Are these people stupid,

[tank girl]

why is a measure of gun control is stupid please explain to me what is stupid about the fact that

- gun deaths in the U.S. are mostly related to handguns in inner cities.

and why

-Of all industrialized nations, it is the easiest to legally purchase a handgun in the United States


If you hold up Britain as an example why not look next door at Canada?

Besides, to point to Britain as an explanaition of why gun control doesn't work is a pretty useless one. As I mentioned earlier, there are a huge number of contributing factors to crime and violence - not just the existence or non-existence of 'gun control'. But clearly, the non-existence of it is causing problems where guns are almost as avaliable and attainable as candy....and the rate of gun-related crime and homocide is much higher because of that.

Howver, as I also concluded earlier - the culturally ingrained attitude towards gun use in America where everywhere else people acknowledge that guns are dangerous, and guess what - GUNS KILL PEOPLE!!!!! obviously makes such a drastic measure seem almost doomed to failure - and so thinking that a ban would work is pretty hopeful - but then, it can't hurt to hope there is a chance to try and become civilised, now- can it?

 

[tank girl]

As I did warn you, provoking me would unleash this, and I did forsee that it would be talking to a brick wall, and did I not beg to be shot first??



What you can't deny now, is the fact that I have provided plenty of proof, albeit from my p.o.v. - however with various different sources to back it up. But i know you don't want to hear, and therefore are deaf to any slightly reasonable thing I might have to say. All I can say is pull your head out of the ground and take a look around, preferably other media though at your own risk.

Methinks the only reason you find FOX the only pov that is not hype is because it is the only pov you agree with.

Congratulations for helping to boost Fox's incentive for bias, you're doing your country proud. Not to mention Rupert Murdochs Pockets $$$$$$$

so much for saving you from another rant

 

[Gonz]

the reply showing what damage ostracizing & criminalizing guns have.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Because people can't control themselves is reason enough to remain armed.

 

[Gonz]

What you can't deny now, is the fact that I have provided plenty of proof, albeit from my p.o.v.

For future silly comments threads.

 

[tank girl]

Because people can't control themselves is reason enough to remain armed.

Yeah, well sadly I agree with you there. Who can blame you for living in paranoia and fear, trying to stand up for yourself amidst the grips of a trigger-happy culture...

Thankfully, I live in New Zealand, a great gun-controlled country, with an average level of crime and police force that is armed only when neccesary.


Sqwark Sqwark (or whatever sound a parrot makes)

 

[Sharky]

Hey, Atlantans . . .

Is citizen gun ownership still required by the City of Kennesaw?

If I recall correctly, their crime rates dropped dramatically after that law was passed.

 

[tank girl]

For future silly comments threads.

Fortunately a lot of people support that point of view

 

[Gonz]

You've provided opinions, not proof.

 

[Inkara1]

Oh yeah. SOO stupid....anybody remember columbine? No, I suppose not.

The governor of Colorado stated that those two students broke 19 laws that day. Are you really stupid enough to think that banning guns would have prevented all that?

Just answer this....if maintaining the relative looseness of U.S gun laws sustains your idea of "freedom" and "dem0cracy" and individual "rights", tell me why are the same laws are as equally self-destructive?

Explain to us, the "stupid" ones, how these laws are "equally self-destructive."

imo, you are the STUPID ones firstly for ignoring the fact that in the world, the U.S has comparatively higher rates of violent crime - especially involving firearms) than other developed, "democratic", "free" countries...incidentally, your example of the UK is a stupid one, because of that. I live in this beautiful country where strict gun control is in place and we're not a simmering blood bath by any means.

First, do you have a source for your numbers for firearm-related violent crime in the US compared to other industrialized nations? Secondly, your assertion that gun control would work for the United States because New Zealand is "not a simmering blood bath" is comparing apples to oranges. What kind of race struggles and class struggles are going on in New Zealand right now? How about unemployment in the inner cities, and large concentrations of poor people crammed into small areas? You're also forgetting tat the blanket term "violent crime" includes non-murder crimes such as rape, and if a rapist can't point a gun at his victim, he could still hold a knife against her neck... which, as an aside, would be a quieter way of killing her if he were to go that route.

Secondly, for reading and literally 'taking as GOSPEL' a News article from Fox News, (which is, btw, which is infamously - even here from the objective stance in N.Z - far from 'fair and balanced) an article, might I say, that is clearly written from a biased point of view and most laughably simplified into the most idiotic binary favouring...once again, the right wing over the left, and giving little detail or explanation into the issue apart from drawing on your existing sympathies and playing with your own 'fear' to add the x factor to the story.

First, I'm constantly at a loss for how it's possible that so many left-leaners consistently ignore the "Associated Press" graphic that Fox puts on stories it carries that come off the Associated Press wire. That graphic means that the story was not written by someone employed by News Corporation, but rather was written by someone employed by the Associated Press. If this were a piece written by a fox employee, such as Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, your argument might be valid. Just to make my point, here is the EXACT SAME AP article as carried on the San Francisco Chronicle's web site. The San Francisco Chronicle is the larger of the two local newspapers in San Francisco, and its views reflect those of its readership.

It really stumps me to think that you the same people that oppose abortion on moral and Christian grounds still uphold the most loose gun laws for a developed country in the world.

Murder is illegal. Self-defense is a valid defense. Abortion is killing, too... and doing it to save the mother's life is a form of self-defense. How's that inconsistent? Again, it's not the gun, it's what you do with it that makes a difference. By your same reasoning, I shouldn't have been allowed to buy my DVD burner because it would be quick and easy to pirate a movie with it.

Although the article would have you believe that "If gun control worked, Washington, D.C., would be the beacon. However, it's the murder capital of the United States The reason for the so-called "bloodshed" Washington, perhaps isn't entirely excusable due to gun control as there are a huge number of contributing factors to crime and violence - not just the existence of 'gun control' which is absolute crap. If gun control had anything to do with crime in Washington, I think its more realistic to consider the fact that it is a state in a country where people find it culturally acceptable to be carrying and owning guns, taking around on the street or buying it on special at the local 'Wal-Mart' (I don't know where you buy guns over there, but I understand in some places its almost as easy as doing a grocery shop).

You ALMOST made sense with that last paragraph. Indeed, gun control has nothing to do with violent crime in Washington, D.C., and that's what I'm trying to tell you. It has nothing to do with it either way. Having guns in Washington didn't cause the murders to happen, just as removing them hasn't stopped the murders.

A few things bear mentioning here: Wal-Mart only sells hunting-type guns, not handguns. Handguns are the type of gun used the most in gun violence. There is a five-day waiting period for background checks for handgun purchases, if the guns are purchased legally. If they're purchased illegally, say, through fly-by-night dealers who don't check backgrounds, how would banning guns impact that? It's illegal in the first place! Plus, some on the left like to spread fear that President Bush is out to remove our rights. Now, the authors of the Second Amendment intended for the citizens to have a way to form a militia (there's a distinct difference between a militia and the military) to overthrow a government that becomes oppressive. Now, could you imagine the citizens having an uprising with short-range weapons such as stones and knives? It wouldn't work very well. So it's obvious that the Second Amendment is actually a benefit to those most opposed to the president, yet those most opposed to him are also the most opposed to the Second Amendment. Funny, that.

Perhaps though, its not entirely a good idea after all - for a place that was founded on guns and religious fanaticism, for the stupid masses that continue the founding cowboys-and-indians nature of the American dream accompanied by a good aim; perhaps your conception of freedom and human rights is so thwarted that you just don't know any better.

There was no point of that paragraph other than to insult the population of the United States, so there's no reason to acknowledge it in a logical argument.

thereby, I'm not really sure passing a bill for or against gun control really would make much difference to people with that ingrained attitude towards gun use at all - and then that way, I would have to come to the conclusion that yes...it really is stupid.

At least you can understand it's a dumb law to pass. It's just too bad your logic is so far off... wait, I goofed. I almost acted as though logic were used in your argument.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Strange that a Kiwi would take such an active interest in the United States...and spew forth such anger and hate-filled speech. Perhaps she should look up the following statistics before she opens her mouth and puts her foot in...

Violent Crime statistics

Weapons Distribution

The UCR Program collects data on the weapons used to commit murder, robbery, and aggravated assault. During 2002, hands, fists, feet, etc. were the predominant weapons used to commit these offenses. Such personal weapons were used in 31.2 percent of the violent crimes, firearms were involved in 26.8 percent, and knives or cutting instruments were used in 14.9 percent. Other types of weapons were used in 27.1 percent of these violent offenses. (Based on Tables 19 and 2.10.) The UCR Program does not collect data on weapons for the crime of forcible rape.

I guess you'd like to see the removal of body parts as a control on violent crime as well, since they are used at a rate of almost 5% more than handguns. In fact, other types of weapons were used .3% more. Holy shit! Your arguments are based on 2 things...fear and ignorance. Educate yourself before you vent next time, okay?

You can also check here

Approximately half of all robberies, about a quarter of all assaults, and roughly a twelfth of all rapes/sexual assaults involved an armed assailant. About 90% of homicide victims were killed with a weapon.

Make sure you read the next page, because Blunt object/other is responsible for the same amount of crimes as a firearm.

 

[HomeLAN]

Hey, Atlantans . . .

Is citizen gun ownership still required by the City of Kennesaw?

If I recall correctly, their crime rates dropped dramatically after that law was passed.

Yup. As fas as I know, though, it's not been enforced.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

I'll say it again. When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns, which leaves the rest of us up shit creek.

If Tank Girl or anyone else honestly believes for a millisecond that banning guns actually takes guns out of criminals' hands, come to work with me one day. Just one day. You can pick the day.

I'm a parole officer in one of the few remaining states where POs are not armed. So when I go to check on a convicted murderer at his house, unannounced, and stand at his doorway knocking, and he's high as groceries on drugs, and here stands the one person he believes can put him back in prison, and reaches for that pistol he is not legally entitled to possess, I defend myself with...pepper spray. Hence, I have a few ideas about gun control opposed to accessibility.

So, what day should I put ya down for TG? I'll just let you stand in front of me and explain to the murdering baby rapist that he's naughty and he should know better than break a law.

 

[Winky]

Now S&P you just ain't being fair.
If you were a pampered hot 19-year-old goil
still living with your parents in an idyllic Island nation.
Having never had to deal with real life (baby rapers included)
you too could be against private citizens owning
guns and the most powerful nation on earth
defending itself from terrorist attack.
Really you could!

 

[tank girl]

Winks - I won't satisfy you by attacking that ridiculous comment...


You're all nuts! Yeah,thats my conclusion cos I just can’t work out the rationality of it Maybe its a subliminal phallic identification with the gun that keeps you going?

Guns cause more harm than good. Guns that are freely avaliable are easily accessable to anybody that wants to use them for bad or worse. Guns are designed to kill others. Guns are criminal and allowing them to be so accessable, to me seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy. The only rational way to make a place safer would seem to be to regulate the use of firearms and then attack crime from there.

Holy shit! Your arguments are based on 2 things...fear and ignorance.

Yah, Funne(h)! That’s precisely what your arguments are based on. I could hardly blame you considering your geographical positioning and the exposure you have to the overdramatic parade of statistics and bias in the media.
We live in a culture increasingly dependent on the manufacture of fear in political and media (ie: corporate) strategy. SO what do those that are completely influenced and kept in a state of fear and cultural hysteria do? Turn to your guns for security – the very things that kill and cause terror in the first place.

Keeping guns in the home increases personal protection.

keeping a gun in the home increases the risk of both suicide and homicide. Keeping a gun in the home makes it 2.7 times more likely that someone will be a victim of homicide in your home (in almost all cases the victim is either related to or intimately acquainted with the murderer) (source) and 4.8 times more likely that someone will commit suicide (source).

Has this worked in Washington, DC...or England?

There is evidence to prove that the handgun ban in Washington DC has prevented 47 deaths each year

the UK police changed its system for recording crime which made it appear that the crime rate went up. The British Crime Survey, unaffected by this change, shows a decrease in crime. Since 1997, the overall UK crime rate has fallen by 27%. Burglary has dropped 39%. Vehicle thefts have dropped 32%. Violent crime has declined 26…

…[Similarly, the] “claims that the 1997 gun ban in Australia experienced big increases in crime has been refuted as an urban legend at www.snopes.com, a website that is devoted to exposing urban legends. "Given this context, any claims based on statistics (even accurate ones) which posit a cause-and-effect relationship between the gun buyback program and increased crime rates because 'criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed' are automatically suspect, since the average Australian citizen didn't own firearms even before the buyback." (source). Australia's homicide rate is lower than the homicide rate in the US and there has been little variation in Australia's homicide rate since their gun buyback (source).

“guns are a tool, people kill.”
Guns make it easier for people to kill.

A study done by the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence reported that a victim is about five times more likely to survive if an attacker is armed with a knife rather than a gun (source). Guns simply make it easier to kill. Furthermore, The International Crime Victim Survey concluded that there is a correlation between gun ownership and an increase in both homicide and suicide. "The present study, based on a sample of eighteen countries, confirms the result of previous work based on the 14 countries surveyed during the first International Crime Survey. Substantial correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total homicide and suicide rates. Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potententially lethal weapons less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of homicide and suicide."

“If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns.”

This logic is quite absurd. In fact, it reminds me of nothing less than propaganda. Criminals have far greater access to guns in the U.S because of their legality. Consequently more guns = more potential for gun crimes regardless of the way you try to justify it. Maybe a complete ban is too much to ask for, but not impossible: more rigid control measures would result in a gradual reduction of the accessability of these guns to criminals, and therefore less gun crime.

“The rest of us poor fucks are sitting ducks”


OH for the right of guns and defending oneself - bullshit. Talk about paranoia, and talk about a lame excuse. You have all your masochism, pride and security wrapped up the same self-destructive instrument that is the cause for so much personal anguish and crime. To me it’s a human rights issue to care about whether or not gun control should be in place PRECISELY because of safety.

I also never stated that criminals wouldn't have access to guns if gun control laws were to be imposed. Talk about jumping to conclusions...no, gun control laws would make things a hell of a lot safer - but not neccesarily crime-free in any sane place on earth, and that just seems to me to be common sense. Crime is always a part of life and no-where is entirely free from it, but there are reasonable options to control it – one of the logical ones you would think is to attempt to reduce the obvious contributing factors.


Unfortunately, just as toddlers tend to misbehave if suddenly they aren't allowed to play with a certain toy anymore - the change in routine results in a bad reaction. I do think the same would happen here with you and your bloody attatchment to guns. Thats whats stupid about it.



I don’t Hate you, I am just overwhelmed by the blatant stupidity of it all. I am in fact really sorry that you can only think of yourselves, you can’t think for yourselves, and that you have such a lack of faith in the security of your state, the authority and credibility of your law enforcement groups and the self-confessed power of your country to permit yourselves to be so succumbed by hysteria that requires to think that you need to own a weapon for personal self-protection rather than consider a sensible regulation like gun control to try and rectify something for the benefit of your entire community.

source with links to evidence


there is also a multitude of credible research documents that undermine your simplistic and weak arguments which are no less than regurgitations of established cultural myths


okay, IIIIII :surrender:. Now lets have a good ol' fashioned honky-tonk gun battle an' get over wit it.

 

[Sharky]

Yup. As fas as I know, though, it's not been enforced.

Yeah, the city council intended it to be a tongue-in-cheek F-you to the anti-gun wackos, and the news media was all over it. But it actually had an effect on the crime rates. Huh.

 

[freako104]

or what? Has this worked in Washington, DC...or England?

IN DC no. In England I do not know

 

[Inkara1]

Winks - I won't satisfy you by attacking that ridiculous comment...


You're all nuts! Yeah,thats my conclusion cos I just can’t work out the rationality of it Maybe its a subliminal phallic identification with the gun that keeps you going?

Guns cause more harm than good. Guns that are freely avaliable are easily accessable to anybody that wants to use them for bad or worse. Guns are designed to kill others. Guns are criminal and allowing them to be so accessable, to me seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy. The only rational way to make a place safer would seem to be to regulate the use of firearms and then attack crime from there.



Yah, Funne(h)! That’s precisely what your arguments are based on. I could hardly blame you considering your geographical positioning and the exposure you have to the overdramatic parade of statistics and bias in the media.
We live in a culture increasingly dependent on the manufacture of fear in political and media (ie: corporate) strategy. SO what do those that are completely influenced and kept in a state of fear and cultural hysteria do? Turn to your guns for security – the very things that kill and cause terror in the first place.

Keeping guns in the home increases personal protection.



Has this worked in Washington, DC...or England?

There is evidence to prove that the handgun ban in Washington DC has prevented 47 deaths each year

“guns are a tool, people kill.”
Guns make it easier for people to kill.





This logic is quite absurd. In fact, it reminds me of nothing less than propaganda. Criminals have far greater access to guns in the U.S because of their legality. Consequently more guns = more potential for gun crimes regardless of the way you try to justify it. Maybe a complete ban is too much to ask for, but not impossible: more rigid control measures would result in a gradual reduction of the accessability of these guns to criminals, and therefore less gun crime.

“The rest of us poor fucks are sitting ducks”


OH for the right of guns and defending oneself - bullshit. Talk about paranoia, and talk about a lame excuse. You have all your masochism, pride and security wrapped up the same self-destructive instrument that is the cause for so much personal anguish and crime. To me it’s a human rights issue to care about whether or not gun control should be in place PRECISELY because of safety.

I also never stated that criminals wouldn't have access to guns if gun control laws were to be imposed. Talk about jumping to conclusions...no, gun control laws would make things a hell of a lot safer - but not neccesarily crime-free in any sane place on earth, and that just seems to me to be common sense. Crime is always a part of life and no-where is entirely free from it, but there are reasonable options to control it – one of the logical ones you would think is to attempt to reduce the obvious contributing factors.


Unfortunately, just as toddlers tend to misbehave if suddenly they aren't allowed to play with a certain toy anymore - the change in routine results in a bad reaction. I do think the same would happen here with you and your bloody attatchment to guns. Thats whats stupid about it.



I don’t Hate you, I am just overwhelmed by the blatant stupidity of it all. I am in fact really sorry that you can only think of yourselves, you can’t think for yourselves, and that you have such a lack of faith in the security of your state, the authority and credibility of your law enforcement groups and the self-confessed power of your country to permit yourselves to be so succumbed by hysteria that requires to think that you need to own a weapon for personal self-protection rather than consider a sensible regulation like gun control to try and rectify something for the benefit of your entire community.

source with links to evidence


there is also a multitude of credible research documents that undermine your simplistic and weak arguments which are no less than regurgitations of established cultural myths


okay, IIIIII :surrender:. Now lets have a good ol' fashioned honky-tonk gun battle an' get over wit it.

Translation: "I'll use a bunch of ad hominem attacks to 'prove' that you're all stupid and cannot think for yourselves."

 

[Winky]

TG do yourself a favor.
Buy a rifle (if it's not illegal there)
and become a good shot, learn how to handle one.
Enjoy gun ownership.
Then sell it.

There are guns and there are weapons.

I've never owned a 'gun'.

 

[tank girl]

hasta la vista, babee

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

hasta la vista, babee

You can't do that, stupid. You don't have a gun.

Guns are criminal and allowing them to be so accessable, to me seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't know what they teach you down there in school, but here we learn pretty early on that inanimate objects cannot possess personality traits. Hence, guns are not criminal; people are. The same gun a thug uses to hold up a liquor store I use to hunt food. The same gun a dope dealer uses to kill a ploiceman, I use to kill the damn dope dealer if he gets in my house.

Now, if you prefer gun toting dope dealers in your home while you remain unarmed, so be it. But do the rest of us a favor and allow us to kill the bastard when he gets in our homes. That's all we ask. You don't want a gun? Don't buy one. Real simple. But I'll be damned if your indifference, sheep-like cowardice, and "eeewwwww, that's icky" attitude is going to stop me from blowing a hole through the jerk you can read a newspaper through. Deal with it.

Machismo enough for ya there, toots?

You're part of the problem, honey, not the solution. This "I don't therefore I'll make sure you can't" attitude is disgusting, nauseating, and downright ignorant and intolerant. And those are the good qualities about it.

And I bet if you or someone you loved ever became a victim of a crime, that attitude would change in a heartbeat. It usually does. Let a known threat enter your little insular world and you'll cozy up to the first person you can find who owns a gun.

I hope you never have to prove that correct.