Who Shouldnt Have Guns?

[numinus]

To put it briefly....... YOUR WRONG. You do not have to own a gun, that is your right. It is our constitutional right to carry them if we are law abiding citizens.

How many times do I need to say this?

The constitutional right to bear firearms pertains to the formation of militia against foreign aggression.

It was logical THEN. No reasonable individual would think it logical NOW when the world's most powerful military is under the direct control of a strong, centralized, civilian government.

What don't you understand about the fact that criminals will always have guns. The only difference is that, every criminal will know that every home is unprotected. Would you rather break into a car that might have a pit bull in there? You might think twice about breaking into someones house if you know anyone can be packing.


RON PAUL REVOLUTION


~PEACE

Criminals will NOT always have guns if the corporations who make guns, as well as the importation of guns are thoroughly REGULATED.

What you do not understand is that people feel unsecure in their own persons, despite the presence of law enforcement, precisely because of the prolifieration of guns. The difference between a petty thief and an armed robber, for instance, is simply the ease with which one can obtain a gun.

That, to me, represents a state of affairs that is UNACCEPTABLE.

 

[dahermit]

I have no doubt that guns may be used for things other than killing. That is what I have been saying all along.

They are still being used for subsistence hunting by people in several areas in the U.S., including my Amish neighbors who grow and harvest most of their own food.
Only a small percent of the guns in the U.S. are ever used for killing another person.

one cannot deny the fact that it is indeed being used to kill other people at a rate that makes it necessary for the state to intervene;

I have seen statistics that falls in the home kill more people each year than guns do. Also, three times more people are killed from medical mistakes than by guns...it would seem the rate of deaths by guns is small compared to other causes.

That the proliferation of guns constitute a clear danger to the peaceable existence of society;

All the people I know, and have known for many years, including the Amish who have guns, live peaceable existences. On the other hand, there are societies that have completely banned weapons of all kinds. They are the most violent societies on earth. They are the prisons. I live near the largest walled prison on earth...Jackson, MI. I knew personally (Jack Budd, Christine McCullough), guards that was murdered by "unarmed" prisoners. Prisoners rape the weaker ones daily, murder frequently; all with no guns.

That the prohibition of personal ownership of a gun does not, in any way, infringe on your fundamental right to life, liberty and estate -- hence can be the subject of government regulation entirely;

The prohibition of personal ownership of anything infringes on my fundamental rights, and furthermore, my fundamental right to keep my property from any roving opportunist.

That for a law prohibiting the personal ownership of guns to be valid, it must be applied equally to everyone;

I am not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that gun laws cannot exclude criminals? Please explain.

There are many laws that are not applied equally. For example persons under the age of 18 may not vote, buy or consume alcohol.

That the purposes for which law abiding citizens use guns (hunting, sport, etc.) is a small price to pay for maintaining the peace;

The peace will always be violated by those so inclined, with or without sophisticated weapons. A large person has a physical advantage over a weaker person even if you could keep the larger person from having a gun. As an older person, I am keenly aware that as I began to look like I cannot defend myself due to age, I begin to look like a more attractive target for theft and violence. Also, a physical attack upon an aged person is more likely to end up with the old person dying from the injuries. Not having guns to use for attacks upon persons will not stop violent crime.

Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable -- only law enforcement officers and the military should carry guns.

If I could be safe in this society without a gun, then police need not carry them either.

 

[revolution4PAUL]

Buddy, buddy, buddy........ You are obviously ignorant of thinking about anyones point of view besides your own. It is not worth my time arguing the subject because there are people like the NRA tell people like you to STFU. Just because something is good for you does NOT make it good for everyone else.

Why don't you go fly a kite or something. I could make the argument that people should drive cars in this present society and anyone that has a horse that is capable of kicking someone should be condemned.

I hope you get kicked in the head by an unneeded horse to set you strait.


RON PAUL REVOLUTION

~PEACE

Thank God that we have people with sense protecting our liberties.

How many times do I need to say this?

The constitutional right to bear firearms pertains to the formation of militia against foreign aggression.

It was logical THEN. No reasonable individual would think it logical NOW when the world's most powerful military is under the direct control of a strong, centralized, civilian government.


Criminals will NOT always have guns if the corporations who make guns, as well as the importation of guns are thoroughly REGULATED.

What you do not understand is that people feel unsecure in their own persons, despite the presence of law enforcement, precisely because of the prolifieration of guns. The difference between a petty thief and an armed robber, for instance, is simply the ease with which one can obtain a gun.

That, to me, represents a state of affairs that is UNACCEPTABLE.

 

[numinus]

Buddy, buddy, buddy........ You are obviously ignorant of thinking about anyones point of view besides your own.

Of course I have no clue about what you are talking about. Your thoughts are operating beyond the bounds of logic.

Constitutional right indeed!

It is not worth my time arguing the subject because there are people like the NRA tell people like you to STFU. Just because something is good for you does NOT make it good for everyone else.

I dont live in the states. The statistics regarding gun-related homicide doesn't affect me. It affects you. And it will continue to affect you for as long as you swallow the nra's propaganda line.

At least the nra profits from the gun lobby. What's your excuse?

Why don't you go fly a kite or something. I could make the argument that people should drive cars in this present society and anyone that has a horse that is capable of kicking someone should be condemned.

And you would be correct in making that argument. Of course you are liable for the damage caused by your horse.

So what's your point?

I hope you get kicked in the head by an unneeded horse to set you strait.

That would be improbable at best. Certainly more improbable than getting your head blown off by gun fire. You can still hope, though.

RON PAUL REVOLUTION

~PEACE

Thank God that we have people with sense protecting our liberties.

That would be the nra, I suppose?

What ignorant nonsense!

 

[numinus]

They are still being used for subsistence hunting by people in several areas in the U.S., including my Amish neighbors who grow and harvest most of their own food.
Only a small percent of the guns in the U.S. are ever used for killing another person.

You think 2000 gun-related homicide per year isn't significant?

I have seen statistics that falls in the home kill more people each year than guns do. Also, three times more people are killed from medical mistakes than by guns...it would seem the rate of deaths by guns is small compared to other causes.

Guns are used for more than half the homicides in the us per year. Do the deaths from medical malpractice, or say, natural calamities make this fact more palatable to you?

All the people I know, and have known for many years, including the Amish who have guns, live peaceable existences. On the other hand, there are societies that have completely banned weapons of all kinds. They are the most violent societies on earth. They are the prisons. I live near the largest walled prison on earth...Jackson, MI. I knew personally (Jack Budd, Christine McCullough), guards that was murdered by "unarmed" prisoners. Prisoners rape the weaker ones daily, murder frequently; all with no guns.

But you cannot deny the inescapable fact -- more people get killed by criminals with guns than those without guns.

The prohibition of personal ownership of anything infringes on my fundamental rights, and furthermore, my fundamental right to keep my property from any roving opportunist.

No it does not.

Prohibition on possession of recreational drugs does not infringe your fundamental rights.

What makes guns different?

I am not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that gun laws cannot exclude criminals? Please explain.

It comes from the principle of deterrence. Steps should be taken to dissuade criminals before they commit the crime.

A person contemplating armed robbery, for instance, would be dissuaded simply by his inability to procure guns.

There are many laws that are not applied equally. For example persons under the age of 18 may not vote, buy or consume alcohol.

That is because people under the age of 18 are considered children -- hence subject to special laws derived from the convention for the rights of children.

The peace will always be violated by those so inclined, with or without sophisticated weapons. A large person has a physical advantage over a weaker person even if you could keep the larger person from having a gun. As an older person, I am keenly aware that as I began to look like I cannot defend myself due to age, I begin to look like a more attractive target for theft and violence. Also, a physical attack upon an aged person is more likely to end up with the old person dying from the injuries. Not having guns to use for attacks upon persons will not stop violent crime.

Of course it will not. It would, however, diminish crimes.

That is the conclusion of the comparative studies on gun-related homicides -- that lesser homicides are committed in states with stricter gun laws.

If I could be safe in this society without a gun, then police need not carry them either.

If the peace can be kept without guns, why not?

 

[revolution4PAUL]

Constitutional right indeed!



I dont live in the states.

You won dude. We should give up our rights for the greater of man kind. We shouldn't be allowed to have knifes because that could be used a weapon. A paintball gun could put someones eye out so that should be banned. Cars are very dangerous and people have been known to use them recklessly to try and kill their self or other people... No more cars. People have been severely hurt or killed by falling down stairs, No more stairs. 911 was allegedly attacked by 'terrorists' flying planes into buildings, so No planes and sky scrapers. People can spread AIDs from unprotected sex so therefor that should be illegal.

The amount of deaths from people that own legal firearms is incredible, it amazes me how many people use their legal guns to kill people on the streets. If you had any knowledge you would know that many things kill, legal firearms are the least of problems.

RON PAUL REVOLUTION!

~PEACE

 

[numinus]

You won dude. We should give up our rights for the greater of man kind. We shouldn't be allowed to have knifes because that could be used a weapon. A paintball gun could put someones eye out so that should be banned. Cars are very dangerous and people have been known to use them recklessly to try and kill their self or other people... No more cars. People have been severely hurt or killed by falling down stairs, No more stairs. 911 was allegedly attacked by 'terrorists' flying planes into buildings, so No planes and sky scrapers. People can spread AIDs from unprotected sex so therefor that should be illegal.

The amount of deaths from people that own legal firearms is incredible, it amazes me how many people use their legal guns to kill people on the streets. If you had any knowledge you would know that many things kill, legal firearms are the least of problems.

RON PAUL REVOLUTION!

~PEACE

There are already studies that conclusively prove that the occurence of gun-related homicides have a statistical correlation with the ease with which guns are procured.

There is no inverse correlation with non-gun-related homicide. So, its not about criminals simply shifting to other weapons if guns cannot be procured.

That is plain facts and logic for you.

If you can provide credible statistics to support your other claims, then by all means, ban them.

 

[revolution4PAUL]

If you can provide credible statistics to support your other claims, then by all means, ban them.

What would your ideal world be like? Accidents can happen where ever you are. Do you propose we all wear straight-jackets and keep our selves contained in white padded rooms as not to endanger our selves?

Guns do not kill people, people kill people.

RON PAUL REVOLUTION!

~PEACE

 

[dahermit]

For the sake of argument, lets say you have convinced me.

Even though most anti-gun organizations do not propose a complete ban, you do. Therefore, how do you propose that can be accomplished? A buy back program...most proposed in the past only offered about $100 per gun. I have about $20,000 invested in my forty-eight guns. If I were to be offered $4,800 for the guns by the government I would refuse. If you feel that it would be for the betterment of society to buy my guns from me at what I have invested, will that be cash or check?

Furthermore, if the government enacted a complete ban, many, me included, would consider that to be a significant breach of contract (Constitution), and would resort to armed conflict (civil war), to reinstate the Constitution. Many of us believe the intent of the Constitution's Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment), refers to the people. Most of the Republican Party feel the same way (about half of the poplulaton).

There are many people who have stated: "...you may have my guns when you can pry them from my cold dead hands..." I can assure you, they mean that literally. Most young men in the armed forces have stated that position. Given that, is a civil war over the issue worth it to decide the issue? It is to many gun owners here (ask them if you do believe it). With most of the nation's guns under control of people who believe they have a right to have them, how could the anti-gun side win such a war?

 

[dahermit]

You think 2000 gun-related homicide per year isn't significant??

When you compare that to the natural occurrence of 3,000 falling deaths a year in the same population, it puts it in perspective. No, considering more people stumble and fall causing their death, 2000 a year for guns is not significant.

Guns are used for more than half the homicides in the us per year. Do the deaths from medical malpractice, or say, natural calamities make this fact more palatable to you??

Yes, it keeps it in the perspective that guns are not the problem that anti-gun people would have us believe.

But you cannot deny the inescapable fact -- more people get killed by criminals with guns than those without guns.?

You are likely correct, but I notice that you did not address my statements about prisons, where there are not guns.

No it does not.

Prohibition on possession of recreational drugs does not infringe your fundamental rights.

What makes guns different??

A recreational drug is not carried in my pocket or kept in my home to use as a deterrent from aggressive crime. I know, you will present statistics that indicate otherwise, but those statistics come from studies where all other mitigating factors are not considered. For instance, there is no way to include the number of times a person has prevented a crime by just presenting his fire arm, if he never reports the incident (I have done such, and never reported it).

It comes from the principle of deterrence. Steps should be taken to dissuade criminals before they commit the crime.

A person contemplating armed robbery, for instance, would be dissuaded simply by his inability to procure guns.?

In theory perhaps, but have you not paid attention to the recent rash of homeless people being beaten and stabbed to death for a meager take of cash? No guns used does not save them.

That is because people under the age of 18 are considered children -- hence subject to special laws derived from the convention for the rights of children.?

I still do not know what you meant by "...unequal application of the law..."

Of course it will not. It would, however, diminish crimes.

That is the conclusion of the comparative studies on gun-related homicides -- that lesser homicides are committed in states with stricter gun laws.?

With in the last few years most states have enacted "right to carry laws", at the same time, I have seen statistics that stated crime was down in all the states.
Also, the most liberal gun state in the union, Vermont, allows its citizens to carry concealed as they wish...without a permit, way before the current movement of the other states to allow it. Have your checked the crime stats for Vermont? Also, DC is in theory, gunless...while at the same time one of the most violent cites in the U.S....are you not aware of the current Supreme Court case pending that concerns D.C. and guns?

If the peace can be kept without guns, why not?

In the United States, it cannot. The United States has too many violent crimminals...with or without guns.
Please comment on my observations on prison.

 

[dahermit]

Constitutional right indeed!
I dont live in the states. The statistics regarding gun-related homicide doesn't affect me. QUOTE]You do not live in the states? I had assumed that you were a citizen...Is it correct that you are not?

 

[numinus]

What would your ideal world be like? Accidents can happen where ever you are. Do you propose we all wear straight-jackets and keep our selves contained in white padded rooms as not to endanger our selves?

An ideal world, in my opinion, is one where people and the laws that govern them adhere to facts and logic.

Guns do not kill people, people kill people.

Of course people kill people. More precisely, people who can procure household guns with ease kill other people.

That is what the department of justice statistics conclude.

 

[dahermit]

There are already studies that conclusively prove that the occurence of gun-related homicides have a statistical correlation with the ease with which guns are procured.

There is no inverse correlation with non-gun-related homicide. So, its not about criminals simply shifting to other weapons if guns cannot be procured.

That is plain facts and logic for you.

If you can provide credible statistics to support your other claims, then by all means, ban them.

Not according to Colon Greenwood (of the U.K.) who has written several books on the subject. Furthermore, he states that a person armed with a handgun is less likely to use it in the commission of a robbery than if armed with a non-gun weapon like a baseball bat where they are more likely to use it to injure their victim to enforce compliance. Note that Colon Greenwood is not a member of the NRA.

 

[numinus]

For the sake of argument, lets say you have convinced me.

Even though most anti-gun organizations do not propose a complete ban, you do. Therefore, how do you propose that can be accomplished? A buy back program...most proposed in the past only offered about $100 per gun. I have about $20,000 invested in my forty-eight guns. If I were to be offered $4,800 for the guns by the government I would refuse. If you feel that it would be for the betterment of society to buy my guns from me at what I have invested, will that be cash or check?

Furthermore, if the government enacted a complete ban, many, me included, would consider that to be a significant breach of contract (Constitution), and would resort to armed conflict (civil war), to reinstate the Constitution. Many of us believe the intent of the Constitution's Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment), refers to the people. Most of the Republican Party feel the same way (about half of the poplulaton).

There are many people who have stated: "...you may have my guns when you can pry them from my cold dead hands..." I can assure you, they mean that literally. Most young men in the armed forces have stated that position. Given that, is a civil war over the issue worth it to decide the issue? It is to many gun owners here (ask them if you do believe it). With most of the nation's guns under control of people who believe they have a right to have them, how could the anti-gun side win such a war?

Whatever the process, however long government needs to practically enforce it, and however much political capital is expended in the undertaking -- just as long as action is taken in view of such an end -- which is to eradicate private ownership of guns.

 

[numinus]

When you compare that to the natural occurrence of 3,000 falling deaths a year in the same population, it puts it in perspective. No, considering more people stumble and fall causing their death, 2000 a year for guns is not significant.

If there is a correlation to that number of deaths to a certain parameter which legislation can correct -- why not?

Every city or state has building codes, for instance, to prevent forseeable accidents from happening. There are design criteria for roads, bridges, structures for a number of uses, etc., the purpose of which are to prevent disaster.

In the case of guns, it is already identified that the proliferation of household guns has a statistically significant relationship with homicide rates. Law-abiding citizens may or may not have anything to do with this correlation, but all of society, equally, must bear the responsibility to solve this.

Yes, it keeps it in the perspective that guns are not the problem that anti-gun people would have us believe.

Frankly, I have not met an anti-gun activist. I believe only what facts and logic tell me.

You are likely correct, but I notice that you did not address my statements about prisons, where there are not guns.

There is no point in comparing statistical distribution between a population of convicts and the general population.

With or without guns, convicts are violent people, by conscious choice or by some unfortunate circumstance.

This does not invalidate the study made by the department of justice on house-hold guns and homicide.

A recreational drug is not carried in my pocket or kept in my home to use as a deterrent from aggressive crime. I know, you will present statistics that indicate otherwise, but those statistics come from studies where all other mitigating factors are not considered. For instance, there is no way to include the number of times a person has prevented a crime by just presenting his fire arm, if he never reports the incident (I have done such, and never reported it).

I'm sorry but if you have read the dept of justice report I provided, measures were taken not only to include all the 50 states, but also to adjust the data for factors associated with violent crimes -- urban density, economic factors, etc.

The conclusion is still what the original hypothesis proposed -- that there is a statistical correlation between the proliferation of guns and gun-related homicide.

Furthermore, in states where there are lax laws in gun ownership, there is no observed fall of non-gun related homicide -- which demonstrates that it is not a very effective deterrence to begin with.

In theory perhaps, but have you not paid attention to the recent rash of homeless people being beaten and stabbed to death for a meager take of cash? No guns used does not save them.

As the study pointed out, strict gun-control laws do not seem to affect non-gun-related homicides and are more or less predicted by other factors. That is a different set of problems, altogether.

I still do not know what you meant by "...unequal application of the law..."

The problem stems from the proliferation of household guns. To solve the problem, the government needs to regulate it strictly and equally.

With in the last few years most states have enacted "right to carry laws", at the same time, I have seen statistics that stated crime was down in all the states.

Also, the most liberal gun state in the union, Vermont, allows its citizens to carry concealed as they wish...without a permit, way before the current movement of the other states to allow it. Have your checked the crime stats for Vermont? Also, DC is in theory, gunless...while at the same time one of the most violent cites in the U.S....are you not aware of the current Supreme Court case pending that concerns D.C. and guns?

I'm sorry but you are cherry picking data to support your argument. I have provided the most comprehensive statistics which included all the states. The pattern is unmistakeable.

In the United States, it cannot. The United States has too many violent crimminals...with or without guns.

I find it astonishing that one could readily accept something like that when the purpose of society is to give security to its citizens, to begin with. I think that this state of affair has something to do with some peoples intransigience with regard to their 'right to bear arms'. To my mind, that is unacceptable.

A gun is an instrument of violence. My arguments on its purpose and use has been designed specifically to demonstrate this. Once this fact is obvious, the solution becomes obvious as well.

Please comment on my observations on prison.

They are in prison precisely because they are violent people. It is my observation that the general public are not violent people to such a degree and extent. Otherwise, society simply will not work.