 and 1988, not 1986 as I posted above. http://www.reason.com/9704/fe.cdc.html http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/43_to_1_fallacy.htm http://users.erols.com/dsmjd/rkba/kellerman.htm

For a bibliography on both sides of the gun control issue: http://www.pitt.edu/~upjecon/BERGER/guncontrol1_bib.html

[Jeff OTMG]

A new report out says gun control studies for the last 20 years which supported gun control were done with a political agenda in mind and not the objective study that they claimed to me at all: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/6/184457.shtml

[AKA_Monet]

Originally posted by Jeff OTMG:
A new report out says gun control studies for the last 20 years which supported gun control were done with a political agenda in mind and not the objective study that they claimed to me at all: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/6/184457.shtml

You know Jeff-- If you want some ideas from other ethnic groups, in particular African Americans, then email me. I really would deter from you discussion and debate that you have going on in here...

At any rate, I think just like the bumper sticker says: Gun control is holding with two hands instead of one... Violence incited with guns is very ugly and painful to see. However, it sure does beat the crap out what it use to be like when folks have to kill each other--swords and arrows... You do have to wonder though, why are a lot of Americans "arming" themselves with heavy artillery?

[newbie]

Ooh, Lil_G--my project includes choosing one of the four systems! Personally...I like retribution and rehabiliation combined--donno if that makes sense though!

I'll email you about that more.

[Billy Optimist]

Originally posted by AKA_Monet:
You know Jeff-- If you want some ideas from other ethnic groups, in particular African Americans, then email me. I really would deter from you discussion and debate that you have going on in here...

At any rate, I think just like the bumper sticker says: Gun control is holding with two hands instead of one... Violence incited with guns is very ugly and painful to see. However, it sure does beat the crap out what it use to be like when folks have to kill each other--swords and arrows... You do have to wonder though, why are a lot of Americans "arming" themselves with heavy artillery?


I'd rather see swords. You have to train for a good while to learn how sword fight well enough to kill someone. At least we would have discepled killers...and not every one would have accesses. Only people willing and able to learn how.
Why are people arming themselves?? Well, I like to be optimistic, as the name implies. They're going to be legioniers (sp.) when I reinstate the Roman Empire. All Hail Billius Maximus!

[DBPM04]

I was actually the chair for the silent march against gun violence in my city a year ago. It is a grass root organization ran out of New York. I am for gun control. After doing research and discovering that my state had the 2nd highest percentage of people under the age of 20 killed (Utah was top I believe) I decided to take action...if anyone is interested in what we did or how to get involved...reply and I will email you!



------------------
Smile Pep Charm Style that's what we have...but most of all you'll love our laugh (whooaa)

[Jeff OTMG]

AKA Monet, thank you so much for responding, you bring up a couple of excellent points I would like to address. You are absolutely correct that violence with guns is very ugly, but so is violence without gun, in fact more so. A gunshot victim is 'clean' (with the notable exception of a head wound though a series of blows from a baseball bat has much the same effect) compared with someone dying in a violent auto accident or being beaten and kicked to death. Gunshot deaths are much quicker and cleaner than someone bleeding out from a stab wound or arrow. Guns do offer a measure of protection not available to someone with a sword or bow and arrow. The old, weak, or infirmed find a firearm the great equalizer, they would be unable to successfully defend themselves with older weapons. The firearm also gives the advantage of being able to maintain a 'stand off' distance while defending oneself, older type weapons require the 'up close and personal' approach which most people are not trained for nor are they willing to train for. I know of one gentleman who is unable to afford to live in a nice area, he lives alone, he is blind and confined to a wheelchair. His choice of a defensive weapon is a .44 mag revolver which is loaded with blanks. Harmless to people in the surrounding apts., but quite lethal at contact distance out to a couple of feet. As far as the 'heavy artillery' comment goes that has a very specific meaning and not an at issue here as they fall under control of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA '34) and are considered destructive devices. Legal to own, but not suitable for personal self defense as they are all crew served weapons. If you mean to refer to a handgun I have no problem understanding why Americans are arming themselves. I have been the intended victim of two violent encounters both of which were stopped by the introduction of my personal defense firearm. Fortunately I have not had to shoot anyone, but I have accounted for two of the estimated 2.5 million unreported self defense uses of a firearm to thwart a crime that occurs every year. So yes, I understand completely why some people choose to go armed.

I would happily discuss the problem of guns as it relates to the black community. I apologize in advance for not using the term African Americans if 'black' is offensive, as I have a personal aversion to the term African American as I find it to be generally grossly inacurate. I know, work, have worked with, and met a number of black people and African Americans. Only a couple of the African Americans that I have met were black, both born in Nigeria and now American citizens, and one person who was classifed as 'colored' under apartheid in South Africa. Besides them every true African American I have ever met is white, largely from South Africa or Egypt. Gun control is horrible racist. The very term 'Saturday Night Special' is an extract from a 'niggertown Saturday night'. An excellent article, The Racist Roots of Gun Control', was published in the Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy in 1995. It can be found here if you are interested: http://www.ggnra.org/cramer/racism.htm
The idea is that since blacks were not citizens and could not vote they were not protected by the Second Amendment to own firearms either.

Homicide, in general, is a serious problem plaguing the black community. The U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Statistics shows that the homicide victimization rates of whites has been in steady decline for the last 20 years. Over the same 20 years the black rate has been 4 to 8 times that of whites and has been in decline for the last 6 years. Blacks were also 7 times more likely to COMMIT murder than whites in 1999 and 10 times more likely than whites in 1991-1993. The drug related murder rate for blacks was more than double that for whites. I was unaware of this information until I came from Austin, Tx (low black population) and began working in Indianapolis, In (20%+ black). In Austin we had fewer than 50 murders, in Indy it was about 190 in 1999 (most of them black), yet both areas have about the same population. Yes, Indy is a little bigger, but not 4 times bigger. This info is all contained on the govt website here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

[Jeff OTMG]

newbie, good choice, but I think prevention has the best chance of success. I say this because rehabilitation means that the problem has already occurred and the best way for all of us is to keep the problem from ever happening.

[Jeff OTMG]

DBPM04, I would really like to be able to review the study you mention. If you have a link to it that would be great. If it is as you remember it proves that gun control has little effect on deaths of people under age 20 because New York has some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation compared with Utah which has some of the lightest gun control laws.

I see that you are in Illinois. If you are in Chicago around Mothers Day I believe that what is left of the Million Mom March organization may try to hold another rally that weekend. I was in D.C. last year for the counter protest, but plan on being in Chicago this year. Our group in Chicago last year required police protection, as did our group in D.C., to protect us from the 'Mean Mommies'. The hint is to see which way the police face during the rally, that is where they perceive the threat to come from.

[moe.ron]

"The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the state armies -- the militias -- would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapons he or she desires."
-Former Chief Justice Warren Burger

That is pretty much what I believe.

[moe.ron]

"The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the state armies -- the militias -- would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapons he or she desires."
-Former Chief Justice Warren Burger

[newbie]

Jeff, I'm almost finished w/my Sociology project, and basically--I kinda verved off...it's mostly cold-hard-retribution now. I have a little bit of rehabilitation mixed in (community service and entering into programs) but mostly I'm punishing future criminals hard! The project called for us to develop our own prison system--forget about the constituton--just create one based on your knowledge of "how men behave."

I belive in strict gun control. I wish I could only find the links to my school newspaper online--there were 2 brilliant articles on why gun control is the only method which will keep our communities safe! Apparently, those two articles have not been added online though.

You might want to visit www.debateinfo.com/values/crime.html. (http://www.debateinfo.com/values/crime.html.) I used that site in my argument for retribution. It has a debate between the four systems.

[This message has been edited by newbie (edited April 11, 2001).]

[AKA_Monet]

Hey Jeff--

That's why your need to email me, 'cuz although some of your reference statements are printed, it does not mean they are the truth as to who and what to call us... And it is irregardless of what, some of your "friends" may have told you. So, if you want to really know the truth, email me in private because if I post what the deal is, it will detract from the "flow of reasonings"on this board...

Other than that, gun violence in my community is utterly atrocious even though we are seeing a minute decline from the late 90's. However, the decline is still smaller compared to that observed in other communities.

Why are you interested on folks "take" on gun control?

[This message has been edited by AKA_Monet (edited April 11, 2001).]

[Jeff OTMG]

Arya, I agree with art of what Burger said. The Second Amendment does not permit individuals unlimited access. That was shown in U.S. v. Miller (1939) (link to the decision in a previous post regarding the defintion of 'militia' in the Second Amendment) and is why individuals are not allowed to own weapons of 'mass destruction', like nuclear weapons. Rights are not unlimited, they are limited when they begin to infringe on the rights of others, hence it is a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech to yell 'Fire' in a theater or to use the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble to incite people to riot. The first part of Burger's statement shows a SEVERE lack of knowledge of U.S. Code, U.S. History, and background and intent of the intent of the founding fathers. He also seems to think that that the U.S. Constitution 'grants' rights to the people, rather than restricting the power of a central govt to restrict individual rights as it was intended. I do not believe Burger to be that stupid and the quote is probably a statement from him as a 'hopeful' opinion. His statement was also made prior to the 1990 Supreme Court ruling that the term 'people' are 'individuals' when it is used in the preamble to the Constitution as well as the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments. They determined that each amendment spoke of an individual right. Here is the link to U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990): http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=494&invol=259
Basically it says you can't define the word 'people' one way throughout the entire Constitution and then make a single exception and claim that 'the people' means a 'group' only in the Second Amendment. This is referred to as the 'individual' interpretation as opposed to the 'collective' interpretation. Burger was wrong, but in fairness to him researching the Second Amendment and its intent was not his specialty.


[This message has been edited by Jeff OTMG (edited April 12, 2001).]

[Jeff OTMG]

newbie, thanks for the link, I will check it out. You have taken a proven position. Retribution or incarceration is effective. The crime rate in the U.S. has been dropping since 1992, but we have also locked up more criminals than at anytime in history. We have built more prisons, pack prisoners into the prisons we already have, and inacted '3 strikes and you're out' legislation. Locking up criminals and removing them from society does reduce crime since 85% of all crime is committed by repeat offenders. I would still like to see why you think gun control is an answer when the areas with he most strict gun control laws are also areas of the highest crime rates. L.A., D.C., Chicago, Detroit, and NYC compared to Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City, Austin, and Little Rock. I just don't see guns as a 'cause'.

[Jeff OTMG]

AKA_Monet, my interest lies in the fact that I am a 43 year old white male from Texas who hasn't been to college in 20 years. Reviewing this board I found a number of young, educated, females, from the east and west coasts. Exactly the type of people that I don't have contact with on a daily basis. This curiousity began when I attended a forum at Butler University in Indianapolis, In last Sept. and was surprised at the lack of knowledge of the history of the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. in general displayed by university students. This was of great concern to me. They were not the least bit interested in the 'whys' and 'hows' of anything, more of a tell me how it is and let's move on attitude. Seems that they didn't care at all. The problem with this is the absence of a thought process and the students are taking whatever the professors tell them at face value and without question. It is no surprise to me to find that people are perfectly willing to then trample on rights that they do not understand. To give law enforcement wide leeway in enforcement of search and seizure for drugs is finally meeting some resistance, but if those same law enforcement groups are going after guns people say that is okay. Diane Feinstein has even advocated troops going door to door to seize firearms, but by her own admission only if she thought that she could get away with it. That attitude scares me.

Please forgive my ignorance of black issues. The issues affecting blacks interest me because I know so little of black culture. I attended a private school and the high school had 1000 students of which only 4 where black. As a consultant I work with few black people, though the ones that I have worked with in the private sector have been VERY good. My only regular contact is with a young lady that I have dated some over the last year. She is a 26 year old Purdue graduate that works for my current client. We don't work together, but see each other in the company work out room. I have learned much from her. In fact I just learned about a month ago that ALL black people have curly hair. She never did until recently and she explained to me that she has always used a hair straightener or relaxer to keep it from curling. I am 43 and never knew that. Learn something new every day.

[DBPM04]

Jeff--actually that Utah fact is a little misleading becuase utah as so few people killed...only like 10 or less were teenagers....I don't have the link to the study becuase it was info sent to me by my organization...but here is some interesting stuff to ponder
"It shouldn't take a Columbine, a Jonesboro or an inner-city drive-by shooting to make us realize that American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States."
"Guns do kill people, especially when wielded by children. More than 800 Americans, young and old, die each year from guns shot by children under the age of 19." http://www.silentmarch.org/index.htm

------------------
Smile Pep Charm Style that's what we have...but most of all you'll love our laugh (whooaa)

[Corbin Dallas]

Originally posted by DBPM04:
"Guns do kill people, especially when wielded by children. More than 800 Americans, young and old, die each year from guns shot by children under the age of 19." http://www.silentmarch.org/index.htm

How many of those 800 are killed intentionally or by accident? If it's by accident, then education is the problem. How many of those gun deaths are with guns that are illegaly owned anyway? Just curious http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Steve Corbin
Lambda Chi Alpha
Theta Kappa Chapter
Rose-Hulman Inst. of Tech.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Billy Optimist:

Never again, huh? Gee, thats good, cuz I thought it was like in that movie "Schocker." http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/rolleyes.gif The death penalaty is not an effective deterent. We've executed lots of people over the years, we still have murders. We either need to change our crime/prison system so that it can bring people back into mainstream society, or just kill everyone in there because there are way too many of them.

Billy's absolutely correct (i didn't want to get involved here . . . eh) - according to statistical studies, the death penalty is a non-factor in crime rates on a state-by-state level - whether or not that is extensible to a nationwide penalty is open to debate, but the obvious conclusion . . . apparently criminals don't think of that particular penalty during premeditation (if any exists).

Also, crime in general has dropped over many many years, although violent crime among young people has increased - i don't think you can address this problem by simply removing or altering the legal right to own guns. Endemic crime in the US is not based solely on any one law or how well it is followed; violent crime especially can be linked to various historical, socioeconomic, and educational factors. How to address these? Probably no way I can list here . . . a problem for those smarter than I.

[Jeff OTMG]

Originally posted by KSig RC:
Also, crime in general has dropped over many many years, although violent crime among young people has increased.

I am in almost complete agreement with you with the exception of this quote. Try this: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4845a1.htm
You will find a table near the bottom, about the third table down, with deaths by age bracket and these are dropping for young people as well.

The amazing thing to me is that although the CDC reports show a drop in gun deaths from 1993-1999 and there were over 12 million more guns in the hands of private citizens, some people still insist that guns are the 'cause' of gun related deaths. If there are 12 million plus more firearms in the population, an increase of roughly 5%, and guns in the population are the cause of gun related deaths (as they claim), then there should be at least a 5% increase in the firearm related death rate for the same time frame, showing a direct correlation. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN! Fact is that the number of firearms in the U.S. society goes up every year, yet the firearm related deaths fluctuate widely and amoung whites has actually seen a steady decline for 20 years.

[Jeff OTMG]

Originally posted by DBPM04:
In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States... More than 800 Americans, young and old, die each year from guns shot by children under the age of 19."


This is misleading in a number of ways:

First, there are about 11,000 TOTAL firearm related deaths in the U.S. excluding suicides. Therefore they must be including suicide deaths in their figure. We know from looking at the suicide rates in Japan that firearms do NOT have a causal effect on suicide. Japan has a greater number of suicides than the U.S. and half the population giving them a suicide rate of more than double that of the U.S.

Second, the figure also includes 'children' who are in fact adults in an attempt to pad the number and play on emotion. Note that the CDC identifies children in a category of ages 0-14 in the study found at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4845a1.htm and show only 630 firearm deaths in 1997, far fewer than the 5285 stated. The next CDC category is 15-24 years old. The higher death count from this group is needed by certain organizations to bump up their claims of 'children' being killed, so they 'borrow' some numbers from this more adult group. The intent is to associate the higher figure with the term 'children'. This is an attempt to put the emotional image in the mind of people who do not question what they read into thinking that the babies we see in diaper commercials on TV (children) are being killed with guns when in fact it isn't happening. In Texas an adult is 17, 18 year olds are allowed to vote and to be sent off to die in wars everywhere in the U.S. Hardly children. These 'children' that they count are also frequently in 'high risk' groups, such as being members of gangs or involved in drug activities. (This was shown as THE SINGLE MAJOR factor in firearm related deaths by the Kellerman study back in 1986. Kellerman was trying to prove a casual effect of firearms, but with the raw data that he did provide it showed that 'high risk behavior' was the actual causal effect.) As a result we see a higher incidence of firearm related death in the 14-19 year olds than in the 0-14 year olds. This tells us again that guns have no causal effect. If it did we would see a even impact across all age groups to adulthood as we would see with something like an anthrax virus infection or the effect from radioactive fallout. To see the cause we would need to look at a study of, parental influence in the home, economic standing, criminal background, drug involvement, and general 'high risk' behavior.

Third, the statement neatly tip-toes around countries that do not fit such as Israel and Switzerland. Both countries have higher rates of private firearm ownership than the U.S. yet have lower firearm related child deaths and lower firearm related child death rates. It also does not mention those countries with lower private gun ownership rates yet have more firearm deaths, the masacre of refugees in, I think, Ruwanda a few years ago comes immediately to mind.

Fourth, using the logic in that statement we could also say that we have a much higher number of deaths of children in the U.S. due to automobile accidents. The U.S. a higher number of deaths due to drowning in swimming pools. Why is that? It is because the U.S. has 275 million people, a larger population than any country mentioned. We also have more automobiles, more highways, more streets, drive further due to spread out urban areas, and have more privately owned swimming pools. It is a case of you couldn't die of a heart attack if you didn't have a heart. Sure we could do away with all the deaths that doctors and hospitals cause (a much higher rate than gun related) by doing away with them, but the benefit of having them outweighs the risks. Same with cars and swimming pools. We accept a certain death rate for the convienience of having them. The misuse of roughly 260,000,000 guns in the U.S. equate to about 10,000 NON-justifiable homicides and accidental deaths in the U.S. (.00384%) versus the lawful 2,500,000 to 3,000,000 uses each year to prevent a crime and a multitude of lawful uses daily for shooting, hunting, and competition purposes. As I stated in an earlier posting I personally accounted for two of those self defense uses in 1989.


[This message has been edited by Jeff OTMG (edited April 18, 2001).]

[DBPM04]

as someone who has felt the pain of a sucide that was done with a gun...guns do (in my personal opinion) lead to sucides. I wish i could find the site....but children in homes with guns are like 3-4x as likely to committ sucides

------------------
pass that old silver goblet with the Phi Mu upon it and we'll all have another round of *cheer* cuz it's not for knowledge that we came to college but to have fun while we're here!

[Billy Optimist]

More women than men commit suicide, or at least try to, but men are more sucessful. Men are more likely to use guns or jump off buildings, where as women are more likely to take some pills, and call their best friend.

[tcsparky]

I am 31, teach high school, and grew up in Arkansas. When I was growing up, it was a rite of passage (for both sexes) to receive his/her first personal weapon (usually a
4-10 shotgun) and be allowed to go hunting with the grown-ups. Until 12 years old, children went hunting with the adults on special teaching trips. The goal was not to bring in game but to learn how to hunt and how to handle oneself when armed. We had guns in eveyr household I visited. They were never secured or locked up. AND WE NEVER PLAYED WITH THEM. Why not? We were taught that we should not play with guns. They were not toys. We never aimed guns at people. It was dangerous. Sure, we had guns in the trunks of cars and behind the seats of the trucks at school. Why? People went hunting before and after school. Did we ever use them to shoot people at school? NO. Why not? Because that is stupid.
Yes, we played cowboys and Indians. With toy guns and water pistols. We knew the difference.
Why should people own guns now? Food. Defense. And because it is our second amendment right. If we do not exercise our rights, then just like an arm or leg that is not exercised, it will atrophy and become useless.
I teach in a high school. Am I afraid? Yes indeed. Not all of these kids believe in the sanctity of human life. What bothers me the most? That by law I am required to be completely and utterly defenseless while on school property. I have NO method of defending myself or my students in case of emergency. My military training with weapons will be useless. And we (my students and myself) will be dead.

People who will shoot up a school do not stop to consider that taking a gun on school property is illegal. 1-5 years in jail in some places. They are planning on murder. Life sentence. One small little law about taking weapons onto school grounds doesn't deter them.

For those who advocate registration- When the government decides to go collect all of the newly "illegal" firearms, the registration list will be a confiscation list. Those who were law abiding and registered will be defenseless. Those "criminals" who failed to register their weapons will still have protection. Historically, in countries where only the military had guns, only the military (and its military-supported government)and its supporters had rights, food, clothing, education, ......

Just something to think about.

[This message has been edited by tcsparky (edited April 21, 2001).]

[Jeff OTMG]

tcsparky, reading what you wrote reminded me of the recent 60 Minutes broadcast. From the transcript of an interview done by Bradley with the parents of victims at Columbine:

Ms. FLEMING: There was no one in that school that had a gun other than the two killers. And no one pursued them. No one tried to engage them.

Unlike the Vice Principal in Pearl, Ms who was able to stop the school shooting there after retrieving his pistol from his car or more recently the first shooting at the school outside San Diego where a person carrying a concealed firearm was at the school and was able to prevent the kid from shooting more people.

The other thing that we should point out is that should gun registration pass, convicted felons are NOT required by that law to register their guns, only the law abiding must comply. You think that sounds strange? The problem is that it is illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm. If he were to go in and register his gun it would be in violation of of his constitutional right to protection from self incrimination. That is why if a felon buys a gun from a dealer and fills out a 4473 form it is not admissible as evidence. As a result, only the people who may legally have guns would be required to register them and supposedly that isn't who they are going after.

Miami1839, you must be quite comfortable when you are working in a correctional facility. It must me the safest place in the world since there are no guns anywhere. I bet you never watch your back. Stay safe. http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif

[Billy Optimist]

Originally posted by tcsparky:

For those who advocate registration- When the government decides to go collect all of the newly "illegal" firearms, the registration list will be a confiscation list. Those who were law abiding and registered will be defenseless. Those "criminals" who failed to register their weapons will still have protection. Historically, in countries where only the military had guns, only the military (and its military-supported government)and its supporters had rights, food, clothing, education, ......

Just something to think about.

[This message has been edited by tcsparky (edited April 21, 2001).]

If the government ever out laws ALL guns, which is highly unlikey, they will not have the power to take yours if you bought them before that law was made. Thats in the constitution too. Its known as the "ex post facto" claus. I only advocate registration of high power guns. And I think it should be done on the distributors level. That means, the manufactures and distributiors keep tabs on how many are made, and if the number that is sold doesn't match up, then we know they got into the wrong hand. http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif

[Miami1839]

Jeff,

Its a job I used to have and dont have the slightest desire to work in the profession or CJ field again. However I do have much respect for those that work in locked facilities over thoses that work on the roads. I think "safe" is a relative term. Like sometimes a stolen pencil in the wrong hands can mean life or death for a juvenile correctional officer. I had back up whenever I needed it with a radio and plenty of cameras. Basically, my main tools were my pen, paper, and my voice. I did have to always watch my back and I felt that the support in my facility was lacking so I left after 3 months. I definitely learned and took a lot from that job and gained a lot of insight of what it feels like to clock in and clock out of a locked environment. Its not like the felons are the only ones locked up. Anyways, yeah, it was a safer environment in some ways I guess compared to schools. Now, I'm in a job ten times better than that and pay is way better too. http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif

Kevin

[Miami1839]

Billy, I have to disagree with your facts on suicide. I'm not sure if thats actually true. Last year when I went through juvenile correctional officer training we had a clinical psychologist(heads the diagnostic unit for all incoming juveniles who have been adjudicated in the state system) who gave us a lecture. She claimed with proof that there are less attempts for girls than there are for boys. She added that girls tend to be more successful. At least thats how I remember it. Of course I'm talking more in terms of Virginia. They definitely dont pay teachers enough. My mom is a teacher and definitely has it more rough than when I was a juvenile correctional officer I think. Its even bad here in Virginia for juvenile correctional officers because they are keeping older kids until they are 20 and half that corrupt the younger ones. Plus we had no firearms or spray of any kind. So I was up against(supervising independently) the roughest kids in Virginia (18-25 kids). Though at least my environment was more controlled than a school setting. My mom is a first grade teacher and she has no choice when she gets 2 or 3 emotionally disturbed kids who throw chairs or whatever. Often times she has to deal with them for 6 months or so until the administration decides to move them to a specialized setting. Schools definitely are different then when I was in high school in the late eighties.

Kevin

[This message has been edited by Miami1839 (edited April 21, 2001).]

[Jeff OTMG]

Miami1839, intended as a joke. I hear people say how safe it would be if there were no guns and it always reminds me of inside the walls of a prison where there are no guns. Sure still seems to be a lot of violence though. So, guns do not equal violence. Violence is a personality trait. I couldn't work in a lock down prison. WAY to violent and dangerous, even if it were kids.

A friend of mine sent this to me, I got a kick out of it:

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense --give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons vehicles buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.
14. These phrases; ”…right of the people peaceably to assemble," "…right of the people to be secure in their homes," "…enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people…" all refer to individuals, but "…the right of the people to keep and bear arms…" refers to the state.
15. “The Constitution is strong and will never change.” But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren’t “military weapons”, but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles,” because they are military weapons.
18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it defends parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends parts of the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands.” Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

[Billy Optimist]

Cool list Jeff. Its good to see the constitution defended. But, school violence is down a lot now. Lowest sence people started going to highschool. Its just more spread out now, thats why the media is able to focus on it.

[tcsparky]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Billy Optimist:
[B] If the government ever out laws ALL guns, which is highly unlikey, they will not have the power to take yours if you bought them before that law was made. Thats in the constitution too. Its known as the "ex post facto" clause"

Actully, they can take weapons that you possessed before a particular gun was outlawed. They have done it in California. People were told that they were legally allowed to own SKS rifles, but that they must register them. The next attorney general to take office then decided to outlaw that particular weapon, used the registration list to mail a notice to those people that they must surrender their SKS, alter them to make them inoperable(ruin), or sell them out of state. Anyone who did not comply was then labeled a felon, and the registration list became a confiscation list. "Ex po facto" did not protect these people from this law. If a weapon is outlawed, it is against the law to own it, whether you bought it before or after it was outlawed. You are thinking that if the IMPORTING of a particular weapon is outlawed, then people who already own it are allowed to keep it, and any of those for sale that are already in the country are allowed to be sold.

[Billy Optimist]

TC Sparky--
Then that action was unconstitutional, and should be challenged.

[newbie]

Jeff, I invite you to visit my school's newspaper site...where there were three very good articles regarding gun control and recent school violence... http://www.thelowell.org/opinion/2000-01/apr17-gunctrl.html and http://www.thelowell.org/opinion/2000-01/apr17-opblame.html and http://www.thelowell.org/opinion/2000-01/apr17-op2ndamend.html

My school's newspaper has always won either Number One or Two in "Best High School Newspaper" in the U.S....so you can bet that you will have a good time reading the articles! http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif


[This message has been edited by newbie (edited April 27, 2001).]

[Billy Optimist]

AND IF YA WANNA BATTLE BRING A SHOT-GUN!!
BUT IF YOU DO YOU'RE A FOOL CUZ I DUEL TO THE DEATH TRYIN TA STEP TA ME YA TAKE YA LAST BREATH

[Billy Optimist]

AND IF YA WANNA BATTLE BRING A SHOT-GUN!!
BUT IF YOU DO YOU'RE A FOOL CUZ I DUEL TO THE DEATH TRYIN TA STEP TA ME YA TAKE YA LAST BREATH

[Jeff OTMG]

Thanks newbie!!!! I was able to read through each piece and I will be putting together responses for each one. I do find it difficult to debate people in high school, no offense, because at that age most people are limited in comprehension of views outside of where they regularly get information. For example, small children will believe ANYTHING that their parents tell them is true and deny truth if it contradicts their parents. They will accept the parental information as fact and repeat it to anyone who will listen. By high school age most have matured enough to begin to question some things told to them by their parents, but they do tend to shift what they believe to information gathered from the media, teachers, and peers, prequently without question. The fact that they are in San Fransisco adds another interesting element in that there is not a very diverse 'thought pool' there. Most people who live there have the same general ideas about social issues and values. What I find amusing is that they wish to impose their beliefs and opinions on the entire country much as the pro-life groups wish to impose their beliefs on everyone and I am relatively certain that the students would condem the pro-life groups for pushing for national legislation.

I must say that the articles are well written and the paper has a web site to be proud of, VERY well done. I am impressed with both the quality of the material and the idea of putting it together in such a professional site. It reflects well upon the school to have something of that quality to represent them to the public and to have it available on the web gives the school international exposer. Exposer at that level was not even dreamed of when I was in high school, class of '75.

[SuperXO]

Hmm, I have been holding back, but here is what I have to say:

Firearms are, in almost all cases, totally unnnecessary except for 2 reasons: to kill people or to protect yourself against another person with a firearm that wants to harm you. Sure, it would be hard at first, but in the long run, getting rid of guns would be a solution to many of our problems. People can find any number of statistics to suit their cause, but the fact remains that humans are so selfish and immature at most stages that they are not prepared to deal with the enormity of their power. I am appalled by the paucity of intelligence exhibited by many of my fellow Americans and cannot believe that we think it doesn't infringe upon everyone's rights for people like these to own guns, drive vehicles, have children and any number of other things. we are, as a species, shooting ourselves in the foot (pardon the pun).

Canada does fine without every other person owning a firearm...they seem like happy people and they have a lovely country (before anyone says it, don't worry, I AM considering moving there!)

And finally, I swear I see a correlation between arrogance and unadulterated testosterone-caused idiocy by gun-owners and proponents. Hmm, if I ever get back into the sciences I will most certainly do a study to see if gun-owners are actually more arrogant, or if it is only a misconception.

[Jeff OTMG]

Allow me to respond to that:

Originally posted by SuperXO:
Firearms are, in almost all cases, totally unnnecessary except for 2 reasons: to kill people or to protect yourself against another person with a firearm that wants to harm you.

I shall assume by this statement then that you would then support a ban on firearms. That would then, of course, include police since we wouldn't want the police killing people and they would not need the protection since nobody else would have firearms (that would be illegal). That being said, you will find little support from the law enforcement community to disarm themselves. You don't see many cops getting mugged. Why is that? It is because they have guns. Your total premise is incorrect from the start. You state 'IN MOST CASES...'. I own nearly 100 firearms, the majority of them handguns. Zero have been used for criminal purposes. In fact there are 260,000,000+ firearms in the U.S., far less than 130,000,000 firearms are used illegally. Therefore that statement is a lie. You also state that there are two primary reasons to own guns. I have already shown that they don't kill people, do you honestly believe that I need 100 guns for self defense? No. Some of my battery are employed in the self-defense role, based on climate, attire, and activity, but the majority are owned purely for the enjoyment for the sport or competition. I also have 4 motorcycles because I like them. Some people like cars. As far as using the guns for self defense ONLY against another person with a firearm, I beg to disagree. A firearm can be employed anytime there is a disparity of force. For example, in Nov 1989 when 5 men attempted to abduct my girlfriend, my firearm negated the odds of 5 to 1. The firearm gave me the power to kill all five of them in under 2 seconds. I do not know if they were armed with guns or knives or nothing. 5 to 1 was enough that I was not going to risk my well being in a hand to hand confrontation. I say 2 seconds because I have engaged four separate 8" targets (about the size of a human head) at a range of 12 feet and placed one shot on each target in 1.44 seconds. Adding one more target would surely not take an extra half second. My score was only good enough for second place in the match, my friend beat me with a time of 1.27 seconds. My intervention allowed them to decide whether to continue with the activity or disengage. They decided to leave. Point is that a firearm can be used to defend against another firearm, a knife, a club, multiple assailants, or in one state (Texas) to protect the loss or damage of personal property regardless of value.

Originally posted by SuperXO:
Sure, it would be hard at first, but in the long run, getting rid of guns would be a solution to many of our problems.

Actually it would be the solution to many of the problems of criminals. Go to a prison sometime and interview burglars. Or you could just go to the library and read the Wright-Rossi report for the answers (they interviewed over 1500 prisoners). Ask them why they break into homes when nobody is there. If you look at home invasions (burglaries where the home is occupied) you will find much higher rates in all other countries. When you ask the prisoners why, the number one reason that they avoid occupied houses is the fear that someone at home might have a gun to shoot them with. If you are against firearms I strongly urge you to place a sign in your front yard declaring your home a 'Safe House - GUN FREE HOME. No firearms permitted on premises.' Go ahead and set an example for the rest of us. Lead by example. If you are not willing to do this ask yourself why not. If you are, let me know how long it is before you are the subject of a home invasion.

Originally posted by SuperXO:
People can find any number of statistics to suit their cause, but the fact remains that humans are so selfish and immature at most stages that they are not prepared to deal with the enormity of their power.

I am fully prepared to deal with the power of carrying a gun. I have had more than one opportunity to shoot people. LEGALLY. In Texas it is legal to shoot 'taggers' after dark. Last week a 14 year old was shot in the back for stealing chickens in San Antonio at 04:00. The shooter will not be charged, it is legal. Yes it is legal, but I go out of my way to avoid shooting people. I do still want the option to decide if I want to shoot the person that is in the process of caving my head in with a crowbar. I have found that introducing a firearm early into a confrontation of that type is sufficient to stop it before it starts.

Originally posted by SuperXO:
I am appalled by the paucity of intelligence exhibited by many of my fellow Americans and cannot believe that we think it doesn't infringe upon everyone's rights for people like these to own guns, drive vehicles, have children and any number of other things.

I don't know if I understand you correctly, but gun ownership and having children are rights. Driving is a privledge. Are you saying that some people should not be permitted to have children? I have a serious problem with that. It may solve some problems and do some good in certain cases, BUT you cannot removed a persons right to have a family without some serious extenuating circumstance. China has restrictions like that, on guns as well, and as we all know China is not a republic nor does it use a representative democracy as a form of govt as found in the U.S.

Originally posted by SuperXO:
Canada does fine without every other person owning a firearm...they seem like happy people and they have a lovely country (before anyone says it, don't worry, I AM considering moving there!)

There are about 27 million Canadians and 8 million Canadian gun owners. We have 275 million people and 80 million gun owners. the gun ownership rate is actually higher in Canada than here. They have a very different social order than the U.S. They do not seem to want to kill each other nearly as much as we do, but they do not have the violent history of the U.S. Guns are not the problem, if they were Canada would be much worse off than the U.S.

Originally posted by SuperXO:
And finally, I swear I see a correlation between arrogance and unadulterated testosterone-caused idiocy by gun-owners and proponents.

I would like to know where you see it? I see just the opposite. I see groups like the Million Mom March lie to the point that their parent organizations (The Trauma Foundation and the Bell Campaign) were thrown out of their office space that they were getting illegally from the San Francisco General Hospital Building 1 Room 300.
Here is the page of a friend of mine who helped get them kicked out: http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/mmm/

With any luck we will have the Justice Department investigation underway before the end of the year and the mommies laid off 30 of 35 employees as a result. Best I can do is the opening of the article from the SF Examiner and a link to the New York Times.

4/12/01 - front page of the SF Examiner daily paper:

Million Mom March leaving its office space

By Christopher Merrill Of The Examiner Staff

The Million Mom March foundation is moving out of rent-free office space it enjoyed for two years on the third floor of a building at San Francisco General Hospital.

A pro-gun activist launched a campaign against the group this year when he discovered what he said were unapproved taxpayer subsidies -- meaning free rent -- going toward the ailing gun-control organization.

This contains only a reference to the layoffs: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/11/weekinreview/11DAO.html?pagewanted=print

If you want to see idiocy I can provide you with an unbelievable amount of information on the liars and criminals that make up the anti-gun groups. It even includes funding of 'studies' to get results they want published. In fact in my buddies link above are letters to the CDC asking that they withdraw money due to a misuse of govt funds. Members of the MMM charged with assault. A Colorado director of the Bell Campaign assaulting a person attending a speech by Charlton Heston note the first article and statements by police: http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/033000/waynesword.html
Then a follow up: http://www.bouldernews.com/news/local/09lgun.html
The story of a MMM member tracking down and shooting the person who whe thought shot her son, only she got the wrong guy. You want arrogance? Look to the radical anti-rights political lobbying groups. They are voilent and will lie and distort anything to fit their agenda.

Originally posted by SuperXO:
Hmm, if I ever get back into the sciences I will most certainly do a study to see if gun-owners are actually more arrogant, or if it is only a misconception.

I certainly hope that you don't get my tax dollars for something like that, but if you do I would like to take bets that, as any other person doing a study where there is a personal agenda involved, I am sure that it will come out exactly as you want it to. About that arrogance you mentioned earlier. You might want to read a piece published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., Medical Sentinel: Gun Violence Studies Based on Flawed Methods, Political Agendas, you wouldn't want to be included in that. http://www.aapsonline.org/aaps/press/medsentgun.htm

I do see a bit of meanness or a snide sarcastic tone to some of your post. I suggest that you read this and see if you see yourself in any of the doctor's observations: http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

Please feel free to respond to any statements which I have made to rebut your views. I would be particularly intersted in 'only two uses for firearms' (though I suspect that Dr. Sarah Thompson's article has you pegged see the Projection defense mechanism part), the part about removing peoples right to have children, and proof that your theory of 'getting rid of guns would be a solution to many of our problems' would work. On the last one, I would avoid crime stats from England and Australia since passing their sweeping gun control measures a few years ago, it will only prove you wrong.


[This message has been edited by Jeff OTMG (edited April 28, 2001).]

[SuperXO]

Jeff,
As you expected, I would like to respond. I have two introductory comments. One is that you failed to acknowledge my statement (even though you reproduced it) that, sure it would be hard at first, but in the long run, getting rid of guns, etc. etc... So, no I don't advocate banning firearms tomorrow. I am a pragmatist and fully realize that all heck would break loose. However, I still purport that if we could overcome the initial pain and work out the kinks, life would be better without handguns. That's my opinion, which you asked us all for at the beginning.

Second, you're right. I forgot the recreational use of guns. Strangely, I still don't see guns as some noble object. The recreational use of guns is no more necessary than killing people with guns. Here's a little quote that kinda repeats what I said more eloquently: the old classic "cars kill more people than guns, but we don't ban cars." The response to this irrelevant argument is that cars have other usage, whereas guns basically just kill, or threaten to kill. Their one potentially valid use, self-defense, is undercut by the statistics by Kellerman and Zimring previously cited, as well as fatal weaknesses in the arguments of Lott and Kleck. (don't worry, more to come on those names you probably recognize!)And another quote from Titus, a cute little TV show that sent me into hysterics the other night when Titus and his father were in a gun shop and Titus (as a little boy) says, "Daddy, I want a gun!" and his father says, "Christopher, we don't need guns. The men in our family have penises." Hmmm...might Dr. Sarah Thompson have an opinion on what category gun-owners fall into? Probably not, but I can tell you, as a graduate in Psychology, that a lot of the rhetoric they spout could qualify them for inferiority complex, paranoia, sometimes to the point of being socially debilitative (in which case it is an actual disease according to the APA) and sometimes, borderline personality disorder.

The fact is, I am not debating the legality of gun ownership, nor how painful it would be to suddenly ban guns in America. However, I maintain my opinion that guns are like the little hanging things at the back of our throats...you know the uvula? The true purpose is archaic and no longer applicable. But, well, they're still here and it'll take lots of years of evolution to get rid of them.

However, I cannot stop here, because although I rightly claimed that people can and will find any statistics to support their cause, you spewed many forth for me. So, here are a few words for you on yours.

First, I found it ironic that you questioned a study I might run to see if there is a correlation between gun ownership and arrogance, in addition to saying that gun control advocates often fund research to get what they want. Then you send me off to pro-gun sites and expect me to believe those are unbiased? Oh yeah, and Dr. Sarah Thompson surely did not have an agenda when she was using science to prove that gun control advocates have psychological issues. I am insulted that you would think I would not notice the hypocrisy!

And FYI, I know enough to conduct double-blind studies with representative samples, which apparently some of your boys do not (read on!)

"Laws restricting access to guns have resulted in a decline in gun homicides and suicides. Laws making it easier to carry concealed weapons have not decreased homicide rates and may have contributed to increases in homicides. Although some have argued that laws making it easier to carry concealed weapons decrease violent crime rates, this conclusion is based on flawed research. http://support.jhsph.edu/departments/gunpolicy/factsheets.cfm

Apparently the pro-gun advocates funded studies that used non-representative samples to show that gun violence went down when there were no laws to restrict gun ownership. Oh and also, they forgot to control for the fact that gun-violence was already on the decline in their test areas (Florida was a specific example), so how could they tell what was causal and what was incidental. the answer: they can't!

This research was done by Johns Hopkins University, one of the premier secondary institutions in our country. Their bibliography for this piece in particular is made up of articles from such respected journals as the New England Journal of Medicine and the American Journal of Public Health, so you can't even say it's because this school was given huge grants by gun-control advocates!

Here's another little something by nationally renowned and respected publications:
But research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.(Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.) The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death(FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48).

and...
Research by Dr. Arthur Kellerman has shown that keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one. That is, excluding many other factors such as previous history of violence, class, race, etc., a household with a gun is 2.7 times more likely to experience a murder than a household without one, even while there was no significant increase in the risk of non-gun homicides!
This study (Arthur Kellermann et. al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," The New England Journal of Medicine, October 7, 1993, pp. 1084-1091) has been much maligned by the gun lobby, but despite repeated efforts to tar it as non-scientific, its publication in one of the most respected peer-reviewed journals in the world is just one indiciation of its soundness.

Finally, I found this little snippet at the site which follows:
FBI Crime Reports sources indicate that there are about 340,000 reported firearms thefts every year. Those guns, the overwhelming amount of which were originally manufactured and purchased legally, and now in the hands of criminals. Thus, the old credo "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is silly. What happens is many guns bought legally are sold or stolen, and can then be used for crime. http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm

I also read a lot about America having more violent gun related incidents than 25 industrialized nations combined and every high schooler knowing someone who brought a gun to school and what-not. I will not waste either of our time with these because, although they prove my point that America, with the some of the loosest laws, is the worst country to live in for gun violence, it has not much to do with my statement that the world would be better without guns, period.

One thing I always find interesting and would like your views on: many gun-advocates claim that the government is corrupt and wants to restrict guns so they can control the people and take away our rights. However, since the courts have not ruled in favor of the Second Amendment protecting the individual's right to keep and bear arms, I would say that these people are mighty lucky that their government officials are protecting them by keeping this stuff legal! They should all thank their local Senators and Reps. Do you not agree?
In conclusion...(well, it IS almost as long as an essay for school)
Do I believe everything I read? No. I don't believe everything you posted, nor do I believe everything I posted, because some were conveniently taken from gun-control websites. My point, once again, that people can find any stats to support their position. However, I believe a lot of the things I posted, because of the quality of research put out by people who are permitted to submit to the New England Journal of Medicine and such.

Maybe some day you and I will have a contest to see who can find more websites to support their position. I bet we'd qualify for some Guiness Record, because the resources are nearly limitless!

Oh, and as far as having children and operating moto rvehicles, those are non-sequitirs and do not belong in this thread, so I won’t make my post ANY LONGER!!! (Whew!)

Bye for now!

[This message has been edited by SuperXO (edited April 28, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by SuperXO (edited April 28, 2001).]

[SuperXO]

Matthew, thanks! I was beginning to get the feeling the gun control people were being snowed over by stats and just wanted to point out that it's all too easy to make a list that sounds really impressive, but...you know!

Anyway, Jeff, I wanted to make a few more comments. First, I failed to respond to one of your intial questions, which is about the background of responders. I am a 26 year old female and I live in California. I currently live in the Bay Area, but grew up around LA and San Diego. I am an unapologetic environmentalist. Another strike against guns for me is hunting. Controlling the animal population with guns is not a valid answer to a problem humans have created, which is destroying their habitat. We caused the problem and we should solve it by a better process than killing them. It's not their fault! Also, the slippery slope between deer and ducks to tigers and elephants it too much for me and people that think a "sport" is going out and killing defenseless animals do not know the value of true sports such as competing against similarly equipped, similarly intelligent humans, such as in football or the eco-challenge or golf! Also, have you seen the quote "Protect our rights to arm bears!" Hilarious pun!

But, here are a few things I bet you couldn't guess! I am ardently pro-death penalty. I think if we actually used it more, we'd see some results. the sad fact is, criminals do not actually think they will get the death penalty and that's a big reason they are not deterred. Additionally, I am for welfare-reform and fiscally conservative and believe in the family's responsibility to raise their children and not blame guns, music or TV. In fact, if I was one of the mother's suing the MTV show Jackass, I would be embarrassed to admit to the world that i let MTV raise my kid. She must have, because she's saying that MTV's influence on him is greater than her years of saying, "It's probably not a good idea to set yourself on fire!" The lack of personal responsibility in our society is outrageous!

Now, before you respond to my previous post, I want to let you know that I have already seen your rebuttals to the scientific methods used by Kellerman in his studies. however, I also know that the New England Journal of Medicine has each article reviewed by 10-15 of the author's peers (who by the way, are not paid and are purposely diverse in their studies and beliefs). So, when I read them refuting the refute of the gun-advocates, well what do I believe? I am sure you feel the same way about the evidence I presented about Lott and Kleck and their faulty research methods. It seems clear to me that one cannot trust the conclusions they came to when they violate basic research principles, but I know that you are committed to these studies and doubt you will give them up as evidence to be used for your cause. So, we are at an impasse, are we not? If you agree to refute every study I post, I will agree to do the same for you!

Actually, I am just kidding about that and about the Guiness competition about who can find more websites. I love this spirited discussion and fully intend to participate more, but because gun control is not one of my "pet issues" and the fact that I am a busy gal, I don't think a competition between us would be fair or possible. After all, you have been researching it almost as long as I have been alive AND you sound like you might have some more time on your hands than me http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif

But, to direct what I would like to discuss with you further, and take it to the next level, what does one do when one can refute everything their opponent says, but all of their evidence is similarly refuted? How do we take this discussion up a notch, and not end up repeating or reinventing stats for every post we make?

One more question I can't resist: did I miss it or may we ask what the OTMG stands for?

[This message has been edited by SuperXO (edited April 28, 2001).]

[matthewg]

Super XO
WONDERFUL!!!!!!!!

[Jeff OTMG]

WOW SUPER XO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I go away for a minute and I come back to this! I am going to have to do this in stages and I am going to take up the easy part first.

Thanks for the info, it looks like we are about as opposite as two people can be. I grew up all over the country, which includes putting some time in out in Calif. I can tell you that Calif, Hawaii, Mass, NY, and NJ are similar in political views, but those views are not shared by most of the rest of the country. I saw recently that San Francisco is going to allow insurance for city employees to cover their expenses for sex change operations. I remember a couple of years ago when a cougar killed a female jogger. The cougar was tracked and killed, was also found to have a couple of cubs that had to be taken in and raised. In Calif. more money was donated to care for and raise the cougar cubs than was donated to the jogger's memorial fund for her children. I may be going out on a limb here, but I really don't think that you would see that happen in Texas or many other places. The U.S. in general is VERY different from where you have lived. You will be happy to know that I do not hunt, I did 25 years ago, birds mostly, but not anymore. If someone else wants to hunt I won't stop them, but it is not for me and not for me to decide for them. With nearly 100 firearms in my possession about the only thing in danger around me at the range is a paper plate or a sheet of paper with an ink target printed on it. I would rather go to the store to buy my groceries. If you ever went hunting you would be surprised at how difficult it can be. Some of the animals are downright dangerous, as mentioned above. I am a conservationist, in fact my pet 'cause' is ground water having worked as a hydrologist for the National Center for Groundwater Research from 1980-1982, but environmentalism is, IMO, extreme. I believe in moderation in most things, including with gun control laws, and allowing people to make their own choices rather than impose my will or beliefs on others.

Also, have you seen the quote "Protect our rights to arm bears!" YOU BET! In fact there is a t-shirt with that quote on it and picture of a bear with a submachinegun. There is also one about the 2nd Amendment being about our right to where short sleeve shirts, but the 'bare arms' became a typo to 'bear arms'.

Death penalty, don't know, the way we do it is awfully expensive with the appeals so it would be cheaper to do life without parole to reduce the litigation expense.

True, SOME JAMA articles are reviewed, but JAMA has a history of being an anti-gun publication and Kellerman may not have been subject to the same review. In fact, in the last 20 years I don't know of a single article supporting gun ownership and FBI figures showing the lives saved annually due to firearms. If you don't believe that JAMA doesn't review everything, especially when politically motivated, I ask that you remember that this is the magazine who ended up firing editor Dr. George Lundberg who published the piece about oral sex not really being sex in support of then President Bill Clinton's grand jury testimony. JAMA regularly publishes politcal advocacy pieces that are not submitted for review before publication. To see a history of JAMA's anti-gun bias check these links:
Most recently supporting restrictions of a constitutional right for misdemeanor violations. We don't lose the right to vote except for felonies. The Emerson case currently under review by the 5th Circuit Court will determine if a right can be denied for a misdemeanor regardless of what JAMA says. http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/31/gun.check/

From 1997 in support of safe storage: http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v284n5/abs/joc91749.html
That was before an 8 and 9 year old were murdered with a pitchfork in Merced, Ca. and the older sister couldn't get to the parents stored gun. From the Modesto newspaper. http://www.modbee.com/metro/story/0,1113,190742,00.html
from their dad: He said there was a gun in the house that the older sisters knew how to use, "but I had to put it away in a supposedly safe place. The only thing I forgot to put a lock on was my pitchfork."

When they did a review of the Brady Law and found little effect they decided that the law didn't go far enough. 'the pattern of implementation of the Brady Act does not permit a reliable analysis of a potential effect of reductions in the flow of guns from treatment-state gun dealers into secondary markets.' Duke Review did a good analysis: http://www.dukereview.org/viewarticle.asp?id=5

After all, you have been researching it almost as long as I have been alive

OUCH!!!!

One thing that cannot be refuted is that nobody has ever shown a gun to have a causal effect on deaths.

1. If they did how does one explain the low crime rate during a time when guns were being mailed directly to ones home, prior to 1968, and the fact that at age 9 (1966) I would ride my bicycle to the local 7-11 (Oklahoma City) and buy .22 ammo for my rifle? If the ease of access to guns is the cause of deaths due to firearms then we should have seen a much higher rate in the '50's and 60's than what we experienced in the 1980's.

2. If firearms are the cause of the problems we should see a uniform rate of firearm related death across geographical, age, racial, and economic boundries as we would for other things such as an anthrax outbreak? The distribution of 'problems' or 'problem areas' are not unifor, there are obvious anomalies.

3. If the number of guns within the population are a problem, how can we have experienced a steady drop in firearm related deaths for the last 10 years with millions of new guns being added to the supply every year?

OTMG - This was 'bestowed' upon me a few years ago by a police officer in Victoria, Tx. I had been involved in discussions on numerous computer BB's regarding selection of firearms based on various criteria and it seemed that I owned many of the firearms that were discussed. The officer made the comment that I 'owned too many guns' and from that day on I became Jeff the Owner of Too Many Guns, or Jeff OTMG.

More to follow on your first post later, but my research database had a new server installed last Friday and it is currently extremely unstable so getting the info I need is spread all over the web rather than having the links available in a couple of places.

[Miami1839]

SuperXO,

Wow. Right on http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/biggrin.gif

[SuperXO]

Jeff,
You keep referencing JAMA. I have not heard of the New England Journal as JAMA before. Perhaps you are instead talking about the journal of the American Medical Association? Typically, the former is referred to as NEJM. So, I don't know if you would say the same about NEJM, or COULD say the same, but having a subscription to several scientific journals of the same nature, highly doubt that a faulty article could be published and not totally refuted. However, science never purports to prove anything completely, especially something of this controversial nature, so I would be surprised to find out that NEJM takes the position that only pro-gun control articles can be published. That is in the worst sense unscientific. As a pillar of the scientific research community, NEJM must not take positions on issues, and I have not yet seen anything conclusive to that effect.

True, some ideas in California are a lot different than the rest of the country's, however, the same could be said for anywhere! And in fact, on split issues like this, abortion, etc., I would say that Califoria, NJ, NY are not unrepresentative of the country as a whole. In fact, it reminds me of the election map after it was all over in 2000. W. had the vast majority of land space, but Gore had more votes for him. Some conservatives mocked that Gore had half or 33% or whatever the land space that Bush did. Howeveer, I would remind them, and you on this issue, that land space does not vote, people do. And just the votes of the Western and Eastern Seaboard often may amount to more than the rest of the country combined. So, to say that just because only 4 or 5 states are liberal, does not indicate what percewntage of the population feels a certain way on a certain issue.

As for the cougar cubs, well...mountain lion's population levels are at risk....something I don't think we'll ever say about humans. So, directing money to make sure the species does not die off is a worthwhile cause, though the relative value is a morals-based judgement, by which I assume you are implying Californians (or some) have screwed up morals and values. It's all in the eye of the beholder!

You're absolutely right that guns don't cause deaths, people do. But, you reinforce my point that our society today does not possess the level of maturity or responsibility that it takes to operate and own these items. Perhaps they did a half century ago. Now, they don't. Even the ones who operate them legally sometimes get them stolen and their guns are then used for crimes. So, yes, we need to address the problem with our society, but addressing the symptoms of "disease" almost always has a benficial effect on the organism as well. Perhaps guns should only be taken away until people can and do prove they are ready for them. I do not agree that guns are a right. They are a privilege that are misused by many and that do not effect the quality of life for most people if taken away (I'm not talking about hobbies, here).

Also, if you are saying that Americans are just naturally violent (nature rather than nurture), isn't it useless to do anything but take the guns away? If something is due to one's nature, that means they are unable to be taught or trained differently. So, the only answer would be to not allow them access to objects that let them act out their violent nature? If you would not care to retract that it is just American's "nature," how do you propose to change the state of our country without reducing access to guns, yet also not being able to change genetically or biolgically inherited traits?


[This message has been edited by SuperXO (edited May 03, 2001).]

[Jeff OTMG]

You are absolutely correct about JAMA not being the same thing as NEJM. My bad!! Last time I try to post at 3 or 4 AM. NEJM is not as bad as JAMA, they still don't publish any pro-gun articles, but then again I don't think that they should be posting articles on guns, knives, falls, or automobile injuries anyway, unless it would be on techniques to treat the injuries.

This is the map that you refer to when you mention land area. The USA Today graphic: http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm
I think that the govt has gone WAY overboard in ignoring the 10th Amendment because Ca., Ma, NJ, and NY are not representative of the country as a whole. Most issues should be left to the states and not decided by the federal govt for the whole country. The reason for the 10th was to protect the rights of statest and prevent interference from a big central govt, something that the founding fathers were opposed to. It allows Ca. to decide what is right for them and Texas to decide what is right for the people who live there. Gun control is one of these. One thing not mentioned by USA Today is the crime rates in the Gore area when compared to Bush areas. Professor Joseph Olson of the Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul Minnesota has looked up the crime statistics for the counties and came up with this:
Avg Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Gore: 13.2
Avg Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Bush: 2.1
This info is available from KWTN news:
http://kwtn.com/news/opinions/cooper,%20dennis%20reeves/ 2000/00-12-15-KWTN-The_Election_Rollercoaster_What_A_Ride.html (http://kwtn.com/news/opinions/cooper,%20dennis%20reeves/2000/00-12-15-KWTN-The_Election_Rollercoaster_What_A_Ride.html)
(If you want to see the link you will need to remove the space in the link, I had to edit it in to keep from messing up the forum format)
Note that the high crime Gore areas also tend to have the most strict gun control. More gun control = more crime.

So, to say that just because only 4 or 5 states are liberal, does not indicate what percewntage of the population feels a certain way on a certain issue.
True, which is why the electoral college was set up and the purpose of the 10th Amendment which I mentioned above. Note in the map above that the population of the land area that Bush won was actually greater than the population of the areas that Gore won. If we let true majority rule without the protections of the 10th and the electoral college we would be a democracy. We are not. Our form of govt is a representative democracy, but the country is a republic. This prevents the majority from doing whatever they want and restricting or infringing on the rights of the minority.

Regarding the cougars, it was just a surprise to me that an animal would be thought of as being more important than humans. In Texas, should an animal run across the road and you slam on your brakes to keep from running it over, if that action causes an accident you would be at fault in the accident since animals have no rights. People have rights, not animals. The term 'animal rights' is a term that was invented recently. 'Gun violence' is another. When was the last time you heard the term 'automobile violence'? Here is the U.S. Constitution http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html and nowhere are there rights given to animals, only to people. The people of Ca. obviously feel that cougar kittens are more important than human children, I disagree with that regardless of whether cougars are indangered in Ca. or not. Human lives are more important IMO. This doesn't surprise me because of the number of pet owners, when given the option of saving their dog or cat or saving a stranger from a burning building, choose to save their pet over the human.

Only some members of society do NOT possess the necessary level of maturity and that is a small percentage. With over 260 million guns in private hands in the U.S., if we count all crimes committed with firearms, you find less than .31% of firearms used in crime. If we look at only non-justifiable homicides it goes down to .004% and that is if a different firearm is used in each homicide. If you want to impact crime significantly and identify where the maturity problem lies, it would be far more effective, and have a greater impact on crime rates, to incarcerate all black males until age 30. Of 275 million people in the U.S. black males make up approximately 14-15 million of that number. Yet 21.4% of black males will go to prison by their 30th birthday (about 3 million people). http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/llgsfp.txt Keep in mind that this is black males who actually go to state or federal prison, not those who are not caught, do not serve time in a prison, or are arrested but not charged due to lack of evidence, and we have already seen that blacks are 7 times more likely to commit murder than whites from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm We would reduce crime much more by targeting black males in general than by trying to control the .31 % of misued firearms by targeting guns in general. There are fewer black males than guns and they are much easier to find. I am working in Indianapolis right now and it is such a problem here that the state made recommendations: http://www.state.in.us/icssbm/recommend/ on how to reduce crime committed by black males. Yet with all this info there is no call for mass incarceration of black males from birth. The reason is that it would adversely effect the majority of black males who are good law abiding citizens. It would SEVERELY impact their rights and infringing on a person's rights is not an option. As a result we must all live with an average amount of crime, the U.S. ranks 8th out of the 17 major industrialized nations in the recent European crime study. It is not an acceptable excuse to infringe upon an individuals rights for the good of society as a whole. This is why the Miranda decision in the 60's and the strict interpretation of the 4th and 5th Amendments that frequently make it difficult for the police to do their jobs, that often allow guilty people to go free. It is areas like this where I believe that the ACLU provides a great service as they watch over the govt. I don't necessarily like that police don't have more leeway and criminals can get off n technicalities, but it is the price that one must pay for living in our free republic.

Even the ones who operate them legally sometimes get them stolen and their guns are then used for crimes.
So you are saying that, although I have not had any guns stolen, I am to give up my rights and participation a legal sporting activity because a criminal might, in the course of plying his 'trade', steal my guns and use them illegally? Sorry, I couldn't disagree more. I don't think that the criminal should be out in the first place. (85% of crime is commited by repeat offenders) I think he should be locked up if he can't follow societies rules. I do not believe for one minute that any law abiding individual should have to restrict the way they live their lives because someone might commit an illegal act. This includes going for a walk in Central Park at midnight. If you can't safely go for a walk in the park using your logic it is your own fault if you get mugged, so you should stay home. From my point of view the problem is that someone has not locked up the muggers permanently and that it is nearly impossible to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm in New York City. On the other hand, there is not any place in the entire city of Austin, Tx that I could not safely walk through anytime day or night.

I do not agree that guns are a right.
Now we are getting into the 2nd Amendment area. It is part of the Bill of Rights and it was called that for a reason. They are not a list of privledges, they are a birthright. I believe that I included the legal definition of a 'militia', quotes regarding the intent of the founding fathers, and a statement from Thomas Jefferson on how it is to be interpreted.

Also, if you are saying that Americans are just naturally violent (nature rather than nurture), isn't it useless to do anything but take the guns away? If something is due to one's nature, that means they are unable to be taught or trained differently. So, the only answer would be to not allow them access to objects that let them act out their violent nature?
I do think that we are a violent group as a whole. Our history shows that not only are we violent, but fight with tenacity. I disagree that behavior cannot be modified to some extent. We have seen successful behavior modfications with campaigns against drunk driving, seat belt use, you are too young to remember the safety campaign to teach kids the dangers of blasting caps, cigarettte smoking, littering, pollution, and forest fires, even recently teaching that same sex partners is an acceptable alternative lifestyle (at least in Ma. schools). Although I do think that a certain level of violence is in our nature, I also believe that it is a lack of moral judgement, a learn behavior, that does not suppress it.

how do you propose to change the state of our country without reducing access to guns, yet also not being able to change genetically or biolgically inherited traits?
I am a big believer in Darwin. Survival of the fittest, the strong survive. If allowed to, things will work themselves out. There will be the defenseless prey (wildebeast) whose 'defense' is to hide and or only go to safe areas for fear of being eaten, there will be the predators (the lion, though I hate to equate a criminal with an animal as great as the lion, but rats don't fit the symbolism effectively), then there are the potential prey that are not generally dangerous unless provoked, herbivores even, but because of their defenses the lions leave them alone if they are healthy adults (elephants and water buffalo). What you will see is the predators only preying on the herds of wildebeast in areas where there are few elephants or water buffalo. In other areas, where people are allowed the means of which to defend themselves, you will see water buffalo killing lions until the lions figure out they need to be better able to identify the difference in a widebeast and a water buffalo, both have horns but are somehow different. I have no problem with a person wanting to be a wildebeast if that is the choice they make. If a person wants to live their life with restrictions to stay within certain boundaries, it is their business. I have a BIG problem with someone not allowing me to defend myself and my right to choose whether or not I want to be food.


[This message has been edited by Jeff OTMG (edited May 08, 2001).]

[Jeff OTMG]

One thing that I must address is the issue of the Kellerman study. This is the link to the NEJM site: http://www.nejm.org/content/1993/0329/0015/1084.asp and as I stated earlier in this thread the real problem was not firearms, but 'high risk' behaviors. This is a quote from the NEJM site conclusions, in fact the COMPLETE text of the conclusions:
[quote][b]Conclusions. The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance. (N Engl J Med 1993;329:1084-91.)[b][quote]

Now I can show using Kellerman's data why he came to those conclusions. He seemed to go out of his way to chose 'high risk' homes to include in the study. Note percentage differences in the Case Subjects he chose to use compared to his control group. I have not included all the Behavorial Factors, only the more severe and those that actually caused problems in the home. Note especially the incidence of arrests, drug use, and fighting in the study group.

Case
Variable Subjects Controls
Behavorial Factors

Drinking caused problems in 92 (24.8) 22 (5.7)
the household
Any household member had troubk 32 (9.0) 3 (0.8)
at work because of drinking
Case subject or control had trouble 20 (5.5) 1 (0.3)
at worlc because of drinking
Any household member hospitalized 41 (11.4) 9 (2.3)
because of drinking
Case subject or control hospitalized 28 (7.6) 2 (O.S)
because of drinking
Any household member used 111 (31.3) 23 (6.0)
illicit drugs
Case subject or control used 74 (20.3) 16 (4.2)
illicit drugs
Any physical fights in the home 92 (25.3) 13 (3.4)
during drinking
Any houehold member hit or hurt 117 (31.8) 22 (5.7)
in fight in the home
Any family member required medical 62 (17.3) 8 (2.1)
attention because of fight in
the home
Any adult houschold member 103 (29.9) 70 (18.8)
involved in physical fight
outside tbe bome
Any household member arrested 193 (52.7) 90 (23.4)
subject or control arressted 132 (36.0) 60 (15.7)

Kellerman had an agenda and ignored risk factors that might explain the a high incidence of violence. One thing I found particularly odd was his choice to include black households as a very high percentage in relation to their actual presence in society. From other studies mentioned we already know that blacks are disporportionately represented as homicide victims in relation to their population percentage and it seems that Kellerman has exploited this to make his point. Below is a portion of table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of 420 Homicides
Committed in the Homes of the Victims.*

Characteristic # OF Victums

Race
White 140 (33.3%)
Black 260 (61.9%)

[moe.ron]

AAGH, bad memory. Research Methodology class. Bad memory, SPSS class. Must find the will to carry on. Statistic nightmare. NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

here we have an individual who has bad experienced with his research methodology class. Now back to the gun control debate.

"This is my boom stick"
-Army of Darkness

[Dionysus]

bump