State-of-the-art bullet triggers debate

[Athena]

State-of-the-art bullet triggers debate

http://media.komotv.com/images/080304_barcode_bullet1.jpg

SEATTLE -- A local man has come up with a state-of-the-art bullet, and it has triggered a controversial debate.

The bullet has your name on it, in a way. Invented by Russ Ford, the small piece of lead has a laser-imprinted bar code on it that Ford hopes will help police connect bullets to criminals.

But the bullet has been controversial since its inception. Some agree that the bullet would help track down criminals while others claim it's just another form of gun control.

"Oh, yes. Anytime that you talk about firearms, the firearms industry or the rights to carry firearms, it's extremely polarizing," said Wade Gaughran of Wade's Eastside Guns in Bellevue.

Gun advocates argue putting serial numbers on bullets is just a back-door form of gun control, and claim registering bullets now will lead to registering all guns later on. They also note the cost of manufacturing the bullets.

"It would take 25 years to actually get enough of these bullets out there and then it would be the odd, stupid criminal that wouldn't remove the laser engraving before he used his gun in the commission of a crime," said Gaughran.

California just passed a law requiring all semi-automatic handguns be equipped with pins that stamp a bullet when it's fired. But similar bullet-tracking bills have failed in other states.

A gun owner himself, Ford hopes the cost of his bullet - just a penny to imprint ten rounds - will make it more attractive. He says in the end, he just wants to help solve crimes.

"A very simple and eloquent and universal solution to the problem and that's how we came up with serialized ammunition," said Ford.

----------------------

I've got no problem with these being sold, but they'd better not mandate them. If the engraving is, indeed, removable, I see this as increased cost for minimal return.

[TXChris]

Yeah, and once again, I HAVE to play devil's advocate here and ask the question, "what happens when a crime is commited where the bullet is shot, but not by the person who purchased the round?" All of the sudden we have "damning" evidence, based upon the engraving, but all that shows is the person that purchased the round, not the person who shot it off. Maybe I'm out in left field on this one, but it HAS to be considered.

[Athena]

That was certainly considered. It's a possibility; one that I doubt would come up TOO often, as people typically report theft of such items.

[swivel]

I support this. There will be times when a gun is stolen, but even then it will help the police track down the culprit. This would never be treated as DNA evidence, you would need better proof.

Look, this is no different than ballistics, except, with ballistics, you need to luck out and find the weapon first. Afterwards, you still have the task of linking the crime to the gun-owner. What this means is that we can skip that messy step of finding the weapon and conducting ballistics, and go right to the owner. It will save taxpayers money and increase the speed and efficiency of the law enforcement agencies.

I'm 100% behind this idea.

[Athena]

I would be too, swivel, except the laser engraving can be removed...fairly easily, I would imagine. It might work for a little while, but these innovations just force criminals to be more creative.

Being a gun owner myself, I don't want to be forced to pay more for bullets on the off chance that it may expedite the occasional case in which a criminal is dumb enough to actually use these bullets in their original form.

[swivel]

I would be too, swivel, except the laser engraving can be removed...fairly easily, I would imagine. It might work for a little while, but these innovations just force criminals to be more creative.

Being a gun owner myself, I don't want to be forced to pay more for bullets on the off chance that it may expedite the occasional case in which a criminal is dumb enough to actually use these bullets in their original form.

I would support "range bullets" being sold at firing ranges, with them contained in the range, and not to leave the premises. This way, you could have cheap ammo for practice. As for bullets being "expensive", how many people do you shoot a year? Bullets could be $10 each and still serve their purpose.

[CPL CHUD]

I'm for it. I really can't even see any downsides to this, or at least any that couldn't be overcome easily.

[swivel]

I'm for it. I really can't even see any downsides to this, or at least any that couldn't be overcome easily.

I take it you don't have plans to go on a shooting spree?

[Athena]

I would support "range bullets" being sold at firing ranges, with them contained in the range, and not to leave the premises. This way, you could have cheap ammo for practice. As for bullets being "expensive", how many people do you shoot a year? Bullets could be $10 each and still serve their purpose.

Range ammo is marked up as it is. I deal with expensive bullets at the range. I'm talking about buying rounds to go into the mountains to shoot.

I don't shoot people. I shoot recreationally. :p

[swivel]

I don't shoot people. I shoot recreationally. :p

Oh. So, your argument for why guns should be legal is, "They're fun"?

I see.

[Athena]

Oh. So, your argument for why guns should be legal is, "They're fun"?

I see.

Hardly. I own it for protection, much like I own an earthquake safety kit. The difference is, earthquake safety kits aren't very entertaining when I'm camping.

[swivel]

Hardly. I own it for protection, much like I own an earthquake safety kit. The difference is, earthquake safety kits aren't very entertaining when I'm camping.

So, you own the gun for "protection", and THEN you use it to entertain yourself by shooting shit out in the woods? I'm confused.

What percentage of your ownership has been for "protection", and what percentage has been for amusement? Because I'm starting to think you gun nuts go on and on about Constitutional rights, and "protection", but really you are just addicted to your dangerous toys, which you use for cheap thrills, at the cost of thousands of lives each year.

Sounds thoughtless and selfish to me. Sure hope your "fun" is worth it. Now, I wonder if we should hand out heroin to kids, since that would feel good to them - logic and morality be damned!

[Angel]

That was certainly considered. It's a possibility; one that I doubt would come up TOO often, as people typically report theft of such items.

Athena:
I would agree with you on this one, except for one thing.....Most people WOULD notice a gun missing, they are expensive, and it's easy to notice if one is gone in the average gun owning household; but, would you, who shoot recreationally, notice if one or two ROUNDS went missing from a box of, say, fifty? I can't say that I would. My husband and I are gun owners, too, and we have several different kinds of firearms. a .410, 20-gauge, .45, and 9 mil, just to name a few. I might not even notice if an entire BOX of ammunition went missing, especially if the cabinet was still locked when I went in it. And if I did notice, I would probably assume that my husband had taken them and gone to the range. Just a thought....

[Angel]

What percentage of your ownership has been for "protection", and what percentage has been for amusement? Because I'm starting to think you gun nuts go on and on about Constitutional rights, and "protection", but really you are just addicted to your dangerous toys, which you use for cheap thrills, at the cost of thousands of lives each year.

My gun has saved my life, and those of my children, twice now, Swivel. I go to the range to practice, so that if and when I actually might need to use it, I will be able to hit what I am aiming for, and NOT some innocent bystander. I also hunt - not for sport, but because I like the taste of venison, and other wild game. And, you are partially right - they are dangerous toys, when they are used as and treated like toys. But you shouldn't lump all gun owners into the same category. I am a responsible gun owner. I safeguard my guns, by keeping them in a safe place, and I safeguard my children by teaching them about the use and safety of the guns in our house, so that there won't be any 'accidental' shootings. If you take a pumpkin, and shoot a hollow point round (nitro tips are even better!) into it, and show your children the resultant destruction, they gain a healthy respect for the danger involved, and are not likely to play with guns. It's the ones who don't bother to instruct their kids, or even get any 'training' themselves, who are a danger. Please don't lump all gun owners into the same category - it is insulting.

[Athena]

So, you own the gun for "protection", and THEN you use it to entertain yourself by shooting shit out in the woods? I'm confused.

What percentage of your ownership has been for "protection", and what percentage has been for amusement? Because I'm starting to think you gun nuts go on and on about Constitutional rights, and "protection", but really you are just addicted to your dangerous toys, which you use for cheap thrills, at the cost of thousands of lives each year.

Sounds thoughtless and selfish to me. Sure hope your "fun" is worth it. Now, I wonder if we should hand out heroin to kids, since that would feel good to them - logic and morality be damned!

Believe it or not, swivel, some things ARE multi-purpose. I'm not sure why that would confuse you. Similarly, one might own a computer primarily for work, but use it to entertain themselves during their off time.

But, since you asked - The vast majority of the time, my firearm is used for protection, as it is in my house or on my person, not being discharged at all.

Is it selfish? You're damn right it is. My right to protect myself transcends "morality". I am able to use a gun responsibly. Those who aren't should be prosecuted. My ownership has yet to cost anyone their life. I am not about to give up the most effective means of protection available to me because other people are too stupid or evil to exercise their right lawfully.

[gprime]

In this day and age, where retailers offer money back guarantees on European absinthe (with wormwood) and Cuban cigars to be shipped anywhere in the US, it seems that the same thing would then happen with ammo in response. Frankly, I do not yet own a gun, but plan to at some point. I would rather expose myself to legal risk and buy foreign ammo than comply with such a sickening law.

[Angel]

In this day and age, where retailers offer money back guarantees on European absinthe (with wormwood) and Cuban cigars to be shipped anywhere in the US, it seems that the same thing would then happen with ammo in response. Frankly, I do not yet own a gun, but plan to at some point. I would rather expose myself to legal risk and buy foreign ammo than comply with such a sickening law.

Amen! Or you could do as my husband is fond of doing and get the materials to load your own rounds. It's also cheaper than buying from a gun store....but you really need to know what you're doing.

[CPL CHUD]

I take it you don't have plans to go on a shooting spree?

Ha! I don't plan on owning a gun. Ever.

[gprime]

Amen! Or you could do as my husband is fond of doing and get the materials to load your own rounds. It's also cheaper than buying from a gun store....but you really need to know what you're doing.

I have a friend who does that with his Beretta 92fs, which shoots quite well. But I could never imagine doing that with something like an Uzi Model B (the other gun I've had the pleasure of range testing).

[Athena]

You know, the last time the guys and I were at the range, we joked about making our own ammunition.

I decided it was a little too Unibombery for me. :p

[swivel]

Please don't lump all gun owners into the same category - it is insulting.

I don't. That's why I was asking Athena how much of her ownership is due to "thrills", and how much as something to protect her. The fact that I listed these two reasons obviously shows that I see a difference in gun owners. You see this, don't you?

I want all gun owners to be like you. I want them to go and practice often, even finding pleasure in the practice at the range, and keep the gun in a useful place for protection, but taking precautions against self-injury and children playing with the things.

It sounded to me like Athena likes her gun because it is a fun toy. That's the only reason you would need a bunch of cheap bullets. If you are protecting yourself, you only need cheap range rounds. The "money" bullets could be $10 apiece.

[swivel]

You know, the last time the guys and I were at the range, we joked about making our own ammunition.

I decided it was a little too Unibombery for me. :p

My stepfather pressed his own ammo. He had an entire bedroom devoted to his guns and ammo. With a safe that required a call to the manufacturer to move the damn thing.

[Athena]

It sounded to me like Athena likes her gun because it is a fun toy.

You'd be wrong. It can be entertaining, but it's not a toy. I've used compressed bows in a similar way. Competitive marksmanship is a family hobby, of sorts. Honestly, I much prefer bows to guns in that sense. They require more skill. But it's a little difficult to bust out a bow and arrow when someone is trying to break in.

It's interesting to hear that you were raised around guns (I assume you were, based on the comment about your father). I was raised in a very anti-gun home. My father owned a pellet gun for crows, but that was it.

[swivel]

You'd be wrong. It can be entertaining, but it's not a toy. I've used compressed bows in a similar way. Competitive marksmanship is a family hobby, of sorts. Honestly, I much prefer bows to guns in that sense. They require more skill. But it's a little difficult to bust out a bow and arrow when someone is trying to break in.

It's interesting to hear that you were raised around guns (I assume you were, based on the comment about your father). I was raised in a very anti-gun home. My father owned a pellet gun for crows, but that was it.

Is a "compressed bow" like a "compound bow"?

And, yeah, I'm a crack shot. With any kind of rifle, pistol, bow, blow-gun, thrown rock, chinese star, throwing knife, hatchet, etc... My brother-in-law is Special Forces. He runs the CQC school at Bragg. It drives him crazy when I go to the range and clear a Texas Star without missing when that's what he does all day, and can't do it.

I'm not trying to brag, just want to point out that I grew up with dozens of guns, bows, and sharp things, and my dislike of them has nothing to do with fear or lack of ability. I learned, at a young age, to reject everything I have been taught and to build up my understanding of the world from scratch. This meant repeating a ton of experiments that I could have skipped, but couldn't, on principle. (like measuring the circumference of the Earth, computing the age of the universe, looking at everything I could find under a microscope, etc...)

So, if my current stance does not mirror my childhood, there is a firewall there on purpose.

[Athena]

Is a "compressed bow" like a "compound bow"?

LMAO! Yep. Cut me some slack. I'm at work. As I was writing that post, some guy was asking me about a country singer in her 30s who took care of her sister, blah, blah, blah...Anyway, mah bad, homie. :p


And, yeah, I'm a crack shot. With any kind of rifle, pistol, bow, blow-gun, thrown rock, chinese star, throwing knife, hatchet, etc... My brother-in-law is Special Forces. He runs the CQC school at Bragg. It drives him crazy when I go to the range and clear a Texas Star without missing when that's what he does all day, and can't do it.

I'm not trying to brag, just want to point out that I grew up with dozens of guns, bows, and sharp things, and my dislike of them has nothing to do with fear or lack of ability. I learned, at a young age, to reject everything I have been taught and to build up my understanding of the world from scratch. This meant repeating a ton of experiments that I could have skipped, but couldn't, on principle. (like measuring the circumference of the Earth, computing the age of the universe, looking at everything I could find under a microscope, etc...)

So, if my current stance does not mirror my childhood, there is a firewall there on purpose.

Oh, I didn't assume that you were afraid or lacked ability. I just think it's interesting how knowledge and experience can cause us to form beliefs that contradict out upbringing. Apparently, this has happened to both of us.

[swivel]

Oh, I didn't assume that you were afraid or lacked ability. I just think it's interesting how knowledge and experience can cause us to form beliefs that contradict out upbringing. Apparently, this has happened to both of us.

Coincidence, I bet. Most people end up, as adults, just larger representations of their childhood. Whether people accept or reject their upbringing can be read into a bit much, in my experience.

Of course, my wife and her ilk make a fortune seeing "cause" in "correlation".

[Athena]

Coincidence, I bet. Most people end up, as adults, just larger representations of their childhood. Whether people accept or reject their upbringing can be read into a bit much, in my experience.

Of course, my wife and her ilk make a fortune seeing "cause" in "correlation".

Coincidence, certainly. That just it, though - Most people do wind up that apple rotting directly underneath the tree from which it came. This makes it that much more interesting when people develop world views that are not the product of routine, comfort and indoctrination.

What does your wife and her ilk do?

[swivel]

What does your wife and her ilk do?

She's a psychologist.

[Athena]

Ha! Awesome. :p

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

That was certainly considered. It's a possibility; one that I doubt would come up TOO often, as people typically report theft of such items.

Reporting theft of bullets. Wow. I mean, yeah, I guess if someone bought a box of bullets, they'd have to make damn sure they didnt lose them.

[Athena]

Reporting theft of bullets. Wow. I mean, yeah, I guess if someone bought a box of bullets, they'd have to make damn sure they didnt lose them.

Thieves don't typically steal JUST bullets, which is why I said it wouldn't be a common occurance. Hell, when I got robbed, I listed a damn change jar that went missing. I'd have reported the bullets, too, ESPECIALLY if they were associated with my name via engravements.

[Angel]

I don't. That's why I was asking Athena how much of her ownership is due to "thrills", and how much as something to protect her. The fact that I listed these two reasons obviously shows that I see a difference in gun owners. You see this, don't you?

I want all gun owners to be like you. I want them to go and practice often, even finding pleasure in the practice at the range, and keep the gun in a useful place for protection, but taking precautions against self-injury and children playing with the things.

It sounded to me like Athena likes her gun because it is a fun toy. That's the only reason you would need a bunch of cheap bullets. If you are protecting yourself, you only need cheap range rounds. The "money" bullets could be $10 apiece.

Yes, I see the difference, and the fact that you made a distinction between the two. Your earlier post just seemed to be so completely anti-gun, that I wondered if you were just throwing that in there as a 'jab' maybe? I guess I was wrong, though.

And did you mean to say that you only need cheap range rounds for protection, or was I reading that wrong? And if that was what you meant, then what would be the purpose for the "money" bullets anyway? I'm going to assume that you meant the "money" bullets to be for protection. If, however, the unmarked bullets could only be purchased and used on a range, then wouldn't that be a huge temptation for range owners to buy in bulk, and mark the rounds waaay up, knowing that the people couldn't buy them anywhere else? Just throwing that out there, because it occurred to me, and I wondered what your opinion would be on that possibility. I actually have a lot of questions on this subject, but not enough time to address all of them at present. Maybe we could have a nice long 'discussion' on this later?

And I was glad to read that your wife was safe, after the campus incident.

[Angel]

Oh, and another reason for needing multiple inexpensive rounds, other than 'range rounds' would be for hunters. Squirrel and dove hunting both require small caliber bullets, that if priced too high, would make it a very costly way to acquire food for those who like to eat wild game....

Again, I'm interested in your assessment of this, too. I rarely get to participate in an intelligent exchange with someone who is on the "other side of the fence", so to speak. Most people who are anti-gun (the ones I've encountered, anyway), are so polarized in their position, that they refuse to even look at the other side of the situation. This could get fun!:p

[I am Legend]

what exactly would be wrong with owning a gun or two because you like guns?

do me a favor and save all that " i have trained myself over the years to become more human than human" shit for the retards who actually buy into that lame line of BS. If i like guns, ill fucking buy a gun. and if i want, ill keep one closet full of black talons and another full of tracer rounds. the end.

[Athena]

Wow, Legend! Why don't you tell us how you really feel? :p

Oh, and tracer rounds are cool. :)

[Angel]

LOL, Legend. Good one.:D

[swivel]

And did you mean to say that you only need cheap range rounds for protection, or was I reading that wrong? And if that was what you meant, then what would be the purpose for the "money" bullets anyway? I'm going to assume that you meant the "money" bullets to be for protection. If, however, the unmarked bullets could only be purchased and used on a range, then wouldn't that be a huge temptation for range owners to buy in bulk, and mark the rounds waaay up, knowing that the people couldn't buy them anywhere else? Just throwing that out there, because it occurred to me, and I wondered what your opinion would be on that possibility. I actually have a lot of questions on this subject, but not enough time to address all of them at present. Maybe we could have a nice long 'discussion' on this later?

Range bullets are already cheaper, inferior rounds. I would keep this system in place, but put the onus on range-owners to implement a system that prevents range rounds from leaving their shop. They shouldn't have a hard time pulling this off, various security measures are their top priority anyway.

We should make the kind of ammo you take home much more expensive. And add features like the sort in the original post. We just don't treat these items with the respect they deserve, especially when you look at the cost they incur on our society.

I'm sure people would try to smuggle cheaper rounds from other countries, or start packing their own rounds, but this would still be a better number than the people who can load up in Walmart before they go on a shooting spree. And anyone found with cheap bullets could be hauled off at once as a felon.

I think guns need to be phased out of our culture very gradually. Like we are combating cigarettes. We should adopt at least one measure a year which will slowly constrict the ease with which people can purchase guns and ammo. A few hours looking at crime rates drives this point home. Our assault rates (and crime in general) isn't much different than other developed countries. (lower than Canada and a few other countries), but our HOMICIDE rate is about 20% higher.

That is a lot of people who have to die, just so gangsters and rednecks can make their cocks feel a wee-bit bigger.

[TXChris]

Range bullets are already cheaper, inferior rounds. I would keep this system in place, but put the onus on range-owners to implement a system that prevents range rounds from leaving their shop. They shouldn't have a hard time pulling this off, various security measures are their top priority anyway.

We should make the kind of ammo you take home much more expensive. And add features like the sort in the original post. We just don't treat these items with the respect they deserve, especially when you look at the cost they incur on our society.

I'm sure people would try to smuggle cheaper rounds from other countries, or start packing their own rounds, but this would still be a better number than the people who can load up in Walmart before they go on a shooting spree. And anyone found with cheap bullets could be hauled off at once as a felon.

I think guns need to be phased out of our culture very gradually. Like we are combating cigarettes. We should adopt at least one measure a year which will slowly constrict the ease with which people can purchase guns and ammo. A few hours looking at crime rates drives this point home. Our assault rates (and crime in general) isn't much different than other developed countries. (lower than Canada and a few other countries), but our HOMICIDE rate is about 20% higher.

That is a lot of people who have to die, just so gangsters and rednecks can make their cocks feel a wee-bit bigger.

The truth is a LOT more people are saved by guns than are killed by them. Before anybody starts believing this crap from Swivel be sure to check out the facts:


A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5

* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).6 And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."7

* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.8 Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."

B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime

* Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home.9

* Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:

* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;10 and

* If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.11

* Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."12

* Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.13 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. 14

* Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder.

1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin.

2. And even the 155 "crimes" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport.15

C. Criminals avoid armed citizens

* Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.16

* Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.17

* Nationwide. Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms. Consider the following rates showing how often a homeowner is present when a burglar strikes:

* Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and,

* Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%.18

Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection

* Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.19

* Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.20

Justice Department study:

* 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."21

* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."22

* 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."23

1 Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.
Dr. Kleck is a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee. He has researched extensively and published several essays on the gun control issue. His book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, has become a widely cited source in the gun control debate. In fact, this book earned Dr. Kleck the prestigious American Society of Criminology Michael J. Hindelang award for 1993. This award is given for the book published in the past two to three years that makes the most outstanding contribution to criminology.
Even those who don't like the conclusions Dr. Kleck reaches, cannot argue with his impeccable research and methodology. In "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence." Wolfgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, at 188.
Wolfgang says there is no "contrary evidence." Indeed, there are more than a dozen national polls -- one of which was conducted by The Los Angeles Times -- that have found figures comparable to the Kleck-Gertz study. Even the Clinton Justice Department (through the National Institute of Justice) found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year. See National Institute of Justice, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," Research in Brief (May 1997).
As for Dr. Kleck, readers of his materials may be interested to know that he is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause. He is not and has never been a member of or contributor to any advocacy group on either side of the gun control debate.
2 According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 30,000 deaths per year. See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois.
3Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 173, 185.
4Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 185.
5 Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997); available at http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt on the internet. The finding of 1.5 million yearly self-defense cases did not sit well with the anti-gun bias of the study's authors, who attempted to explain why there could not possibly be one and a half million cases of self-defense every year. Nevertheless, the 1.5 million figure is consistent with a mountain of independent surveys showing similar figures. The sponsors of these studies -- nearly a dozen -- are quite varied, and include anti-gun organizations, news media organizations, governments and commercial polling firms. See also Kleck and Gertz, supra note 1, pp. 182-183.
6Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148.
7George F. Will, "Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?," Newsweek (15 November 1993):93.
8Id. at 164, 185.
9Dr. Gary Kleck, interview with J. Neil Schulman, "Q and A: Guns, crime and self-defense," The Orange County Register (19 September 1993). In the interview with Schulman, Dr. Kleck reports on findings from a national survey which he and Dr. Marc Gertz conducted in Spring, 1993 -- a survey which findings were reported in Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime." br>10 One of the authors of the University of Chicago study reported on the study's findings in John R. Lott, Jr., "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," The Wall Street Journal (28 August 1996). See also John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," University of Chicago (15 August 1996); and Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (1998, 2000).
11Lott and Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns."
12Kathleen O'Leary Morgan, Scott Morgan and Neal Quitno, "Rankings of States in Most Dangerous/Safest State Awards 1994 to 2003," Morgan Quitno Press (2004) at http://www.statestats.com/dang9403.htm. Morgan Quitno Press is an independent private research and publishing company which was founded in 1989. The company specializes in reference books and monthly reports that compare states and cities in several different subject areas. In the first 10 years in which they published their Safest State Award, Vermont has consistently remained one of the top five safest states.
13Memo by Jim Smith, Secretary of State, Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing, Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report (October 1, 2002).
14Florida's murder rate was 11.4 per 100,000 in 1987, but only 5.5 in 2002. Compare Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime in the United States," Uniform Crime Reports, (1988): 7, 53; and FBI, (2003):19, 79.
15 John R. Lott, Jr., "Right to carry would disprove horror stories," Kansas City Star, (July 12, 2003).
16Gary Kleck, "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force," Social Problems 35 (February 1988):15.
17Compare Kleck, "Crime Control," at 15, and Chief Dwaine L. Wilson, City of Kennesaw Police Department, "Month to Month Statistics: 1991." (Residential burglary rates from 1981-1991 are based on statistics for the months of March - October.)
18Kleck, Point Blank, at 140.
19Kleck, "Crime Control," at 13.
20U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities (1979), p. 31.
21U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research Report (July 1985): 27.
22Id.
23Id.


Source (http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm)

[swivel]

TXChris, your stats just prove how crazy our gun culture is. One point there that really saddens me is the prideful claim that more criminals are killed by citizens than cops. Is that really something to brag about? Vigilantes acting as judge, jury, and executioner?

As impressive as the amount of copying and pasting you have done, you are 100% wrong. And here is the proof:


Matthew Miller, Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Injury Prevention at Harvard School of Public Health, and his colleagues David Hemenway and Deborah Azrael, used survey data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the world’s largest telephone survey with over 200,000 respondents nationwide. Respondents in all 50 states were asked whether any firearms were kept in or around their home. The survey found that approximately one in three American households reported firearm ownership.

Analyses that controlled for several measures of resource deprivation, urbanization, aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, and alcohol consumption found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men. In these analyses, states within the highest quartile of firearm prevalence had firearm homicide rates 114% higher than states within the lowest quartile of firearm prevalence. Overall homicide rates were 60% higher. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide was driven by gun-related homicide rates; non-gun-related homicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership.

I can link to the abstract, for people who want to read a real study, and not the biased gibberish TX slathered above. I won't risk my account by publishing text, but provide a quote from a story on the study above. It is worth the money to purchase the study, or request one at your local library.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF-4M6SG8V-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e7cc9155d2b3bada2f5ce6ca69d37269

Here's the damning evidence: The states with the most guns have the most gun deaths. The only way you can justify everyone owning a gun, is because everyone owns a gun. It is a cycle of stupidity. We need to de-arm this country, even though the transition period will be annoying to some.

Another damning bit of evidence is the fact that the United States does not have more crime, compared to other developed countries, but our homicide rate is 20% higher than the norm. Because all we have to do is "point and shoot". Obviously guns do not make us safer because our crime rate is not lower than the average, so they aren't preventing shit. Equally obvious is that guns do not save lives, since our crime rate is normal, but our death rate is much higher.

All the bullshit stats listed above are stats from WITHIN a gun-culture. YOU CAN'T TELL SHIT ABOUT A SYSTEM IF YOU ONLY LOOK AT STATS INTERNAL TO THAT SYSTEM. Non-scientists like TXChris make this mistake daily, and end up causing pain and confusion by spreading nonsense since they aren't intelligent enough to understand basic statistical methods and the concepts of the scientific method.

The reason my facts matter, and his do not is because I am looking at data that controls for gun ownership, he is not. When you compare states with varying levels of gun ownership, you are showing the difference between cultures with more or less numbers of guns. When you look at crime rates between countries with varying levels of gun ownership, you are doing the same thing.

When you post shit like:
* 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."21

* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."22

* 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."23

You are talking about the pro's and con's of a system from WITHIN the system. You are polling criminals that live in a culture with easy access to guns and ammo. If you tried to poll these people in Denmark, the criminals would wonder where the fuck anyone was going to get a gun. And therein lies the fault with almost every stat given by TXChris, there are no CONTROL GROUPS. Nothing to compare our gun culture with.


I BEG every one of you to go look at these numbers:

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html#intl

Try to keep in mind that these are real people dead. It is hard to keep in mind with big numbers, but other countries do not have as many people killing each other. We look like ignorant gangsters and rednecks. Like the kind of idiots that jack up their trucks while oil is above $100 a barrel.

Final quote:


The easiest response to suggestions that Canadian civilians need guns to protect themselves is to look south to the US to see where arming for self protection leads. While rates of violence in the US are comparable to countries such as Canada, Australia and Great Britain, rates of lethal violence are much higher. For example, murders without guns in the US are about 40% higher (1.4 times the rate) than in Canada while murders WITH handguns are 1500% higher (15 times the rate).


Also, people, keep in mind that the person who is telling you that guns are great, and they protect people, also thinks that the Civil War was not about slavery, that criminal intent does not matter (only outcomes), that drinking and driving should be legal, and that secondhand smoke is perfectly safe. I caution each of you to dismiss anything this moron ever has to say regarding laws, public safety, and morality. His views are 100% in alignment with an anarchist who is hell-bent on world destruction. Handle accordingly.

[Athena]

Here's the damning evidence: The states with the most guns have the most gun deaths. The only way you can justify everyone owning a gun, is because everyone owns a gun. It is a cycle of stupidity. We need to de-arm this country, even though the transition period will be annoying to some.


While I wholeheartedly agree that the only way to prevent gun deaths is to remove guns entirely, I have never heard the potential effects of such a measure stated so casually and disingenuously. "Annoying to some"? Are you FUCKING kidding me?

Of course gun-related homicides are highest in states with the highest levels of ownership. That just makes sense. That does not, however, do ANYTHING to speak to the very common incident of firearm self-defense on an individual level. The only way to effectively argue your assertion is to look at the big picture, completely disregarding the innocent individual who would be made subject to victimisation during this "annoying" transition period.

Unless, of course, you've got a way around that. If so, I'd love to hear it.

Until then, however, it's not unreasonable to predict that, while gun-related homicide would drop, crime rates across the board would increase. When looking at individual jurisdictions, crime rates DO drop when right-to-carry legislation has been adopted.

Once again, you're ready to sacrifice the individual for the greater good. However, given the prevalence of smuggling in this country and the fact that firearms can be made at home, do you really think that the nobel attempt to eradicate guns from our society will do much more than create an armed criminal element?


Also, people, keep in mind that the person who is telling you that guns are great, and they protect people, also thinks that the Civil War was not about slavery, that criminal intent does not matter (only outcomes), that drinking and driving should be legal, and that secondhand smoke is perfectly safe.

Perhaps they can dismiss TXChris on those grounds. Incidentally, he's not the only one arguing this point. Valient effort, though. :p

[TXChris]

Fantastic! I was hoping you would allow me to continue this...

Now, you talk about gun homicide here in the U.S. Obviously, you are a smart individual, correct? If that is the case then only one thing can be said about your facts. YOU, sir, PURPOSELY fail to tell the whole story. In other words, you lie.

Gun homicide here in the U.S. ALSO includes suicide by gun. When one looks at the numbers, suicide by gun accounts for MORE THAN HALF of the gun homicide, anywhere from 54%-72%, depending on the year. Then there is the fact that gun homicide numbers here in the U.S. do not take into account the difference between being murdered or protecting oneself. The latter actually accounts for about 20%-30%, once again, depending upon the year. Taking this informationn into account, one can clearly see that our "dangerous gun culture" results in gun homicides, minus suicide AND self-defense, which really equates to only about 26%, at the most, of the numbers that are thrown around by gun control advocates. So, since you seem to espouse such intelligence on your behalf, I must assume you know this yet choose not to share this bit of important info. with the everyone else.

Which is it, Swivel; are you a moron, as you choose to throw the word around so easily, or are you purposely misleading people?

The truth is, Switzerland and Israel have gun ownership on par with the U.S. Want to know what makes Swivel's case really ridiculous? They also have some of the lowest crime rates in the world. Crazy how that works, isn't it? How can one state that gun ownership is the reason for violent crime when two of the nations with highest gun ownership have two of the lowest crime rates? Gun control advocates would have one see the correlation as causation instead of what it really is.

So, before you allow yourself to be brainwashed by Swivel's claim to intelligence, use your own reasoning and check out the facts. Income inequality has a MUCH LARGER correlation to violent crime than gun ownership does and homicide should be seen in the correct context. It is the willingness to resort to violence, not the presence of guns, which culminates in homicide.

"Peaceful societies do not need general gun bans and violent societies do not benefit from them."

[swivel]

Unless, of course, you've got a way around that. If so, I'd love to hear it.

Absolutely. Thanks for asking.

We need to treat guns the same way we treat nuclear weapons. The people that own guns need to stop with all the "guns are great" bullshit and adopt a "guns are a current NECESSITY" line. We need them because THEY have them. But we would much prefer it if nobody had them.

Just like nukes, gun cultures are a Mexican Stand-off. Nobody wants to lower their weapon first. But if we want to survive, we need to start a dialog, where we can all admit, that lowering our weapons is the BEST IDEA. And work towards that end.

What TXChris, and his redneck brethren do, is go to the fanatical stance of saying that pulling out a few more guns would make the situation better for us all. It is a red-queen scenario of mutually assured destruction. And anyone who thinks this is rational is either insane, or hasn't spent 5 minutes honestly thinking about the issue.


First thing we need to do is slow the production of new handguns. Then we need to start destroying as many of the old guns as possible. We need better tracking methods, and we need to get harsh with people caught with a gun and no license. These are baby-steps towards having a responsible gun culture. Where hunters can get a license to buy a weapon, the same way you need a license for 4" mortar fireworks or TNT.

Some other parallels: I admire the smokers that admit that they hate cigarettes, and wish they could quit. I don't understand the smokers who aren't sure if the "studies" are even correct about the dangers, and keep puffing around their kids. I admire the people who are pro-choice but admit that abortions are nasty operations that should be avoided at all costs with proper prevention. What I do not like are the people who go from being pro-choice to pro-ABORTION. They almost get a morbid love for the procedure in an attempt to combat the fanatics on the other side. I loved Reagan, because he HATED nukes, but knew they were needed for an express purpose. But he dreamed of a world without them. I admire people who own guns, but hate our gun culture. They would gladly give their gun up if it would contribute to a mass de-arming of our culture. What I don't like are the rednecks and gangsters that buy magazines with women draped with ammo, and lust over killing machines, and use these things for selfish amusement, all while appealing to an old document that grants no rights to blacks or women.

[swivel]

The truth is, Switzerland and Israel have gun ownership on par with the U.S. Want to know what makes Swivel's case really ridiculous? They also have some of the lowest crime rates in the world. Crazy how that works, isn't it? How can one state that gun ownership is the reason for violent crime when two of the nations with highest gun ownership have two of the lowest crime rates? Gun control advocates would have one see the correlation as causation instead of what it really is.

That's perfect. I love when you demonstrate clearly that you know nothing about this subject, and just provide the same old bullshit from other sites. You just google and paste, don't you?

MORON, Israel and Switzerland have VERY STRICT GUN-CONTROL laws! Among the STRICTEST IN THE WOLRD!

HAHHAHHHAHA

You are just a fucking idiot, aren't you? Those two countries assign guns to their citizens, and keep track of every one, and the ammo. Gun ownership is high in Switzerland because of mandatory military service, and in Israel because of the high percentage of males in the military. You are confusing state-sponsored gun ownership with stores where you rednecks can buy your toys.

Really, this is too funny. I'm debating with a moron who is googling shit, and doesn't know any of this for himself. I wouldn't bother dealing with you if it wasn't for the evil shit you spout, that other people might read and think, just because you pasted some big words, that you know what you are talking about.

This is a new low, even for you. More pathetic than your blatant racism in the Civil War and Immigration threads. I'm laughing, but I should probably be crying...


Edit: I also love your ignorant argument that guns should be legal because people kill themselves with them. What are you, retarded? Look at the rate of ownership/homicide and ownership/suicide in this study. They are independently but BOTH positively correlated! You are an evil, sick, ignorant fuck. And I say that with complete calm. I'm not mad at you. Just pointing out the facts.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1485564&pageindex=4

[TXChris]

Actually, my point is made perfectly. It's easy to notice you skipped EVERYTHING else in my post. I've come to expect it from you. Yes, I know what gun control laws are there, and my attempt was to show you that gun ownership, or a gun culture, as you stated, is a bad thing. Are you really this dense in person?? Damn, I certainly hope not, but then again...

Once again, my point that gun ownership is not bad is proven. Your point that YOU are the moron is proven. Get over it. You lose...AGAIN. LOL

You never did answer my question in the previous post; are you a moron for not knowing that gun suicide and gun homicide as a result of self defense were included in the gun homicide numbers you gun control idiots cite, or were you purposely misleading people?

[TXChris]

Edit: I also love your ignorant argument that guns should be legal because people kill themselves with them. What are you, retarded?

Seriously, the way you try to change around what people say to suit your idiotic views is rather disturbing. Might I suggest that you are the retarded one as I have never once stated that guns should be legal because people kill themselves with them, and to try to say that is what was said shows a strong disregard for ethics on your part. But, hey, what else is new on your part, eh? ;)

Since you seem to be having trouble reading I will type it out for you once more; What I stated was that you refused to tell the whole truth to everyone, as is usually the case when it comes to your posts. Now, stop crying and trying to act like you're not all butt-hurt because you've been proven an idiot.

And, hey, since you happen to be of the belief that suicides are correlated with gun ownership, try explaining the HUGE suicide number in Denmark (22.3 per 100,000), France (20.8 per 100,000), and Japan (16.7 per 100,000) which have a lack of guns. Source (http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html)

[Athena]

First thing we need to do is slow the production of new handguns. Then we need to start destroying as many of the old guns as possible. We need better tracking methods, and we need to get harsh with people caught with a gun and no license. These are baby-steps towards having a responsible gun culture. Where hunters can get a license to buy a weapon, the same way you need a license for 4" mortar fireworks or TNT.


Perhaps you've misunderstood me at some point. I take no issue with reasonable gun control measures. Mandate increased education and training, more rigorous qualifications for gun ownership and a more accurate tracking system are responsible things to do. The difference is, I aim to maintain a responsible gun culture rather than ratcheting things down until there are no guns at all.

The only issue I take with mandating laser-enscribed bullets is that it may increase cost for no good reason, if the engraving can be removed.

[swivel]

Actually, my point is made perfectly. It's easy to notice you skipped EVERYTHING else in my post. I've come to expect it from you. Yes, I know what gun control laws are there, and my attempt was to show you that gun ownership, or a gun culture, as you stated, is a bad thing. Are you really this dense in person?? Damn, I certainly hope not, but then again...

Once again, my point that gun ownership is not bad is proven. Your point that YOU are the moron is proven. Get over it. You lose...AGAIN. LOL

You never did answer my question in the previous post; are you a moron for not knowing that gun suicide and gun homicide as a result of self defense were included in the gun homicide numbers you gun control idiots cite, or were you purposely misleading people?

I ignore the made-up bullshit and lies. Which doesn't leave much else to read.

Anytime someone posts Kleck's survey crap by stating that guns were used for self-defense 2.5 million times, I know for a fact that the person I'm dealing with is not educated on the subject.

You haven't done any studying on this subject, Chris. You are 100% uneducated on this entire area. I can't take you seriously. Kleck's survey has been discredited. He did a random-phoning of 5,000 households, asked to speak to the "Man of the House", and 60-something of these men said they had used a gun in self-defense that year. He then extrapolated to the adult population of Americans. There is so much wrong with this, that most of us don't know where to start. In fact, his results from his own study gave an estimate of 800,000 to 2.5 million, but you NRA morons always use the number that you like.

Better surveys have been done, by looking at actual reported crimes, and they find that many more people are hurt or killed by guns than are protected by them. If you try googling the other direction, you might learn something.

The problem with debating this subject with you is that you don't even know what you don't know. It is just like when I debate a theist and realize that I know more about their passion than THEY do.

You fail here, as always. Miserably. None of your facts are straight.


A study of Cuyahoga County, Ohio (Cleveland area) between 1958 and 1973 found 5 fatal gun accidents occurring at home for every fatal shooting of an intruder by a homeowner.22

A study of gun deaths occurring in homes in King County, Washington (Seattle area) between 1978 and 1983 found 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides for every self-defense homicide in which a firearm that was kept in the home was used.23

A study of gun deaths and injuries in Memphis, Seattle, and Galveston, Texas between 1992 and 1998 found that in cases in which the involved firearm was kept in the home, there were 4 accidents, 7 criminal assaults, and 11 attempted or completed suicides for every self-defense shooting.24

That's a little better than a random-call survey that tampers with its pool of respondents.

http://www.mppgv.org/special%20topics.htm

[TXChris]

I'm unedcated yet YOU cannot prove your point. You will have to explain this new logic to me. I've disproved the things you have said continually in this thread. I'll tell you what, why don't you go ahead and disprove EVERYTHING I have posted. Here, I'll even repost the info. for you. Get to work, my man



As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5

* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).6 And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."7

* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.8 Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."

B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime

* Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home.9

* Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:

* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;10 and

* If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.11

* Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."12

* Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.13 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. 14

* Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder.

1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin.

2. And even the 155 "crimes" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport.15

C. Criminals avoid armed citizens

* Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.16

* Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.17

* Nationwide. Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms. Consider the following rates showing how often a homeowner is present when a burglar strikes:

* Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and,

* Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%.18

Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection

* Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.19

* Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.20

The truth is, the ONLY morons are the gun banning nuts who seem to be under the impression that guns cause violent crime. How far off your rocker do you have to be to believe this nonesense? As I have shown, merely having guns does NOT mean there will be huge numbers of violent crime. As I have also shown, not having guns does NOT mean there will not be huge numbers of violent crime. There are the gun bans in Europe, yet they have a ridiculous amount of violent crime using knives.

You state that gun ownership is correlated with suicides, yet I have shown you that in countries with low gun ownership the highest rates of suicide are also present. Stop lying to people, Swivel. Tell the truth. You won't look like such an idiot once you do.

[swivel]

And, hey, since you happen to be of the belief that suicides are correlated with gun ownership, try explaining the HUGE suicide number in Denmark (22.3 per 100,000), France (20.8 per 100,000), and Japan (16.7 per 100,000) which have a lack of guns. Source (http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html)

"Of the belief"?

I read your links. Why do you ignore my links? Do you want to debate, or are you just a Troll?

The correlation I presented is one of gun ownership to suicide via gun. The correlation rate is .90, which is astronomical in statistical studies. The same correlation can be seen in gun ownership and homicide via gun. So, your argument that the danger of guns is overstated because most of those people are offing themselves is invalid.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1485564&pageindex=4

Besides, you are using a figure of 2.5 million which is probably more like 100,000 - 300,000. A 10 TIMES exaggeration can not be found in any fact I have ever presented in my entire life. And since I have busted you on hypocrisy at least 8 times, and you are referencing studies which have been discarded by sober scientists, you don't get to lecture me on intellectual honesty.

[TXChris]

Goddamn, dude, seriously...how can ANYONE be as dense as you??? It's worse than arguing with a four year old.

Allowing gun ownership means there's going to be gun crime. Allowing gun ownership means there's going to be gun suicide. THAT's news. :rolleyes: And allowing knives means there's going to be knife crime and knife suicide, aslo. Why not contribute something of substance.

I know what's up with the numbers. I chose not to delete it. Kleck is NOT news. His statement, in no way, negates the rest of the post. So, why should I delete the ONE part of the entire post when the validity of it is referenced at the bottom along with the source to the actual document? If I believed what he said was true I would, most definitely, have singled it out for some further discussion.

I have shown you, in post after post, that banning guns does nothing to alleviate the problem of violent crime or suicide. You have been unable to rebutt that, so you pick one piece out of many posts. It is your M.O., Swivel. It is what YOU do.


Now, back to my original question, from many posts before, that you STILL choose to not answer; are you purposely being deceitful to the people here, by omitting the fact that those numbers included suicides and self-protection, or are you simply a moron?

[swivel]

Goddamn, dude, seriously...how can ANYONE be as dense as you??? It's worse than arguing with a four year old.

Allowing gun ownership means there's going to be gun crime. Allowing gun ownership means there's going to be gun suicide. THAT's news. :rolleyes: And allowing knives means there's going to be knife crime and knife suicide, aslo. Why not contribute something of substance.

I know what's up with the numbers. I chose not to delete it. Kleck is NOT news. His statement, in no way, negates the rest of the post. So, why should I delete the ONE part of the entire post when the validity of it is referenced at the bottom along with the source to the actual document? If I believed what he said was true I would, most definitely, have singled it out for some further discussion.

I have shown you, in post after post, that banning guns does nothing to alleviate the problem of violent crime or suicide. You have been unable to rebutt that, so you pick one piece out of many posts. It is your M.O., Swivel. It is what YOU do.


Now, back to my original question, from many posts before, that you STILL choose to not answer; are you purposely being deceitful to the people here, by omitting the fact that those numbers included suicides and self-protection, or are you simply a moron?

Oh, so you aren't stupid, you are just a liar? You knew the Kleck numbers were bullshit, so you included them? Why admit this?

I have rebutted your argument. When I posted the study that finds that States with more guns have more gun-deaths I disproved your entire premise. When I posted the study that correlated the rates of gun ownership in countries with the rates of homicide, I wave your entire argument away. What is your answer in return? That two of the countries with the strictest gun-control laws have the lowest rates of gun homicide? You are proving my argument with your posts, not rebutting them. I can only assume that you are arguing that all gun owners should go through a personal interview, the way they do in Israel? You are clueless, just googling and pasting. It would be funny if it weren't so dangerous.

Your point about suicides is ridiculous. Are you really trying to say that guns are safe because people kill themselves with them? Suicides must be included with other gun-related deaths, unless you think of suicide as a victimless crime. I assume you think that accidental gun deaths should be viewed as not having a victim as well?

I wish I could take you seriously, but we have precedents to consider. If gprime, Chud, anal, Morbid, imp, or Hippie was saying the silly things you are saying here, my ears would prick up a little. But I am dealing with someone who thinks so many other ignorant things, that ALL ALIGN WITH AN EXTREME-SOUTHERN-ANARCHIC philosophy. The more you do this, the more you set yourself up as one to not be trusted.

If you go back to your original copy/paste post, and remove the falsified statistics, the pointless stats for concealed weapons (that has nothing to do with our argument), the stats on falling crime rates that do not use other States as controlled variables (all crime has fallen everywhere over that same period of time, making uncontrolled claims like this completely devoid of merit), and weak anecdotal survey reporting, THEN I will be happy to rebut all that is left. I think the only fact left standing after that would be that 200,000 women use handguns to prevent sexual assault a year. Not sure whose ass this number was pulled out of, but it was probably a Kleck-like survey. I would love to see the definition of "sexual assault" used in this case. People use that phrase to scare up connotations of "rape", yet yearly rape rates are less than half this crazy number.

So, basically, you have offered nothing to be refuted. You are using old and bad data, and frantically googling as you go. You are admitting to using data that you know is bad, which can't be good for your credibility. I think we can conclude you don't stand a chance in this argument.

[TXChris]

LOL Try as you might, you just can't deny the numbers can you? All of the sudden your position is that guns equal gun crime? Go freaking figure; and knives equal knife crime. Violent crime is not the result of guns. It is not the result of knives. It is a result of the violence of that society. Removing guns does not remove violent crime, not does it remove violence in society, as has been shown in Europe extensively.

You can try and turn everything around and just "wave off" anything you cannot deny, as you ALWAYS do, but at the end of the day you are wrong and the rest of us on here are right. You have proven NOTHING other than having guns means there is going to be gun crime. What a freaking idiot you must be to actually hold that as a position. That's common sense. You give studies that show that having guns means there is going to be suicide by gun. God, you MUST be an idiot. Once again, common sense. OF COURSE it means that. I dare say a third grader understands this.

Your position from YOUR post:


I think guns need to be phased out of our culture very gradually....A few hours looking at crime rates drives this point home. Our assault rates (and crime in general) isn't much different than other developed countries. (lower than Canada and a few other countries), but our HOMICIDE rate is about 20% higher.

Here you are stating that guns should be outlawed because they increase crime. I have shown you that they DO NOT. Case in point, Europe. Knife crime is HUGE over there. You dare talk about homicide rates without acknowledging that the U.S. homicide rate numbers ALSO include suicide AND self-defense.


I have rebutted your argument. When I posted the study that finds that States with more guns have more gun-deaths I disproved your entire premise. When I posted the study that correlated the rates of gun ownership in countries with the rates of homicide, I wave your entire argument away.

You disproved my premise? How, in the world, did you come to THAT conclusion? My position is that gun bans do not decrease violence. When guns are not available, other weapons will be used. Your position is that guns mean there will be gun violence. :eek: Wow. Really? How long did it take you to come up with that bit of common sense? Then you say that gun ownership in countries is correlated to increased homicide, yet I have shown you that gun ownership does not correlate to increased homicide. Yes, Switzerland and Israel were my proof. Both countries have the number of guns, per capita, that rival the U.S. yet have crime rates that are nearly at the bottom of the lists. You are talking about GUN OWNERSHIP. So, you are WRONG, again.

The thing is, I haven't lied. That ONE article by Kleck is common knowledge AND he is referenced at the end of the article mentioning that people don't agree with him. In all truthfulness, this does not negate any other studies he has done. It may give one reason to be more skeptical, but that's a good thing. People should think for themselves. What's your excuse?

You, on the other hand, blatantly lied to everyone by trying to make it seem as though our homicide rate is directly caused by gun ownership. Even worse, you then proceed to act like countries with guns are more dangerous. They're not. Next, you try to get out of those positions and fall into the "guns correlate to gun violence" and "guns correlate to gun suicide" position. What, are guns going to correlate to drug overdoses? OF COURSE THEY CORRELATE TO GUN-RELATED CRIME AND SUICIDE...We're talking about guns here! Geez! LOL


Now, back to my original question, from many posts before, that you STILL choose to not answer; are you purposely being deceitful to the people here, by omitting the fact that those numbers included suicides and self-protection, or are you simply a moron?

[swivel]

You are so stupid. Of COURSE my argument is that guns = gun crime. And OF COURSE I understand that less guns will equal more knife crime. Are you really this retarded? Knives aren't as good at killing people as guns. When was the last time a kid walked into their school and killed a dozen people with a knife?

I'm trying to save lives here, what the fuck are you doing? Half the time your argument is strengthening my point, the other half of the time you are listing statistics that have been disproven a dozen times over. Which means your net result is to help me out. I really want to debate someone here and all you can do is this?

I've explained why suicides HAVE to be included with homicides twice now. Are you not reading my posts? Stop pretending that I am avoiding that question when I have explicitly answered it. You are just cementing my opinion of you as someone who is intellectually dishonest.

Again, for the people who actually read my posts: Crime rates in the United States are on par with those in other developed countries, yet the homicide rate is 20% higher than average. We have the same levels of crime (on average), but we have more people dying. Why? We have more guns, which makes killing people a "point and click" affair. Guns are great tools for people that want to do drastic shit, like killing other people and killing themselves. Relying on personal responsibility does no service for the victims after the fact, which is why we need to work on reducing the culture of guns we have in the United States.

People are dying because of these things. They do not protect as many people as they harm. The argument that we need guns is the same argument that we should get rid of seatbelts, because sometimes they kill people. Most of the time they do the opposite. Yes, guns are very rarely used for a good cause, but for every time a gun kills someone to prevent a crime, it has a 20-30 TIMES greater chance of killing someone in an accident or via suicide or via homicide.

Again, this argument is consistent with someone who isn't sure that seatbelt-use is safe (TXChris), with someone who thinks that secondhand smoke might not be that bad for people (TXChris), and someone who thinks that drinking and driving should be legal (TXChris). At least you are consistent, dude.

[TXChris]

How are you saving lives? By your logic you would HAVE to get rid of knives, ropes, and pencils at the end of the day. At that point, people would still kill each other with their bare hands. The ONLY thing your logic does is make it more likely one will get attacked because they don't have a way to defend themselves. Your position is pure bullshit. Nothing I have shown strengthens your position in any way. As a matter of fact, please take the time to show me just how it does.

Seeing as how suicides happen REGARDLESS of gun ownership, and is significantly higher in countries with low gun ownership (Japan, Denmark, and France to name a few), they should not be included in your ridiculous position that guns need to be banned. Also, seeing as how merely owning guns DOES NOT cause an increase in homicide, that, too, must be dismissed. All of the sudden, you have no leg to stand on. What am I saying, you didn't have a leg to stand on from your first post. Look at the RIDICULOUS "logic" you try to use in your argument.

The bottom line is, when you take away an individual's right to protect oneself you are indirectly causing their harm. Having guns available gives them the ability to make the decision about whether or not they want to carry one to protect themselves. The RESPONSIBILITY falls upon their very own shoulders. By making guns illegal YOU are taking the responsibility for every death because individuals no longer have the option, nor the ability, to protect themselves. Way to go, man. You are truly a stand up guy. Fantastic! :rolleyes:

The truth is you did NOT know that suicides and self-defense were included in the U.S. homicide numbers, yet you choose not to admit it. I guess you think it would kill whatever "credibility" you seem to think you have. Just admit it. You didn't know. It's a lot better for you than to continually make yourself look stupid in front of everyone. :)

[swivel]

OK, just like in our other debates, you are slowly coming around to my side. I dig this.

So, you admit that guns are dangerous, but you think we should keep them around because we can't get rid of LESS dangerous stuff? Hmmm.

Equating guns and knives seems pretty lame. I'm glad you are doing this now, instead of posting false statistics. Because even a child can see the problems you are facing now, whereas before you may have been guilty of confusing gullible adults.


Edit: You keep saying that guns protect people, but people are more likely to be hurt by their own gun, than be protected by it. The only sources that claim otherwise use the 2.5 million number which you admit is 100% bullshit. Your ENTIRE argument for the cost/benefit analysis of gun ownership RELIES on a statistic that you now admit is complete crap. Can't you see that your entire case disintegrated when you admitted this? It's cool that you didn't know that everything you were reading at NRA websites was bunk, but now that you do, you should analyze your position again. Set your silly ego aside and look at the problem now that you understand most of your previous "facts" were bunk.

And I'm perplexed by your fascination with my lumping suicides in with gun-deaths. We have had this discussion in previous threads and I am clear on stating that I see suicide as the murder of a future victim. It is bizarre to watch you try and avoid the discussion with this tactic. I guess you assume that I am debating with your very google + paste style. Dude, the only time I search for shit on the Internet is to find a study that I have already read in hard-copy. That's why my shit is usually .pdf's, scanned pages, and scientific journals. Just like in your Middle East thread, you put up sources that are biased to your position. I prefer scientific studies that set out LOOKING for an answer, not seeking to PROVE a hypothesis. Can't you see how this leads to you being brainwashed? Why wouldn't you want to combat this tendency? Why would you choose to go through life searching for a way to justify what you were told, rather than teaching yourself how to learn?

[TXChris]

Your side??? LMAO Dude, seriously, you think ANYONE is going to believe what you are saying NOW?

Your position is that guns cause crime. That position is WRONG, and it is SO NOT my position. LOL

And, how exactly is equating knife usage in crime, when guns are not available, lame? It disproves your point emphatically. Guns do not cause crime for when they are not available crime is still committed, but with other means. You really need to think a bit more before you post.

Violence in society causes crime not the availability of guns.

[swivel]

Your side??? LMAO Dude, seriously, you think ANYONE is going to believe what you are saying NOW?

Your position is that guns cause crime. That position is WRONG, and it is SO NOT my position. LOL

And, how exactly is equating knife usage in crime, when guns are not available, lame? It disproves your point emphatically. Guns do not cause crime for when they are not available crime is still committed, but with other means. You really need to think a bit more before you post.

Violence in society causes crime not the availability of guns.

Bullshit. My position is that guns lead to unnecessary deaths. You really should start reading my posts. My position here is consistent with my position in every debate you and I have. And your positions are equally consistent. You keep arguing for less laws, and more deaths. I keep arguing for sane restrictions to increase the number of people living, and the quality of those lives.

In every case, you are wrong and I am correct.

Let's be honest about what happened here... you came into a gun-control debate, pasted the same website we all see with the same incorrect stats, and have been scrambling ever since. You keep changing your own position, and have to LIE about what my position is. Go read the thread again. Sorry, for the first time.


FACT: One of my MAIN POINTS has been an increase in DEATHS by 20% WHILE SAYING THAT CRIME RATES ARE THE SAME. Everyone who reads this thread will see this over and over again.

FACT: You are claiming that my position is that GUNS CAUSE CRIME. If I thought this, I would not be saying, at least 4 times, now, that DEATHS ARE HIGHER DESPITE AVERAGE CRIME RATES.

FACT: The above two facts mean one of three things. (1) You haven't read my posts, which means you are a Troll. (2) You can't understand my posts, which means you are an idiot. (3) You have read and understood my posts, and are a liar.

INCONTROVERTIBLE. Game over. You suck.

[TXChris]

Guns lead to unnecessary deaths. Knives lead to unnecessary deaths. Cars lead to unnecessary deaths. Ipods lead to unnecessary deaths. Is all that true? Not in the least. They are all present in unnecessary deaths, but they do not LEAD to unnecessary deaths. Once again, we're talking causation here as a means to limit gun ownership, and there is none. You have failed to show any such thing. God, you never cease to amaze me. You can claim a new position all you want, but what you wrote is there in black and white. As a matter of fact, why don't we start here...


I think guns need to be phased out of our culture very gradually. Like we are combating cigarettes. We should adopt at least one measure a year which will slowly constrict the ease with which people can purchase guns and ammo. A few hours looking at crime rates drives this point home. Our assault rates (and crime in general) isn't much different than other developed countries. (lower than Canada and a few other countries), but our HOMICIDE rate is about 20% higher.

Tell me, Swivel, how much of that homicide rate is suicide? How much of that homicide rate is self-defense? Beyond that, PROVE to me that without guns those same suicides and self-defense numbers would not be there. Also, prove to me, in the case of self-defense, that the people defending themselves would be as safe as they were with the guns.

Swivel, you seem to be having a problem with understanding the most basic of concepts here, yet again. Guns are not to blame for crime. Niether are knives, cars, or Ipods. The level of violence a society holds is the direct cause of crime. Banning guns will only transfer that violence to another means. You mention that suicide MUST be included in the homicide numbers, yet you cannot dispute the fact that Japan, Denmark, and France, with ridiculously low gun ownership have extremely high suicide rates. Getting rid of access to guns, therefore, DOES NOT lower the rate of suicide. The low level of crime in Switzerland and Israel, along with the availability of guns in both, proves that simply having guns DOES NOT increase the likelyhood of crime. You aren't even treading water here.

[I am Legend]

in a way, and i am most likely wrong,it seems to me that the freer a society is, the more rampant crime is, and that has nothing to do with guns except as an example of the freeness of the society. if, in america, we cut peoples hands off for stealing and beheaded people in public for rape and shit, i bet our crime rates would drop bigtime. fuck, some places kill people for having weed! WEED!
























fucking weed gets the death penalty!?!?!?!!?

[swivel]

fucking weed gets the death penalty!?!?!?!!?

Does it?

[I am Legend]

according to wiki (for what its worth):


[edit] Use of capital punishment against the cannabis trade
Several countries have either carried out or legislated capital punishment for cannabis trafficking.

Country Status Notes
Saudi Arabia Sentenced An Iraqi man named Mattar bin Bakhit al-Khazaali was convicted of smuggling hashish and was executed in the northern town of Arar, close to the Iraqi border.
Indonesia Available In 1997, the Indonesian government under international pressure[citation needed] added the death penalty as a punishment for those convicted of drugs in their country. The law has yet to be enforced on any significant, well-established drug dealers. Rather, the trend has been to execute unknown, first time and clueless, alleged drug traffickers, who don't have the cunning, resources, and contacts to persuade the authorities to set them free. The former Indonesian President, Megawati Sukarnoputri announced Indonesia's intent to implement a fierce war on drugs in 2002. She called for the execution of all drug dealers. "For those who distribute drugs, life sentences and other prison sentences are no longer sufficient," she said. "No sentence is sufficient other than the death sentence." Indonesia's new president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, also proudly supports executions for drug dealers. [57]
Malaysia Has been used Mustaffa Kamal Abdul Aziz, 38 years old, and Mohd Radi Abdul Majid, 53 years old, were executed at dawn on January 17, 1996, for the trafficking of 1.2 kilograms of cannabis. [58]
Philippines No Longer Used The Philippines abolished the death penalty on June 24, 2006. The Philippines introduced stronger anti-drug laws, including the death penalty, in 2002. [59] Possession of over 500 grams of marijuana usually earned execution in the Philippines, as did possessing over ten grams of opium, morphine, heroin, ecstasy, or cocaine. Angeles City is often a mecca for Filipino cannabis users and cultivators, although enforcement has been inconsistent.[60].
United Arab Emirates Sentenced In the United Arab Emirates city of Fujairah, a woman named Lisa Tray was sentenced to death in December 2004, after being found guilty of possessing and dealing hashish. Undercover officers in Fujairah claim they caught Tray with 149 grams of hashish. Tray claims that her stepfather had given her the bag of hashish to deliver to someone, but didn't know its contents. Her lawyers have appealed the sentence.
Thailand Frequently Used Death penalty is possible for drug offenses under Thai law. Extra-judicial killings also alleged. [61]
Singapore Frequently Used Death penalty carried out many times for cannabis trafficking. (July 20 2004) A convicted drug trafficker, Raman Selvam Renganathan, 39, who stored 2.7 kilogrammes of cannabis or marijuana in a Singapore flat was hanged in Changi Prison. He was sentenced to death September 1, 2004 after an eight-day trial. (The Straits Times, July 20 2004).
People's Republic of China Frequently Used Death penalty is exercised regularly for drug offenses under Chinese law, often in an annual frenzy corresponding to the United Nations' International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Drug Trafficking [62] The government does not make precise records public, however Amnesty International estimates that around 500 people are executed there each year for drug offenses. Those executed have typically been convicted of smuggling or trafficking in anything from cannabis to methamphetamine.
United States Available Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, in 1996, proposed to introduce a mandatory death penalty for a second offense of smuggling 50 grams of marijuana into the United States, in the proposed law H.R. 4170. [63] This proposal failed.
Current Federal law (1994 Crime Act) sets the threshold for a possible death sentence for marijuana offenses at 60,000 kilograms or 60,000 plants (including seedlings) regardless of weight. The death penalty is also possible for running a continuing criminal enterprise that distributes marijuana and receives more than $20 million in proceeds in one year, regardless of the weight of marijuana involved.

The United States Supreme Court has held that no crimes other than murder can constitutionally carry a death sentence (Coker v. Georgia)