UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
<a href='http://www.drillers.com/download/GunFacts3.3Screen.pdf' target='_blank'>Gun Facts 3.3 with proof and cited research work disproving all liberal excuses.</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--UZi+Jan 8 2004, 06:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Jan 8 2004, 06:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> how about the connection with the prevention of crime with a gun? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Its all over the place. In Australia, we banned pretty much every gun and the crime rate either remained constant or dropped. In England, the police and public stopped with guns and crime rate went up. In Switzerland, everyone has a gun (or so I'm told) and it has a very small crime rate. In America, heaps of people and the police have guns and you have a bad crime rate.
<!--QuoteBegin--UZi+Jan 8 2004, 06:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Jan 8 2004, 06:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Not as bad as some other countries.
sure our murder rate is higher but that you forget that most of those countries population densities aren't as high.
Also read Mr. Gun Facts 3.3 as posted above. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Give us some time on that gun facts - thats not a small document.
As for that graph - I'm highly skeptical, given that it combines suicide and homicide, and then uses variable dates at the bottom. i.e some stats taken from 1990 in one county, 1995 in the other. Hard to maintain credibility that way....
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
Marine also understand that us pro gun people try to use independant or government sources whenever possible. Not some dumb statement like ".50 caliber weapons can knock out a airplane"
<!--QuoteBegin--UZi+Jan 8 2004, 03:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Jan 8 2004, 03:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Marine also understand that us pro gun people try to use independant or government sources whenever possible. Not some dumb statement like ".50 caliber weapons can knock out a airplane" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Technically it can. It can also destroy a submarine as well <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Jan 8 2004, 04:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jan 8 2004, 04:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Jan 8 2004, 09:19 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Jan 8 2004, 09:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And just to get back on topic:
Last year there were around 14,000 firearm-related deaths in the US, based on what I can find out from DOJ sources. There were also around 50,000 automobile-related deaths. Do you think we should:
A) Ban cars.
or
B) Try to work on improving vehicle safety, driver training, and driver licensing? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I dont feel that fair comparision between cars and guns can be made. A car is a large solid steel contraption specifically designed for transport.
A gun is a high velocity metal accelerator - designed and used for two things A) killing living creatures or for B) improving aim at targets. If you train for "improving aim" via option b, then the skills you are learning are basically how to do option A with more proficiency. Sure you dont have to, but thats the effect of your training, it makes killing things with your high velocity metal accelerator easier.
Unless people only keep cars to run down animals for sport, or take them to specially built "car runs" where the drivers practise ramming foam pedestrians or foam cars to get better at it - I dont feel that its a good analogy. If thats all cars were (sp?), then I'd say ban them. But they are not. They are for transport, and its (usually) only when accidents happen that people die from them. If the be all and end all of your life is shooting targets, then get an air rifle. Or a crossbow. But not a dedicated anti-personell weapon like a glock.
To further the car analogy, a glock is like a hummer. A hummer with spikes on the bullbar. And giant spinning swords mounted on the hubcaps. What is this thing good for? Scaring people, practising running them down in "car runs" and killing people/animals. Would I ban that puppy - YES!
I'm all for more advanced training for people in cars, but that cant be compared to a weapon. Say what you like about "target shooting" etc - I know what guns are meant for. The latest and greatest way of killing for the average human - a way to put your steel through something to disrupt its organs and kill it. Thats what guns are around for, thats why they were made originally, and thats the underlying point of guns. Kill things. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I dont feel that fair comparision between cars and guns can be made.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, I don't agree at all, especially considering that there are 3500 annual vehicular homicides in the US (is that not enough?) but let's say cigarettes. The only result of a cigarette is to potentially kill you (and unlike a firearm, it cannot defend you). Cigarettes kill around 450,000 Americans every year ( <a href='http://www.thetruth.com/truth.cfm' target='_blank'>http://www.thetruth.com/truth.cfm</a> ). That's 30 times more than firearms. Why are we not taking care of banning the number one killer?
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
Again, as I pointed out in the previous thread, if more guns equals more crime, and it's that simple, then why is there not a giant smoking crater smack dab in the middle of europe that used to be called Switzerland? Anyone? I mean, every able bodied male is ISSUED a true assault rifle (that means, an evil full auto, for you laymans out there) and made to report for training at least once a year, last I checked (if im wrong, feel free to slap me upside the head <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->). In addition to this, said firearms (in some cases LMGs and maybe even AT weaponry?) can be kept in the home. By the anti-gunners logic, said country should be in TOTAL anarchy. So why isn't it?
Crime is a product of society folks. Not the product of a 1-6 kilo block of iron.
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
edited January 2004
Oh, By the way...hope the folks here who don't like guns dont like the olympics either. The summer olympics at least.
Discus Shotput Javelin Hammer throw
^---- Above are all things that were used in ancient times in fighting far more brutal than anything field commanders could probably ENVISION today. Most will produce a wound larger than any but the largest firearms if they were to connect (Also see: fixed blade knives and swords/machetes) Yet they're just healthy sport nowadays. How interesting. My personal theory is that above items dont go bang and don't "look" scary (Anymore. ), thus not frightening the sheep.
EDIT: Come to think of it, I seem to remember about the marathon having military origins as well? Anyone gimme a yes/no on that?
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Jan 8 2004, 08:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Jan 8 2004, 08:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ok, I don't agree at all, especially considering that there are 3500 annual vehicular homicides in the US (is that not enough?) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I imagine there's a lot more cars than guns on civilians and yet there's a lot more gun murders. So no, it's not enough.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> let's say cigarettes. The only result of a cigarette is to potentially kill you (and unlike a firearm, it cannot defend you). Cigarettes kill around 450,000 Americans every year ( <a href='http://www.thetruth.com/truth.cfm' target='_blank'>http://www.thetruth.com/truth.cfm</a> ). That's 30 times more than firearms. Why are we not taking care of banning the number one killer?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cigarettes are addictive, guns are not. Cigarettes harm mainly just yourself, guns are made for harming others. Cigarettes cause death in long term, gun does the damage right there on the spot. There's a difference between you developing a lung cancer at the age of 65 after smoking 4 packs a day for 50 years and you getting shot in the chest at any age. Gun victims(again I'm pulling stats out of my anus <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->) are probably generally younger than the ones who tobacco killed(or more like shortened their life span)
Edit: Code966 <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> By the anti-gunners logic, said country should be in TOTAL anarchy. So why isn't it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For some countries it works, for some it doesn't. It seems that it doesn't work too well for Yanks, though we can't know for sure unless we try.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Jan 8 2004, 03:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Jan 8 2004, 03:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Cigarettes are addictive, guns are not. Cigarettes harm mainly just yourself, guns are made for harming others. Cigarettes cause death in long term, gun does the damage right there on the spot. There's a difference between you developing a lung cancer at the age of 65 after smoking 4 packs a day for 50 years and you getting shot in the chest at any age. Gun victims(again I'm pulling stats out of my anus <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->) are probably generally younger than the ones who tobacco killed(or more like shortened their life span) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Cigarettes harm millions of others - it's called second hand. The stats do not match your 65 years old, 4 packs a day thoughts. You have no gun stats, but someone dying at age 45 is ok, but 25 is not, in your opinion? And just to clarify, you're waaaaaayyyyyy wrong about younger people dying more from firearms than tobacco. Like, not even close. <a href='http://www.who.int/whr/2002/Chapter4.pdf' target='_blank'>Here are some of those stats, NOT anus-pulled</a>. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Europeans generally think, from what I saw visiting 4 different countries, that smoking is just fine and dandy no matter who or where you are. I never actually saw a non-smoking section anywhere that I visited. That means that you as a people approve of something which kills a million people (including non-smokers, if you can consider 2nd-hand smoke victims non-smokers) a year in Europe, but that you disapprove of something that kills 15,000 people a year in America. Ehhhhh, what?
How about disapproving of both, Hypopians! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Once you stop killing a million people a year, then you are free to tell us how to control our firearms. Until then, focus grasshoppahs.
PS: Show me your stats that there are more guns than cars. We have a lot of both and I'm curious to see who wins out. Also, are you planning on banning knives? They serve only the purpose of cutting open victims, be they people, cows, or celery.
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
What? There are FAR more vehicle fatalities than firearm fatalities.
Incorrect. Second hand smoke does arguably as much damage to those around the smoker as the smoker does to themselves. For my part, i've lost the ability to breathe easily when people are smoking around me (physically) and i've also lost the patience to deal with it. And actually it's more like 20 years. My aunt now has one half of one lung functional. She literally walks around with an oxygen tank connected to her nose. If I HAD to choose which to die from, i'll take the bullet thanks. You are correct about cigs being addictive however.
"For some countries it works, for some it doesn't. It seems that it doesn't work too well for Yanks, though we can't know for sure unless we try." Almost. Look at NYC, LA, DC, or most major cities in the USA. How many of them have tight gun control laws of thier own? (Remember kiddies, we have federal, state, and city government to sift through to get anything done.) Right. Now look at the crimerates. Interesting huh? Washington DC, at least WAS, the murder capitol of the USA. Yet it has some of the tightest laws. Also keep in mind that when you dial 911, the police have NO (Nada, zilch, zero, nil) legal obligation to come save you. Now let that sink in fully when you tell someone they need to depend solely on the local PD which may (or may not?) be undermanned, not really so local, or has 1 officer for every 1200 people or so in thier jurisdiction.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Jan 8 2004, 09:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Jan 8 2004, 09:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Cigarettes harm millions of others - it's called second hand. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's why I said "mainly harm yourself", however you have to 'second hand smoke' quite a lot before you get symptoms because of it. I'd rather see one person second hand smoke 8h/day for 10 years than see one person get shot.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The stats do not match your 65 years old, 4 packs a day thoughts. You have no gun stats, but someone dying at age 45 is ok, but 25 is not, in your opinion?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it's not ok but if I would have to choose between them, I would rather pick 25 years old - to live. It's a choice between the bad and the worse.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And just to clarify, you're waaaaaayyyyyy wrong about younger people dying more from firearms than tobacco. Like, not even close. <a href='http://www.who.int/whr/2002/Chapter4.pdf' target='_blank'>Here are some of those stats, NOT anus-pulled</a>. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh thank you Monse for that lovely <b>97 page</b> acrobat document! Could you just quote the important parts, I trust your word. Unless you want me to read the whole damn thing and reply in the next week <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->PS: Show me your stats that there are more guns than cars. We have a lot of both and I'm curious to see who wins out.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's 200 million guns(military included, I think) but only 65 million hand guns(which we want to ban). There's over 150 million cars in the USA. <a href='http://www.aviationupgrade.com/investorinformation.html' target='_blank'>Cars</a> <a href='http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/archives/000162.html' target='_blank'>Guns</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, are you planning on banning knives? They serve only the purpose of cutting open victims, be they people, cows, or celery.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolutely. I mean who's there to look after the poor helpless vegetables and dead animals if not us! Banning combat knives is just fine with me, however you could spare a couple just in case a specially raw stake comes by <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How about disapproving of both, Hypopians!? Once you stop killing a million people a year, then you are free to tell us how to control our firearms. Until then, focus grasshoppahs.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Doesn't concern me as we have pretty strict non-smoking regulations and areas. There's a special part in every restaurant for smokers, no smoking in public transportation/indoor shops and you're not allowed to expose kids to second hand smoking. So I guess only the citizens of those more primitive European countries you visited are not allowed to tell you how to control your firearms. I still am <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Edit: Sp3ll1ngz0r, edited even more spellingz0r.
Edit2: Code966<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Look at NYC, LA, DC, or most major cities in the USA. How many of them have tight gun control laws of thier own? (Remember kiddies, we have federal, state, and city government to sift through to get anything done.) Right. Now look at the crimerates.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe that's because it's so easy to smuggle a gun in to New York from a state next to it, where guns aren't banned.
On smoking: Smoking doesn't kill you there dead on. You can always walk away from it, someone can't follow you and stick a smoke under your nose. <b>You can't be murdered with a cigarette</b>.
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
"There's 200 million guns(military included, I think) but only 65 million hand guns(which we want to ban)." No we don't, you do! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's why I said "mainly harm yourself", however you have to 'second hand smoke' quite a lot before you get symptoms because of it. I'd rather see one person second hand smoke 8h/day for 10 years than see one person get shot.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The problem is, you're more likely to survive being shot than getting second hand smoke for 10 years. 15,000 firearms deaths last year in the US. 450,000 tobacco-related deaths in the US. That's 30 times more. I'll keep saying it until it sinks in through the Zepplin skin.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, it's not ok but if I would have to choose between them, I would rather pick 25 years old - to live. It's a choice between the bad and the worse.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not asking you to make a choice. I'm telling you that you cannot be against one and not the other. As long as europe remains a huge ashtray, they should not be on a high horse about a comparatively miniscule number of firearms deaths.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Unless you want me to read the whole damn thing<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->65 million hand guns(which we want to ban). There's over 150 million cars in the USA.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Point taken. Like I said, I thought you would be right about this, and I made you get off your lazy tail and do some research for once. Hurray! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Doesn't concern me as we have pretty strict non-smoking regulations and areas. There's a special part in every restaurant for smokers, no smoking in public transportation/indoor shops and you're not allowed to expose kids to second hand smoking. So I guess only the citizens of those more primitive European countries you visited are not allowed to tell you how to control your firearms. I still am <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Fair enough. All you English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Dutch, French, Belgians, etc. are not allowed to post here anymore. If you are Finnish, please continue debating. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Ahhh, and if we follow your Finnish example (of smoking) with our firearms, we should be allowed to own them as long as we keep them away from children and outside of public places. We agree! Hurray!
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Jan 8 2004, 10:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Jan 8 2004, 10:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The problem is, you're more likely to survive being shot than getting second hand smoke for 10 years. 15,000 firearms deaths last year in the US. 450,000 tobacco-related deaths in the US. That's 30 times more. I'll keep saying it until it sinks in through the Zepplin skin. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How many of these second hand smoking deaths? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I say it doesn't matter if there's 5 000 000 tobacco deaths/year as long as those people did it out of their own will and to themselves.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ahhh, and if we follow your Finnish example (of smoking) with our firearms, we should be allowed to own them as long as we keep them away from children and outside of public places. We agree! Hurray!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lol <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> I guess that would be better too, as you wouldn't be allowed to carry guns anywhere in public. Polices could start carrying metal detectors to catch all the baddies.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I say it doesn't matter if there's 5 000 000 tobacco deaths/year as long as those people did it out of their own will and to themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 2nd hand smoke does not harm only yourself by its very definition. And I'll see if they have a precise estimate of second-hand death numbers. One would imagine that out of 5 million people though, if it's only 1% then 50,000 deaths a year. And we all know it's more than 1%.
Well I think that about does it. Dread agrees with me and supports my wishes to keep private gun ownership legal. All is right with the world. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>I get the biggest kick out of pointing out contradictions and hypocricy. I think I need professional help...</span>
Monse, answer my question! "How many of these second hand smoking deaths?"
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Dread agrees with me and supports my wishes to keep private gun ownership legal.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cigarettes smoking and guns are very different things. I won't let you get away from the debate so easily <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
And yes, I agree on one thing; you do need help <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Edit: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I get the biggest kick out of pointing out contradictions and hypocricy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Btw, there's no contradictions in my statements. At least you haven't found any.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Jan 8 2004, 05:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Jan 8 2004, 05:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Monse, answer my question! "How many of these second hand smoking deaths?"
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Dread agrees with me and supports my wishes to keep private gun ownership legal.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cigarettes smoking and guns are very different things. I won't let you get away from the debate so easily <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
And yes, I agree on one thing; you do need help <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Read above, I edited. And you are the one trying to get away from the debate. If you're so concerned about 15,000 deaths, why are you unconcerned with 450,000?
Ahh, here you go: <a href='http://www.ymn.org/tobacco/2nd.youth.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.ymn.org/tobacco/2nd.youth.shtml</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Effects of Secondhand Smoke Estimated annual deaths and illnesses among nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke.
NUMBER OF PEOPLE OR CASES? IN THE U.S.?
Developmental Defects
Low birth weight (cases)
9,700- 18,600
Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths 1,900- 27,000
Respiratory Effects in Children /Middle ear infection (physician office visits)
700,000- 1.6 million
Asthma exacerbation (children)
400,000- 1 million? Bronchitis or pneumonia in infants and toddlers (18 months and younger) 150,000- 300,000 cases 7,500- 15,000 hospitalizations 135- 212 deaths ? Cancer Lung 3,000 deaths
Cardiovascular Effects
Heart attack and stroke? 35,000- 62,000 deaths <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There you go. Based on conservative estimates, the number of children non-smokers alone killed in the US every year is right around triple the number of total firearms homicides for the country. Based on liberal estimates, it's more like 8 times as many. Still want to support one and not the other? You murderer!!! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
The contradiction is, you support your limited 'ownership of tobacco' laws. You do not support similar laws for firearms. Both are devices which only purpose is to kill. Contradiction.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Jan 8 2004, 11:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Jan 8 2004, 11:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Read above, I edited. And you are the one trying to get away from the debate. If you're so concerned about 15,000 deaths, why are you unconcerned with 450,000? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Killing yourself is your business. Murdering others is not. Hence I'm not concerned with people killing themselves by smoking.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The contradiction is, you support your limited 'ownership of tobacco' laws. You do not support similar laws for firearms. Both are devices which only purpose is to kill. Contradiction.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Incorrect. Firearms purpose is to kill. Tobacco is a narcotics and is meant to give you a good feeling. Death is only a side-effect. Also you rarely murder someone with cigarettes on purpose. All cigarette deaths are still accidents, those 15 000 firearm homicides are not.
For once I decided to get my slacker arse to work and actually check all the figures you gave me. Progress? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Guns wound thousands of people too without killing, so I'll take all the death cases, as we are concentrating on those.
That's about right, but they are not homicides and you can complain about it(there's health regulations in you work) and avoid it. You can't much complain to a guy pulling a gun on you. Also it can be easily controlled, or is USA among the English and Dutch and French and whatever was in your list? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Guns are not as easy to control as a owner of an illegal firearm is unlikely going to do what that "No shooting here" sign says. Most of smokers can be forced to not to smoke in restaurants/near children.
Those are not actually all second hand smoking. <a href='http://www.sids.org' target='_blank'>American SIDS institute</a> says that "SIDS is the sudden death of an infant under one year of age which <b>remains unexplained after a thorough case investigation</b>, including performance of a complete autopsy, examination of the death scene, and review of the clinical history."
They only mention that tobacco, among being a teen, cocaine addict, not getting enough nutrition and having short intervals between pregnancies increases the risk for SIDS. Same site states that there's only some 2,500 deaths/year in the USA. Now should we believe the let's-scare-the-kids-not-to-smoke-site or the official American SIDS institute?
All in all, if you really have that badly controlled cigarette smoking that it causes so many second hand smoking deaths then go ahead and ban it too. I can't really relate as it's not a problem around here. I just see a country with lot of homicides and I suggest banning the weapons that are used to kill. If you say you have a lot of second hand smokers, I suggest you regulate smoking better or if it's bad enough, ban it all together. Heaven knows trying to regulate weapons hasn't done much good though.
Edit: Don't wait for a reply anytime soon as I'm going to bed. Dahm you Monse, you made me stay up so late again <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Good night...or day.
Dread, I think you you definitely skimmed over my post without reading it carefully. So, again:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Killing yourself is your business. Murdering others is not. Hence I'm not concerned with people killing themselves by smoking<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <b>You asked for me to quote figures on second injury from smoking in NON-smokers. I did so, then you ignored my post above. THE WHOLE REPORT IS ABOUT SECOND SMOKE IN KIDS. STOP THINKING IT'S ADULT SMOKERS. </b> Not trying to yell, but talking in a normal inside voice has been ignored several times now.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also you rarely murder someone with cigarettes on purpose<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Cigarettes link to cancer was discovered in the 1940's. It's link to secondhand in the 80's. There is NO WAY not to know by now that when you smoke around children and non-smokers, you are endangering their health. Period. You are committing negligent homicide.
All of my figures were for children. <b>CHILDREN</b>. They cannot "complain" to someone, their attackers are their parents. Your lack of attention to the previous post shows in your replies, and I'm now completely infuriated, after having read and considered yours very carefully, and provided requested statistics. Then you narrowed in on the tiny SIDS thing and ignored all the other data because it contradicts your opinion. You are basically saying 'I don't much care about smoking, but I care about guns, so guns are more dangerous." I am saying that if you don't care about both, you can't complain about one or the other without being a contradictory hypocrite. I am also saying that banning things is generally a stupid idea, and that controlling the use is probably much better.
And stop asking me for stats if you're just going to ignore them. Man, this really **** me off. That's so intensely rude.
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
Oh mai <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo--> bad nuaghty dread!
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
recently they are once again scared of the Glock. As posted below <img src='http://www.detnews.com/specialreports/2003/guns/images/glock.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'> Monday, December 15, 2003
Top police gun prone to accidental firing
But Glock gags those who have settled suits
By Melvin Claxton / The Detroit News
When police Officer Randall Smith was accidentally shot in the head by a fellow officer with a Glock semiautomatic pistol in 1995, he sued the gun maker, claiming the weapon was defectively designed and unnecessarily dangerous.
Glock settled the lawsuit. But for the rest of his life, Smith, whose injuries left him permanently brain damaged and cost him his police job in Birmingham, Ala., is barred from talking about the case or revealing any details he learned about Glock before the settlement. His lawyer also is barred from talking, restricted by a confidentiality agreement that is a standard policy for Glock when settling lawsuits.
Glock’s and other gun manufacturers’ insistence on confidentiality agreements is common in product liability settlements. The agreements have kept critical information about the safety record of the gun from the public and are a prime example of how the gun industry actively conceals information about injuries and fatalities connected with its products. The industry has done so with the help of Congress and the powerful National Rifle Association lobby.
Like other gun makers, Glock is not required to report complaints and injuries to any federal or state agency. And Glock cannot be compelled to inform gun buyers of problems others have had with its weapons.
The News documented more than 50 lawsuits against Glock in the past eight years. In those with confirmed settlements, Glock insisted on confidentiality agreements.
Despite the agreements, Glock pistols, the weapon of choice for more than half the nation’s police departments, have earned a reputation among some gun experts as a firearm with too few safety features and that is too quick to fire. Its reputation is directly linked to its design, which ignores important safety features.
The no-frills, lightweight polymer-frame semiautomatic pistol forces the user to handle the gun with extreme caution. The Glock will fire if the trigger is moved less than a half an inch, compared to twice that distance for most other police guns.
And some Glocks will shoot with as little as 3 1/2 pounds of pressure on the trigger — light enough for a 5-year-old to fire the gun. Glock started offering optional trigger pulls of up to 12 pounds in the mid-1990s after the New York City Police Department — plagued by a string of police shootings — demanded a heavier trigger.
The gun has no manual safety to prevent it from firing if the trigger is accidentally pulled. In fact, the gun’s safety features — extremely effective in preventing discharges if the gun is dropped or hit — automatically are turned off every time the trigger is depressed.
In addition, most Glocks have no indicator that shows the guns are loaded and no magazine safety to prevent them from firing when the ammunition clip is removed. And unlike many other guns, the Glock is always semicocked and ready to shoot. This inner tension in its firing mechanism increases the likelihood of discharge if the trigger is accidentally moved, some gun experts say.
"What you have is a gun that is almost too eager to fire," said Carter Lord, a national firearms and ballistics consultant. "I think it may be an appropriate weapon for highly trained paramilitary officers in a SWAT team, but not for most police officers and certainly not for civilians."
Gun’s sensitive trigger endangers police officers
With so few Glock victims able to talk freely, details of injuries must often be obtained from police reports, eyewitness statements and court documents that haven’t been sealed. These sources paint a picture of a gun that has severely injured police officers.
In many instances, the injuries are devastating and permanent.
Take the case of Jimmy Pope. The former Jackson, Miss., police officer was shot in the face when a Glock being cleaned in another room by his roommate and fellow officer, Von Ware, accidentally discharged. The bullet went through Pope’s bedroom wall and the headboard of his bed before hitting him.
Pope lost an eye in the 1993 shooting and suffered extensive facial injuries.
Detroit police have had their share of Glock injuries, although police officials insist there have been very few instances of unintentional discharges with the gun.
Within two years of switching to the Glocks in 1992, two officers shot themselves in their legs and another was shot in the buttocks. And in July, Detroit Officer Michael Allen, 22, was shot in the leg, the bullet hitting the bone. His Glock accidentally fired as he tried to put it under the seat after his car was pulled over by customs inspectors on the Canadian side of the Ambassador Bridge.
Police shooting themselves in their legs with Glocks is so prevalent, said firearms consultant and former Guns and Ammo editor Whit Collins, that gun experts describe the phenomenon as "Glock leg."
The list of Glock victims includes veteran police and experienced gun handlers — people like former U.S. Border Patrol agent Michael Roth, 66, a small-town sheriff and marksman with extensive gun training.
In March 1996, Roth was tightening his belt in a mall restroom in Buffalo, N.Y., when the Glock tucked in his waistband accidentally discharged, striking him in the leg.
Investigators believed the gun’s trigger caught in his clothing, causing the gun to fire. Roth sued Glock, blaming the gun’s light, short trigger pull and lack of a manual safety for the shooting.
Glock settled the case, but again killed any publicity by demanding Roth and his attorney sign a strict confidentiality agreement barring them from talking about the shooting.
For some police officers like Terry Turner of Beaumont, Texas, such shootings prove career-ending. Turner had his leg amputated last year after he was shot in the thigh when his Glock accidentally discharged as he placed it in his holster.
Accidental firings hurt suspects, bystanders
It isn’t just police officers who are getting hurt in accidental Glock shootings. Suspects, innocent bystanders and even spouses sometimes are caught in the line of fire.
That was the case in August when Woonsocket, R.I., police Lt. Walter Warot accidentally shot himself in the buttocks and slightly wounded the person sitting next to him.
Warot, who was sitting on a granite bench outside Providence Superior Court at the time, was adjusting a Glock tucked in his waistband when it discharged. An employee of the attorney general’s office sitting next to him was nicked by flying fragments of granite from the shot’s impact.
Other victims of Glock shootings have not been so lucky. Elroy Gonzalez was shot in the head and seriously injured in 1996 while being arrested by a Kentucky police officer for allegedly possessing a small amount of marijuana. The officer said he didn’t intend to fire his gun.
Ronnie Earl Kimbrell was shot in the back by a South Carolina state trooper in 1995 while being arrested for an alleged traffic violation. The trooper said he was trying to handcuff Kimbrell when he accidentally fired his gun.
James Lancaster was killed Aug. 8, 1996, after a sheriff’s deputy unintentionally shot him. At the time he was shot, Lancaster was being forced to the ground after a 20-mile car chase. The officer said he didn’t intend to fire the weapon.
Company holds gun users responsible for safety
One of the biggest safety criticisms leveled against Glock is the company’s refusal to put a manual safety on its guns. Glock developed a safety for its guns years ago, but never made it available to the public.
Glock built the safety for guns manufactured for the Finnish military, the gun maker’s general counsel and vice president Paul F. Jannuzzo revealed in a deposition. He said the company made 50 such pistols.
Like so many things about Glock, information about the manual safety remains shielded from the public. And despite the benefits many see in the feature, no agency has the power to compel the manufacturer to add it to its guns.
In 2002, Glock introduced an optional safety feature — a built-in safety lock — for some of its guns.
In announcing the locks, Glock acknowledged that gun manufacturers can design firearms with features that make them safer to keep in homes with children.
"The beauty of the Glock locking system is it is simple and safe," an article in last year’s Glocks Autopistols magazine stated. "It is the perfect system for someone without a strong background in firearms training and is dealing with the conflict of having young children in the home while feeling a great need for a tool that would enable them to maintain control when physically threatened with criminal intrusion."
But the gun maker’s Web site states the company’s philosophy that firearms safety is ultimately the responsibility of gun owners.
"Firearm safety is up to you, the end-user," Gaston Glock states in a message to customers on his company’s Web site. "The safe handling of firearms, like morality, cannot be legislated into existence. Only firearms users can make the safe use and storage of firearms a reality."
Weapon easily converted into full automatic mode
One of the Glock’s most frightening attributes is its ability to easily be converted into a full automatic weapon capable of firing at the rate of 1,000 rounds a minute.
Glock has issued no warnings and made no changes in its design that would prevent its weapons from being converted into submachine guns.
Experts say the problem can be corrected with minor changes in how Glock pistols are made.
A full automatic Glock will fire 33 bullets in seconds with one trigger pull. And the gun can be quickly converted to full automatic mode for as little as $10 with homemade parts. It is a well-documented danger known to law enforcement.
"In some regions of California, police are treating any Glock they encounter as a machine gun until proven otherwise," states an advisory on the Association of Forensic Firearm and Toolmark Examiners Web site that lists dangerous or defective guns.
"The conversion from standard to fully automatic is fast and simple, requiring no technical expertise. The conversion is accomplished merely by swapping one piece for the other. A ‘real pro’ can make the switch in 15 seconds."
The easy conversion is no surprise, experts say. Gaston Glock, who designed the gun that bears his name, relied heavily on the technology behind the German Heckler and Koch VP 70 submachine gun when creating his weapon, Glock’s 1990 U.S. patent shows.
A Detroit Police officer wears a Glock semiautomatic pistol, the weapon of choice for more than half the nation's police departments. Critics say the gun has too few safety features and is too quick to fire, causing accidental injuries and fatalities.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Jan 9 2004, 04:17 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Jan 9 2004, 04:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I dont feel that fair comparision between cars and guns can be made.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, I don't agree at all, especially considering that there are 3500 annual vehicular homicides in the US (is that not enough?) but let's say cigarettes. The only result of a cigarette is to potentially kill you (and unlike a firearm, it cannot defend you). Cigarettes kill around 450,000 Americans every year ( <a href='http://www.thetruth.com/truth.cfm' target='_blank'>http://www.thetruth.com/truth.cfm</a> ). That's 30 times more than firearms. Why are we not taking care of banning the number one killer? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hey, I can multitask. I'm all for the banning of cigarettes as well. But I still dont feel you have sufficiently answered the car analogy. You were comparing banning guns to banning cars. I find deaths caused by a specifically designed killing machine and deaths from misusing transport as a way of killing two very different things. Apples and oranges really.
And I dont believe people being murdered by firearms is in anyway a misuse of the gun. The gun performed in exactly the way its manufacturers intended it to - to lauch steel at extreme speed to penetrate flesh and disrupt organs/bodily function.
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
Well in terms of differences, as machines, they're both propelled by combusting materials, both are fully capable of killing if the user has his mind dead set on it and/or is an idiot/under the influence/mentally ill/all of the above. Get a psycho in a pickup and you get a half ton bullet. *WHEN USED PROPERLY* They're nearly harmless. Except for the fumes each one gives off.
But of course, since target shooting is just training to go on a shooting spree, then just driving around must be training to go run someone down. According to your logic at least.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Jan 8 2004, 04:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jan 8 2004, 04:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And I dont believe people being murdered by firearms is in anyway a misuse of the gun. The gun performed in exactly the way its manufacturers intended it to - to lauch steel at extreme speed to penetrate flesh and disrupt organs/bodily function. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well according to the Constitution of the United States of America, firearms are intended to protect our basic freedoms. They can also serve as a tool for defense. So guns protect us and our freedom.
Comments
Its all over the place. In Australia, we banned pretty much every gun and the crime rate either remained constant or dropped. In England, the police and public stopped with guns and crime rate went up. In Switzerland, everyone has a gun (or so I'm told) and it has a very small crime rate. In America, heaps of people and the police have guns and you have a bad crime rate.
So many variable....
<img src='http://www.nraila.org/images/hschart.GIF' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
sure our murder rate is higher but that you forget that most of those countries population densities aren't as high.
Also read Mr. Gun Facts 3.3 as posted above.
<img src='http://www.nraila.org/images/hschart.GIF' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
sure our murder rate is higher but that you forget that most of those countries population densities aren't as high.
Also read Mr. Gun Facts 3.3 as posted above. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Give us some time on that gun facts - thats not a small document.
As for that graph - I'm highly skeptical, given that it combines suicide and homicide, and then uses variable dates at the bottom. i.e some stats taken from 1990 in one county, 1995 in the other. Hard to maintain credibility that way....
Also Police are scared of a confiscation of firearms. I've also posted eariler regarding Austrlia and its 11% hike in overall crime
Technically it can. It can also destroy a submarine as well <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Last year there were around 14,000 firearm-related deaths in the US, based on what I can find out from DOJ sources. There were also around 50,000 automobile-related deaths. Do you think we should:
A) Ban cars.
or
B) Try to work on improving vehicle safety, driver training, and driver licensing? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont feel that fair comparision between cars and guns can be made. A car is a large solid steel contraption specifically designed for transport.
A gun is a high velocity metal accelerator - designed and used for two things A) killing living creatures or for B) improving aim at targets. If you train for "improving aim" via option b, then the skills you are learning are basically how to do option A with more proficiency. Sure you dont have to, but thats the effect of your training, it makes killing things with your high velocity metal accelerator easier.
Unless people only keep cars to run down animals for sport, or take them to specially built "car runs" where the drivers practise ramming foam pedestrians or foam cars to get better at it - I dont feel that its a good analogy. If thats all cars were (sp?), then I'd say ban them. But they are not. They are for transport, and its (usually) only when accidents happen that people die from them. If the be all and end all of your life is shooting targets, then get an air rifle. Or a crossbow. But not a dedicated anti-personell weapon like a glock.
To further the car analogy, a glock is like a hummer. A hummer with spikes on the bullbar. And giant spinning swords mounted on the hubcaps. What is this thing good for? Scaring people, practising running them down in "car runs" and killing people/animals. Would I ban that puppy - YES!
I'm all for more advanced training for people in cars, but that cant be compared to a weapon. Say what you like about "target shooting" etc - I know what guns are meant for. The latest and greatest way of killing for the average human - a way to put your steel through something to disrupt its organs and kill it. Thats what guns are around for, thats why they were made originally, and thats the underlying point of guns. Kill things. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I dont feel that fair comparision between cars and guns can be made.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, I don't agree at all, especially considering that there are 3500 annual vehicular homicides in the US (is that not enough?) but let's say cigarettes. The only result of a cigarette is to potentially kill you (and unlike a firearm, it cannot defend you). Cigarettes kill around 450,000 Americans every year ( <a href='http://www.thetruth.com/truth.cfm' target='_blank'>http://www.thetruth.com/truth.cfm</a> ). That's 30 times more than firearms. Why are we not taking care of banning the number one killer?
Crime is a product of society folks. Not the product of a 1-6 kilo block of iron.
Discus
Shotput
Javelin
Hammer throw
^---- Above are all things that were used in ancient times in fighting far more brutal than anything field commanders could probably ENVISION today. Most will produce a wound larger than any but the largest firearms if they were to connect (Also see: fixed blade knives and swords/machetes) Yet they're just healthy sport nowadays. How interesting. My personal theory is that above items dont go bang and don't "look" scary (Anymore. ), thus not frightening the sheep.
EDIT: Come to think of it, I seem to remember about the marathon having military origins as well? Anyone gimme a yes/no on that?
I imagine there's a lot more cars than guns on civilians and yet there's a lot more gun murders. So no, it's not enough.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> let's say cigarettes. The only result of a cigarette is to potentially kill you (and unlike a firearm, it cannot defend you). Cigarettes kill around 450,000 Americans every year ( <a href='http://www.thetruth.com/truth.cfm' target='_blank'>http://www.thetruth.com/truth.cfm</a> ). That's 30 times more than firearms. Why are we not taking care of banning the number one killer?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cigarettes are addictive, guns are not. Cigarettes harm mainly just yourself, guns are made for harming others. Cigarettes cause death in long term, gun does the damage right there on the spot. There's a difference between you developing a lung cancer at the age of 65 after smoking 4 packs a day for 50 years and you getting shot in the chest at any age. Gun victims(again I'm pulling stats out of my anus <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->) are probably generally younger than the ones who tobacco killed(or more like shortened their life span)
Edit: Code966
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> By the anti-gunners logic, said country should be in TOTAL anarchy. So why isn't it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For some countries it works, for some it doesn't. It seems that it doesn't work too well for Yanks, though we can't know for sure unless we try.
Cigarettes harm millions of others - it's called second hand. The stats do not match your 65 years old, 4 packs a day thoughts. You have no gun stats, but someone dying at age 45 is ok, but 25 is not, in your opinion? And just to clarify, you're waaaaaayyyyyy wrong about younger people dying more from firearms than tobacco. Like, not even close. <a href='http://www.who.int/whr/2002/Chapter4.pdf' target='_blank'>Here are some of those stats, NOT anus-pulled</a>. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Europeans generally think, from what I saw visiting 4 different countries, that smoking is just fine and dandy no matter who or where you are. I never actually saw a non-smoking section anywhere that I visited. That means that you as a people approve of something which kills a million people (including non-smokers, if you can consider 2nd-hand smoke victims non-smokers) a year in Europe, but that you disapprove of something that kills 15,000 people a year in America. Ehhhhh, what?
How about disapproving of both, Hypopians! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Once you stop killing a million people a year, then you are free to tell us how to control our firearms. Until then, focus grasshoppahs.
PS: Show me your stats that there are more guns than cars. We have a lot of both and I'm curious to see who wins out. Also, are you planning on banning knives? They serve only the purpose of cutting open victims, be they people, cows, or celery.
Incorrect. Second hand smoke does arguably as much damage to those around the smoker as the smoker does to themselves. For my part, i've lost the ability to breathe easily when people are smoking around me (physically) and i've also lost the patience to deal with it. And actually it's more like 20 years. My aunt now has one half of one lung functional. She literally walks around with an oxygen tank connected to her nose. If I HAD to choose which to die from, i'll take the bullet thanks. You are correct about cigs being addictive however.
"For some countries it works, for some it doesn't. It seems that it doesn't work too well for Yanks, though we can't know for sure unless we try." Almost. Look at NYC, LA, DC, or most major cities in the USA. How many of them have tight gun control laws of thier own? (Remember kiddies, we have federal, state, and city government to sift through to get anything done.) Right. Now look at the crimerates. Interesting huh? Washington DC, at least WAS, the murder capitol of the USA. Yet it has some of the tightest laws. Also keep in mind that when you dial 911, the police have NO (Nada, zilch, zero, nil) legal obligation to come save you. Now let that sink in fully when you tell someone they need to depend solely on the local PD which may (or may not?) be undermanned, not really so local, or has 1 officer for every 1200 people or so in thier jurisdiction.
That's why I said "mainly harm yourself", however you have to 'second hand smoke' quite a lot before you get symptoms because of it. I'd rather see one person second hand smoke 8h/day for 10 years than see one person get shot.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The stats do not match your 65 years old, 4 packs a day thoughts. You have no gun stats, but someone dying at age 45 is ok, but 25 is not, in your opinion?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it's not ok but if I would have to choose between them, I would rather pick 25 years old - to live. It's a choice between the bad and the worse.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And just to clarify, you're waaaaaayyyyyy wrong about younger people dying more from firearms than tobacco. Like, not even close. <a href='http://www.who.int/whr/2002/Chapter4.pdf' target='_blank'>Here are some of those stats, NOT anus-pulled</a>. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh thank you Monse for that lovely <b>97 page</b> acrobat document! Could you just quote the important parts, I trust your word. Unless you want me to read the whole damn thing and reply in the next week <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->PS: Show me your stats that there are more guns than cars. We have a lot of both and I'm curious to see who wins out.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's 200 million guns(military included, I think) but only 65 million hand guns(which we want to ban). There's over 150 million cars in the USA.
<a href='http://www.aviationupgrade.com/investorinformation.html' target='_blank'>Cars</a>
<a href='http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/archives/000162.html' target='_blank'>Guns</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, are you planning on banning knives? They serve only the purpose of cutting open victims, be they people, cows, or celery.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolutely. I mean who's there to look after the poor helpless vegetables and dead animals if not us! Banning combat knives is just fine with me, however you could spare a couple just in case a specially raw stake comes by <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How about disapproving of both, Hypopians!? Once you stop killing a million people a year, then you are free to tell us how to control our firearms. Until then, focus grasshoppahs.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Doesn't concern me as we have pretty strict non-smoking regulations and areas. There's a special part in every restaurant for smokers, no smoking in public transportation/indoor shops and you're not allowed to expose kids to second hand smoking. So I guess only the citizens of those more primitive European countries you visited are not allowed to tell you how to control your firearms. I still am <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Edit: Sp3ll1ngz0r, edited even more spellingz0r.
Edit2: Code966<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Look at NYC, LA, DC, or most major cities in the USA. How many of them have tight gun control laws of thier own? (Remember kiddies, we have federal, state, and city government to sift through to get anything done.) Right. Now look at the crimerates.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe that's because it's so easy to smuggle a gun in to New York from a state next to it, where guns aren't banned.
On smoking: Smoking doesn't kill you there dead on. You can always walk away from it, someone can't follow you and stick a smoke under your nose. <b>You can't be murdered with a cigarette</b>.
The problem is, you're more likely to survive being shot than getting second hand smoke for 10 years. 15,000 firearms deaths last year in the US. 450,000 tobacco-related deaths in the US. That's 30 times more. I'll keep saying it until it sinks in through the Zepplin skin.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, it's not ok but if I would have to choose between them, I would rather pick 25 years old - to live. It's a choice between the bad and the worse.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not asking you to make a choice. I'm telling you that you cannot be against one and not the other. As long as europe remains a huge ashtray, they should not be on a high horse about a comparatively miniscule number of firearms deaths.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Unless you want me to read the whole damn thing<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->65 million hand guns(which we want to ban). There's over 150 million cars in the USA.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Point taken. Like I said, I thought you would be right about this, and I made you get off your lazy tail and do some research for once. Hurray! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Doesn't concern me as we have pretty strict non-smoking regulations and areas. There's a special part in every restaurant for smokers, no smoking in public transportation/indoor shops and you're not allowed to expose kids to second hand smoking. So I guess only the citizens of those more primitive European countries you visited are not allowed to tell you how to control your firearms. I still am <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fair enough. All you English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Dutch, French, Belgians, etc. are not allowed to post here anymore. If you are Finnish, please continue debating. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
How many of these second hand smoking deaths? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I say it doesn't matter if there's 5 000 000 tobacco deaths/year as long as those people did it out of their own will and to themselves.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ahhh, and if we follow your Finnish example (of smoking) with our firearms, we should be allowed to own them as long as we keep them away from children and outside of public places. We agree! Hurray!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lol <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> I guess that would be better too, as you wouldn't be allowed to carry guns anywhere in public. Polices could start carrying metal detectors to catch all the baddies.
2nd hand smoke does not harm only yourself by its very definition. And I'll see if they have a precise estimate of second-hand death numbers. One would imagine that out of 5 million people though, if it's only 1% then 50,000 deaths a year. And we all know it's more than 1%.
Well I think that about does it. Dread agrees with me and supports my wishes to keep private gun ownership legal. All is right with the world. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>I get the biggest kick out of pointing out contradictions and hypocricy. I think I need professional help...</span>
edit: forgot to reply to previous points
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Dread agrees with me and supports my wishes to keep private gun ownership legal.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cigarettes smoking and guns are very different things. I won't let you get away from the debate so easily <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
And yes, I agree on one thing; you do need help <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Edit: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I get the biggest kick out of pointing out contradictions and hypocricy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Btw, there's no contradictions in my statements. At least you haven't found any.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Dread agrees with me and supports my wishes to keep private gun ownership legal.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cigarettes smoking and guns are very different things. I won't let you get away from the debate so easily <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
And yes, I agree on one thing; you do need help <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read above, I edited. And you are the one trying to get away from the debate. If you're so concerned about 15,000 deaths, why are you unconcerned with 450,000?
Ahh, here you go: <a href='http://www.ymn.org/tobacco/2nd.youth.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.ymn.org/tobacco/2nd.youth.shtml</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Effects of Secondhand Smoke
Estimated annual deaths and illnesses among nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke.
NUMBER OF PEOPLE OR CASES? IN THE U.S.?
Developmental Defects
Low birth weight (cases)
9,700- 18,600
Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths
1,900- 27,000
Respiratory Effects in Children /Middle ear infection (physician office visits)
700,000- 1.6 million
Asthma exacerbation (children)
400,000- 1 million?
Bronchitis or pneumonia in infants and toddlers (18 months and younger) 150,000- 300,000 cases
7,500- 15,000 hospitalizations
135- 212 deaths
?
Cancer
Lung
3,000 deaths
Cardiovascular Effects
Heart attack and stroke?
35,000- 62,000 deaths
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There you go. Based on conservative estimates, the number of children non-smokers alone killed in the US every year is right around triple the number of total firearms homicides for the country. Based on liberal estimates, it's more like 8 times as many. Still want to support one and not the other? You murderer!!! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
The contradiction is, you support your limited 'ownership of tobacco' laws. You do not support similar laws for firearms. Both are devices which only purpose is to kill. Contradiction.
Killing yourself is your business. Murdering others is not. Hence I'm not concerned with people killing themselves by smoking.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The contradiction is, you support your limited 'ownership of tobacco' laws. You do not support similar laws for firearms. Both are devices which only purpose is to kill. Contradiction.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Incorrect. Firearms purpose is to kill. Tobacco is a narcotics and is meant to give you a good feeling. Death is only a side-effect. Also you rarely murder someone with cigarettes on purpose. All cigarette deaths are still accidents, those 15 000 firearm homicides are not.
For once I decided to get my slacker arse to work and actually check all the figures you gave me. Progress? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Guns wound thousands of people too without killing, so I'll take all the death cases, as we are concentrating on those.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Cardiovascular Effects
Heart attack and stroke?
35,000- 62,000 deaths <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's about right, but they are not homicides and you can complain about it(there's health regulations in you work) and avoid it. You can't much complain to a guy pulling a gun on you. Also it can be easily controlled, or is USA among the English and Dutch and French and whatever was in your list? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Guns are not as easy to control as a owner of an illegal firearm is unlikely going to do what that "No shooting here" sign says. Most of smokers can be forced to not to smoke in restaurants/near children.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Cancer
Lung
3,000 deaths<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's about right. Then again, they are not homicides like with firearms.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths
1,900- 27,000<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Those are not actually all second hand smoking. <a href='http://www.sids.org' target='_blank'>American SIDS institute</a> says that "SIDS is the sudden death of an infant under one year of age which <b>remains unexplained after a thorough case investigation</b>, including performance of a complete autopsy, examination of the death scene, and review of the clinical history."
They only mention that tobacco, among being a teen, cocaine addict, not getting enough nutrition and having short intervals between pregnancies increases the risk for SIDS. Same site states that there's only some 2,500 deaths/year in the USA. Now should we believe the let's-scare-the-kids-not-to-smoke-site or the official American SIDS institute?
All in all, if you really have that badly controlled cigarette smoking that it causes so many second hand smoking deaths then go ahead and ban it too. I can't really relate as it's not a problem around here. I just see a country with lot of homicides and I suggest banning the weapons that are used to kill. If you say you have a lot of second hand smokers, I suggest you regulate smoking better or if it's bad enough, ban it all together. Heaven knows trying to regulate weapons hasn't done much good though.
Edit: Don't wait for a reply anytime soon as I'm going to bed. Dahm you Monse, you made me stay up so late again <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Good night...or day.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Killing yourself is your business. Murdering others is not. Hence I'm not concerned with people killing themselves by smoking<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>You asked for me to quote figures on second injury from smoking in NON-smokers. I did so, then you ignored my post above. THE WHOLE REPORT IS ABOUT SECOND SMOKE IN KIDS. STOP THINKING IT'S ADULT SMOKERS. </b> Not trying to yell, but talking in a normal inside voice has been ignored several times now.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also you rarely murder someone with cigarettes on purpose<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cigarettes link to cancer was discovered in the 1940's. It's link to secondhand in the 80's. There is NO WAY not to know by now that when you smoke around children and non-smokers, you are endangering their health. Period. You are committing negligent homicide.
All of my figures were for children. <b>CHILDREN</b>. They cannot "complain" to someone, their attackers are their parents. Your lack of attention to the previous post shows in your replies, and I'm now completely infuriated, after having read and considered yours very carefully, and provided requested statistics. Then you narrowed in on the tiny SIDS thing and ignored all the other data because it contradicts your opinion. You are basically saying 'I don't much care about smoking, but I care about guns, so guns are more dangerous." I am saying that if you don't care about both, you can't complain about one or the other without being a contradictory hypocrite. I am also saying that banning things is generally a stupid idea, and that controlling the use is probably much better.
And stop asking me for stats if you're just going to ignore them. Man, this really **** me off. That's so intensely rude.
<img src='http://www.detnews.com/specialreports/2003/guns/images/glock.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
Monday, December 15, 2003
Top police gun prone to accidental firing
But Glock gags those who have settled suits
By Melvin Claxton / The Detroit News
When police Officer Randall Smith was accidentally shot in the head by a fellow officer with a Glock semiautomatic pistol in 1995, he sued the gun maker, claiming the weapon was defectively designed and unnecessarily dangerous.
Glock settled the lawsuit. But for the rest of his life, Smith, whose injuries left him permanently brain damaged and cost him his police job in Birmingham, Ala., is barred from talking about the case or revealing any details he learned about Glock before the settlement. His lawyer also is barred from talking, restricted by a confidentiality agreement that is a standard policy for Glock when settling lawsuits.
Glock’s and other gun manufacturers’ insistence on confidentiality agreements is common in product liability settlements. The agreements have kept critical information about the safety record of the gun from the public and are a prime example of how the gun industry actively conceals information about injuries and fatalities connected with its products. The industry has done so with the help of Congress and the powerful National Rifle Association lobby.
Like other gun makers, Glock is not required to report complaints and injuries to any federal or state agency. And Glock cannot be compelled to inform gun buyers of problems others have had with its weapons.
The News documented more than 50 lawsuits against Glock in the past eight years. In those with confirmed settlements, Glock insisted on confidentiality agreements.
Despite the agreements, Glock pistols, the weapon of choice for more than half the nation’s police departments, have earned a reputation among some gun experts as a firearm with too few safety features and that is too quick to fire. Its reputation is directly linked to its design, which ignores important safety features.
The no-frills, lightweight polymer-frame semiautomatic pistol forces the user to handle the gun with extreme caution. The Glock will fire if the trigger is moved less than a half an inch, compared to twice that distance for most other police guns.
And some Glocks will shoot with as little as 3 1/2 pounds of pressure on the trigger — light enough for a 5-year-old to fire the gun. Glock started offering optional trigger pulls of up to 12 pounds in the mid-1990s after the New York City Police Department — plagued by a string of police shootings — demanded a heavier trigger.
The gun has no manual safety to prevent it from firing if the trigger is accidentally pulled. In fact, the gun’s safety features — extremely effective in preventing discharges if the gun is dropped or hit — automatically are turned off every time the trigger is depressed.
In addition, most Glocks have no indicator that shows the guns are loaded and no magazine safety to prevent them from firing when the ammunition clip is removed. And unlike many other guns, the Glock is always semicocked and ready to shoot. This inner tension in its firing mechanism increases the likelihood of discharge if the trigger is accidentally moved, some gun experts say.
"What you have is a gun that is almost too eager to fire," said Carter Lord, a national firearms and ballistics consultant. "I think it may be an appropriate weapon for highly trained paramilitary officers in a SWAT team, but not for most police officers and certainly not for civilians."
Gun’s sensitive trigger endangers police officers
With so few Glock victims able to talk freely, details of injuries must often be obtained from police reports, eyewitness statements and court documents that haven’t been sealed. These sources paint a picture of a gun that has severely injured police officers.
In many instances, the injuries are devastating and permanent.
Take the case of Jimmy Pope. The former Jackson, Miss., police officer was shot in the face when a Glock being cleaned in another room by his roommate and fellow officer, Von Ware, accidentally discharged. The bullet went through Pope’s bedroom wall and the headboard of his bed before hitting him.
Pope lost an eye in the 1993 shooting and suffered extensive facial injuries.
Detroit police have had their share of Glock injuries, although police officials insist there have been very few instances of unintentional discharges with the gun.
Within two years of switching to the Glocks in 1992, two officers shot themselves in their legs and another was shot in the buttocks. And in July, Detroit Officer Michael Allen, 22, was shot in the leg, the bullet hitting the bone. His Glock accidentally fired as he tried to put it under the seat after his car was pulled over by customs inspectors on the Canadian side of the Ambassador Bridge.
Police shooting themselves in their legs with Glocks is so prevalent, said firearms consultant and former Guns and Ammo editor Whit Collins, that gun experts describe the phenomenon as "Glock leg."
The list of Glock victims includes veteran police and experienced gun handlers — people like former U.S. Border Patrol agent Michael Roth, 66, a small-town sheriff and marksman with extensive gun training.
In March 1996, Roth was tightening his belt in a mall restroom in Buffalo, N.Y., when the Glock tucked in his waistband accidentally discharged, striking him in the leg.
Investigators believed the gun’s trigger caught in his clothing, causing the gun to fire. Roth sued Glock, blaming the gun’s light, short trigger pull and lack of a manual safety for the shooting.
Glock settled the case, but again killed any publicity by demanding Roth and his attorney sign a strict confidentiality agreement barring them from talking about the shooting.
For some police officers like Terry Turner of Beaumont, Texas, such shootings prove career-ending. Turner had his leg amputated last year after he was shot in the thigh when his Glock accidentally discharged as he placed it in his holster.
Accidental firings hurt suspects, bystanders
It isn’t just police officers who are getting hurt in accidental Glock shootings. Suspects, innocent bystanders and even spouses sometimes are caught in the line of fire.
That was the case in August when Woonsocket, R.I., police Lt. Walter Warot accidentally shot himself in the buttocks and slightly wounded the person sitting next to him.
Warot, who was sitting on a granite bench outside Providence Superior Court at the time, was adjusting a Glock tucked in his waistband when it discharged. An employee of the attorney general’s office sitting next to him was nicked by flying fragments of granite from the shot’s impact.
Other victims of Glock shootings have not been so lucky. Elroy Gonzalez was shot in the head and seriously injured in 1996 while being arrested by a Kentucky police officer for allegedly possessing a small amount of marijuana. The officer said he didn’t intend to fire his gun.
Ronnie Earl Kimbrell was shot in the back by a South Carolina state trooper in 1995 while being arrested for an alleged traffic violation. The trooper said he was trying to handcuff Kimbrell when he accidentally fired his gun.
James Lancaster was killed Aug. 8, 1996, after a sheriff’s deputy unintentionally shot him. At the time he was shot, Lancaster was being forced to the ground after a 20-mile car chase. The officer said he didn’t intend to fire the weapon.
Company holds gun users responsible for safety
One of the biggest safety criticisms leveled against Glock is the company’s refusal to put a manual safety on its guns. Glock developed a safety for its guns years ago, but never made it available to the public.
Glock built the safety for guns manufactured for the Finnish military, the gun maker’s general counsel and vice president Paul F. Jannuzzo revealed in a deposition. He said the company made 50 such pistols.
Like so many things about Glock, information about the manual safety remains shielded from the public. And despite the benefits many see in the feature, no agency has the power to compel the manufacturer to add it to its guns.
In 2002, Glock introduced an optional safety feature — a built-in safety lock — for some of its guns.
In announcing the locks, Glock acknowledged that gun manufacturers can design firearms with features that make them safer to keep in homes with children.
"The beauty of the Glock locking system is it is simple and safe," an article in last year’s Glocks Autopistols magazine stated. "It is the perfect system for someone without a strong background in firearms training and is dealing with the conflict of having young children in the home while feeling a great need for a tool that would enable them to maintain control when physically threatened with criminal intrusion."
But the gun maker’s Web site states the company’s philosophy that firearms safety is ultimately the responsibility of gun owners.
"Firearm safety is up to you, the end-user," Gaston Glock states in a message to customers on his company’s Web site. "The safe handling of firearms, like morality, cannot be legislated into existence. Only firearms users can make the safe use and storage of firearms a reality."
Weapon easily converted into full automatic mode
One of the Glock’s most frightening attributes is its ability to easily be converted into a full automatic weapon capable of firing at the rate of 1,000 rounds a minute.
Glock has issued no warnings and made no changes in its design that would prevent its weapons from being converted into submachine guns.
Experts say the problem can be corrected with minor changes in how Glock pistols are made.
A full automatic Glock will fire 33 bullets in seconds with one trigger pull. And the gun can be quickly converted to full automatic mode for as little as $10 with homemade parts. It is a well-documented danger known to law enforcement.
"In some regions of California, police are treating any Glock they encounter as a machine gun until proven otherwise," states an advisory on the Association of Forensic Firearm and Toolmark Examiners Web site that lists dangerous or defective guns.
"The conversion from standard to fully automatic is fast and simple, requiring no technical expertise. The conversion is accomplished merely by swapping one piece for the other. A ‘real pro’ can make the switch in 15 seconds."
The easy conversion is no surprise, experts say. Gaston Glock, who designed the gun that bears his name, relied heavily on the technology behind the German Heckler and Koch VP 70 submachine gun when creating his weapon, Glock’s 1990 U.S. patent shows.
<img src='http://www.detnews.com/pix/2003/12/15/a15-glock1-1203y-4.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
A Detroit Police officer wears a Glock semiautomatic pistol, the weapon of choice for more than half the nation's police departments. Critics say the gun has too few safety features and is too quick to fire, causing accidental injuries and fatalities.
Car dealers such as gun dealers have no responciblity of its users.
A man acting stupid with a firearm is no more dangerous then a drunk driver.
Abuse it and people can die.
Ok, I don't agree at all, especially considering that there are 3500 annual vehicular homicides in the US (is that not enough?) but let's say cigarettes. The only result of a cigarette is to potentially kill you (and unlike a firearm, it cannot defend you). Cigarettes kill around 450,000 Americans every year ( <a href='http://www.thetruth.com/truth.cfm' target='_blank'>http://www.thetruth.com/truth.cfm</a> ). That's 30 times more than firearms. Why are we not taking care of banning the number one killer? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey, I can multitask. I'm all for the banning of cigarettes as well. But I still dont feel you have sufficiently answered the car analogy. You were comparing banning guns to banning cars. I find deaths caused by a specifically designed killing machine and deaths from misusing transport as a way of killing two very different things. Apples and oranges really.
And I dont believe people being murdered by firearms is in anyway a misuse of the gun. The gun performed in exactly the way its manufacturers intended it to - to lauch steel at extreme speed to penetrate flesh and disrupt organs/bodily function.
But of course, since target shooting is just training to go on a shooting spree, then just driving around must be training to go run someone down. According to your logic at least.
QUICKLY! BAN CARS!
Well according to the Constitution of the United States of America, firearms are intended to protect our basic freedoms. They can also serve as a tool for defense. So guns protect us and our freedom.