Assault Weapon's Ban

Aegeri · January 2004

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Jan 9 2004, 11:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I know you're going to just say "but a gun's only purpose is to kill people and those other things are designed for pleasure and relaxation", but I will just say that many guns are designed for target shooting, hunting, or for being the cool part of a sci-fi movie. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

When guns were originally developed and began to evolve into the fun .50 calibre weapons we have today, they certainly were not intended for any of that at all. The gun was developed for, and arguably DESIGNED to be an upgrade and inevitable replacement for clunkier weapons like the crossbow. Saying that just because they have other uses, doesn't actually change the fact that they are intended to fire projectiles at an immense speed to kill something. Ironically, you list hunting in there, which naturally involves doing just what a gun is good at: Firing a high speed projectile into something to basically terminate its life prematurely.

You can't make the same argument against Alcohol however, because at one point, believe this or not, drinking alcohol was safer than drinking water. Now, if you like, we can go into the microbiology of this if you like, but drinking beer (ale) was actually a lot better for peasants than drinking water due to it being a lot 'cleaner'. The question remains as if beer was designed exactly for being something that was safer to drink.

The answer is obviously no, it was just a side perk. Beer was just developed because it was pleasant tasting and someone saw $$$ in it. Guns were developed simply put, as a more efficient way of killing other human beings so someone else could more efficiently make money. So no, just saying any of that is utterly irrelevant because it <i>doesn't change the purpose of the weapon at all</i>.

It is like implying that putting arsenic in someones food is to improve the taste, and while we're at it, lets develop a nuclear bomb as a new kind of firework (which was an excellent point bought up previously)! I don't know about nukes being used as fireworks, but I do know the first thing WAS actually done. Should we not have banned it by chance? Would YOU like to see arsenic in the list of ingredients for YOUR food?

Riddle me this: Would you buy wine that had arsenic in it or not?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>All of which are pleasure activities that do not harm people.p</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Except if you happen to blow the head off someone else while doing it. I know that at least 5 people were killed in Hunting Accidents in New Zealand for example.

Incidently, just because they do not harm people, doesn't mean they aren't still doing what they were intended to do. Again, firing projectiles at a high speed into something to kill it (hunting), or just putting holes in things to begin with.

The funny thing is, if we were talking about a bow, you'd have a valid point. Bows were probably NOT developed for killing other people, but rather were a step up in human cultural evolution. The fact they became useful for that afterwards changed this a lot. A gun however is a much later development, and was clearly developed with the aim of being better at killing other people.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If you favor banning them all, then I'll not call you a hypocrite.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

When has a gun done anything other than kill something (its intent)? When has drinking alcohol saved lives (definitely NOT its intent)?

As for other comparisons, which are plainly ridiculous: A gun can end your life in a fraction of a second. Someone can drink for 30 years and then give up and live for another 30. If I had the option of dying of cancer at 70, and having my brains splattered across the wall <i>right now</i>, well, the answer should be fairly obvious.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If you support any of them being legal and others not, you are double-thinking.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Again, one of those things was designed, BY human beings to deliberately kill OTHER human beings. This is fact and seriously changes the way these examples fit.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'll replace it with "result", and the "result" is to invalidate your argument. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

The result of feeding chickens antibiotics is to make healthier chickens that have a lower bacterial load and are fatter etc. This has numerous benefits to a lot of people, because a lot of people eat chicken. As it turns out these chickens have VRE (Vanctomycin resistant enteropathogenic <i>E. coli</i>) which is in fact a superbug (if you ever got it you'd be dead, unless your plumber got lucky and correctly diagnosed you). Should we have NOT banned feeding chicken antibiotics because we just inadvertently made a superbug that has the potential, and a GOOD potential to wipe out BILLIONS of people? By your argument we should still give antibiotics recklessly to anyone who wants them and is supposedly 'responsible' enough to use them.

After all, antibiotics are just a substance that we are able to make like alcohol or nicotine. We should just hand them out to any idiot over a certain age, we already do with alcohol and guns! Why not!? Surely we are being hypocrites by banning antibiotics (which have numerous positive 'results' when used in many ways, including the above) for large scale farm use, prophylaxis in humans and many other things. Surely it doesn't matter if I kill myself, so long as I create enough superbugs to ensure other people die too! Why shoot people when you can infect them with your diseases, much more efficient!

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And no one has had the guts to answer my question directly yet: are you in favor of banning drugs, cigarrettes, and alcohol as well as firearms? All have no result ( ) except shortened life and injury of you and those around you. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

How about I throw the question back at you, why ban over the counter antibiotics? I haven't a problem at all about banning something if it seems like a problem. If people want to give themselves cancer they can go to it, but when they risk the lives of millions of people? We're already seeing what antibiotic resistant TB (A [i<i>developed</i> nation born disease) is now doing to Africans for example. Sure you aren't directly killing anyone by abusing antibiotics, just like Alcohol I guess.

Yet where are your cries of protest about the FDA from banning you from freely buying Streptomycin?

Or is it just because you aren't opposed to banning things you never particularly needed? According to your logic, we cannot fairly ban antibiotics without banning everything else either.

Dread · January 2004

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Jan 9 2004, 12:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <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.</b>  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Really? It doesn't say that anywhere. Could it be that you have actually mistaken, as it says in the site: "Estimated annual deaths and illnesses among nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke." It's a site directed to young people, but the stats seem to be(what I gathered after all the searching) about ALL secondhand smokers, unless it especially mention kids like "Respiratory Effects in Children"

I touched the SIDS because first, the number was way off and second, it was the only death cause that only affected children. Lung cancer and Heart attack and stroke were about all ages. If I'm wrong about this one, I apologize. If I'm not, I'm expecting one from you <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

PS. Damn, I'm away one day and it's 3 more pages :/

Dread · January 2004

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Jan 9 2004, 12:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Why does big government need a gun? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'>

Show you these satistics?

<a href='http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display/5156/index.php' target='_blank'>Indymedia since you won't take NRA's word for it.</a>  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Wth? This page doesn't talk about Finlands violent crime rates <b>at all</b>. If you check the sites I earlier quoted, they pretty well show that there's a lot more homicides in USA compared to population than in Finland. You think there's 10 times less homicides in Finland and yet there's more violent crimes than in USA?

Epidemic · January 2004

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Jan 9 2004, 06:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I agree - "purpose" was a poor choice of words. I'll replace it with "result", and the "result" is to invalidate your argument. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You see you cant really compare guns with other life-shortening things that is infact the individual's choice. Guns can do way more, you dont just walk in a shop and threat the shopkeeper to fork over the money or he is getting "smoked" (pun )
Guns are power, self-intoxication not. There is actually alot of life-shortening activities that will affect your family if you die, guns differ from that as it's not usually the owner who stands infront of it. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
We have spoken at long length about the statistics of non-smoking children killed by tobbaco, of people killed by drunk drivers, and of plenty of other innocent people killed by products which are designed for pleasure - you need to read everything here before posting next time, that's a FAQ rule. You are indulging in double-think and not really considering other people's points. You can of course compare them - alcohol, drugs, and cigarettes kill 50 times the number of people in this country every year than firearms (see previous posts for all the stats from American Medical Association, Dept. of Justice, WHO, etc.), but because you <i>like</i> them you do not want to ban them. I think that you need to reflect on this a bit more and see if you're not being completely contradictory. Either you ban them all, or you allow them all - anything else is hypocrisy.

And no one has had the guts to answer my question directly yet: are you in favor of banning drugs, cigarrettes, and alcohol as well as firearms? All have no result ( <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'> ) except shortened life and injury of you and those around you.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
You're right, we should ban them all. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/pudgy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='pudgy.gif'> I'll agree so far <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>
But legalizing assault weapons just means more will get killed, just because you collect them. Isn't that abit selfish?

Also saying I dont consider other sides is downright offensive, as I'm <b>very good</b> to imagine what the others have in mind when they post something.
Indeed I've only scanned this topic, I'll try to rectify in the future <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

GreyPaws · January 2004

I see alot of stuff flying around about second hand smoke so I thought I'd drop a few links

<a href='http://www.consumeralert.org/fumento/smoke.htm' target='_blank'>clicky</a>

<a href='http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm' target='_blank'>clicky2</a>

<a href='http://www.jeremiahproject.com/smoke/ets.html' target='_blank'>Clicky3</a>

I dont mean to drag this way off topic but the stats used to link second hand smoke to a higher health risk were manipulated.

MonsieurEvil · January 2004

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Jan 9 2004, 03:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Really? It doesn't say that anywhere. Could it be that you have actually mistaken, as it says in the site: "Estimated annual deaths and illnesses among nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke." It's a site directed to young people, but the stats seem to be(what I gathered after all the searching) about ALL secondhand smokers, unless it especially mention kids like "Respiratory Effects in Children"

I touched the SIDS because first, the number was way off and second, it was the only death cause that only affected children. Lung cancer and Heart attack and stroke were about all ages. If I'm wrong about this one, I apologize. If I'm not, I'm expecting one from you <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

PS. Damn, I'm away one day and it's 3 more pages :/  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Since it specifically mentions children throughout multiple times (including the title banner of the page - look up at the top of your browser: "Effects of Secondhand Smoke on Children") and also is targeted as a site about children's health, why don't you give me the benefit of the doubt. No apologies necessary though, I was out of line yelling.

Aegeri, I'll get back to your posts in a bit when I finish digesting it all. I guess the rule never use a paragraph when a sentence will do was not part of your teachings. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

And Grey, I know we're not supposed to question sources, but mine was the American Heart Association and yours seem to be... "I like smoking" conspiracy sites. But I could be wrong, and I mean no disrespect.

Code9 · January 2004

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But legalizing assault weapons just means more will get killed, just because you collect them. Isn't that abit selfish?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

What defines an assault weapon? Is it magazine capacity? If I shove a 5 round magazine into an AK clone, does it then become a friendship rifle? Autoloading hunting rifle? Is it barrel length? Can I take that AK and put a 28 inch barrel on it? Or would that turn it into an evil sniper rifle? Or is 16 inches long enough? Or is it the fact that it's semi auto? So if I shut off the gas system and turn it into a straight pull bolt action, which is very nearly as fast, it's OK? Is it the pistol grip? So if I connect the bottom of that grip to the buttstock with a tiny bar of material, that makes it OK too? Is it the ability to accept a detachable magazine? So, we get a fixed magazine and stripper clips, which argueably reload faster? Bayonet mount? OK. So I carry the bayonet on my belt instead?

Bolt actions? Well, those are evil sniper rifles! Can't you see that scope?!

Shotguns? Which will throw 18 pieces of lead faster, an FN FAL (A real one, not semi automatic), or a double barreled shotgun? Hint: Its got more than one barrel. Load a slug in it, and you have a 10-20mm rifle.

Is it caliber/assumed lethality? Military ammo is 99.999999999% of the time FMJ that means, it rarely expands a great deal (And no, FMJ is NOT armor piercing. It just means the core of the bullet has a copper metal coating to keep the lead from melting on the rifling from friction.). Modern rifle ammo (in this case, meaning 5.45x39mm for the AK74, 5.56x45mm for most of nato, and then ...5.8x42mm I believe for the new chinese rifle?) is, in my opinion, a bit on the anemic side. It does not expand a great deal like hunting ammunition does. Also in terms of sheer kinetic energy, your average deer hunters 30-06 has about twice as much as your typical "assault weapon" at the muzzle. about 5 times more at 500 yards (Of course, that means jack for the most part.). Recoil is not much greater with said 30-06 (for me) either.

What about limiting people to muzzleloaders? The same muzzleloaders that were used by a confederate rifleman to kill a union general at 1 mile (1.6km) in the civil war? THOSE muzzle loaders?

Maybe those laws will keep a determined criminal (Criminal:crim·i·nal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krm-nl)
adj.
Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse.
Relating to the administration of penal law.

Guilty of crime.
Characteristic of a criminal.
Shameful; disgraceful: a criminal waste of talent.) from taking 75 dollars, getting a few files and some supplies, and building his own SMG in his garage? maybe one of those evil assault weapons?

An "assault weapon" is a buzzterm for scaring the uneducated masses. Typically applied to anything that looks scary or MIGHT have been/is/will be something used by the military. And of course, we all know by virtue of that simple fact alone, means it can cuase gravitational disturbances, pulling the moon out of its orbit and crash into daycare centers at random, also they can flip armored vehicles! <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

The AWB bans by appearance. And i'm convinced the writer had about as much real world experience with firearms as I do flying the space shuttle. The same holds true for most of its supporters. If you want to stop "gun crime", then you have to get rid of every single firearm on the planet, military and police included, get rid of all the information as to how they work, formulas for gunpowder, everything, then hope someone isn't bright enough to rediscover it, and that everyone else doesn't go back to clubbing and cutting each other up when they commit a crime in the meantime. Otherwise you're simply taking them out of the hands of people who have commited no crime. Some may be alright with that, I for one am not.

</end edumacation post>

MonsieurEvil · January 2004

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>When guns were originally developed... etc. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Immaterial to the discussion. Why things were invented have no bearing on what we're talking about.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>When has a gun done anything other than kill something (its intent)? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Here is your disconnect - you seem to think that no matter what, killing someone else using a gun is wrong. If I give you a gun, and then I walk over and start stabbing your mother in the chest with a knife, will the gun be used to save someone's life? Will you use the gun to protect your mother who only has a couple seconds to live? Or will you say that you do not believe in guns?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>How about I throw the question back at you</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
How about you show me the courtesy of answering my question first, as I have replied to yours and everyone else's. Your entire reply has been a long dodging of my original question. I was polite enough to reply to everyone in turn, how about you do the same, then make your points about banning chicken penicilin and such.

You're all over the place here. Try narrowing down your discussion for us old men to be able to easily understand it, as I'd like to keep this going. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

Marine0I · January 2004

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Jan 10 2004, 01:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <i>Side Question</i>: by show of hands, who here is in favor of banning firearms, cigarettes, alcohol, and narcotics? All are killers, all serve only the purpose of causing death and injury. I'm curious to see those that want to ban some and not others - you are the ones that need to re-evaluate your thoughts and decide if you are not being contradictory or hypocritical. Which of course is the point of this discussion forum - not to change other people's minds, but to open your own to alternate thoughts and make you THINK, something your teachers and friends have been discouraging in you most of your life. I personally (no devil's advocate this time, unlike other topics) believe that all of these should be legalized, and heavily controlled and legislated to ensure that the innocent are not victims. History has proven (in the US) that trying to make all of these things illegal has been a complete and utter failure. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>All are killers, all serve only the purpose of causing death and injury</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Negative. All have other primary purposes, all were created strictly with some other "benefit" in mind, even if that benefit is addiction/escape from reality.

Ignoring the target shooting and hunting (all of which will and can still go on without guns), guns are just killing machines. When people die from killing machines, its not unlucky. Its not an accident. Its not a horrible by product, its a gun doing what a gun does.

To make a real comparision between cigarettes, alcohol and narcotics and guns:

I offer my friend a cigarette/alcohol/narcotics. He asks me what it is.

And I reply "Its stuff that kills people".

He replies "Fine, but what else does it do?"

"No really, thats all it does, it kills you and other people"

"Comorn then, why should I use it? Does it taste good? Will it give me a buzz, will it relax me in the morning?"

"No man ffs your not listening, all this stuff does is kill you and other people, there are no other benefits, it tastes completely neutral, it has no added side-effect, so try some"

And I have a suspicion he wouldnt. That is a what I feel to be a fair comparision between guns and your other examples. Obviously in the little dialog above, I equalized guns and narcotic/cigarettes/alcohol - giving the last three examples the exact same characteristics as guns. I am not being contradictory or hypocritical in my wish to see people killing machines banned, even if I didnt want cigarettes to be banned.

I'm not fighting a battle against everything that causes death in society, I'm fighting against things that are created specifically to cause death, perform their function perfectly as designed and vastly more effectively than anything else, and are then distributed to the general population.

EDIT

Sorry missed the show of hands. I wish guns to be banned, cant have people killers in the streets. I want alcohol to be more heavily regulated, with extreme crackdowns on anyone who drives intoxicated. I want cigarettes banned, or at least hounded out of existance by having their use banned practically everywhere - call it the Government saving its own people from their own stupidity. I want narcotics banned and the death penalty for dealers. The current war on drugs fails because drug dealing is simply too attractive.

MonsieurEvil · January 2004

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jan 9 2004, 06:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Negative. All have other primary purposes, all were created strictly with some other "benefit" in mind, even if that benefit is addiction/escape from reality.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Goddamnit, does anyone read all these posts all the way through anymore or bother the look at the whole topic. Not 2 hours ago I corrected myself and said that I was using a bad word, and substituted 'result' for 'purpose'. I have half a mind to nuke your whole post to prove my point that if you folks are not going to follow the forum FAQ about showing respect for other posters and reading everything they had to say, including previous retractions, corrections, and the rest, I will start making access to this forum much much less lenient. This is my final word on this.

Fieari · January 2004

I've just been reading through this thread, enjoying it, and at the same time (for lack of other things to do today) been reading the <a href='http://www.drillers.com/download/GunFacts3.3Screen.pdf' target='_blank'>Gun Facts 3.3</a> document. I thought it had some relevant sections that should be brought up.

To the argument that the purpose of a gun is solely to harm other things, I add that they have an additional purpose: to provide the POTENTIAL to harm other things.

Terry Pratchett, a (fantasy) humor author and a provider of profound social commentary, wrote (paraphrased, I don't have the actual book in front me now) that "A sword is for having. It's there to be seen so it doesn't have to be used."

On page 38 of the 3.3 document linked to above, we have the following:

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><b>Myth: Guns are not a good deterrent to crime</b>

<b>Fact:</b> Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6849 every day. Often, the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal's) is shed. Source: "Targeting Guns", Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, 1997

<b>Fact:</b> It seems to be slowing down property crime (esspecially burglaries). The chart *shown in PDF, see link* shows the handgun supply in America (mainly in civilian hands) to the property crime rate. *Char shows a direct negative correlation over time* Source: National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, BATF estimates on handgun supply

<b>Fact:</b> Every day, 550 rapes, 1100 murders, and 5200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less that 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually fired. Source: Ibid

<b>Fact:</b> 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes they <u>knew</u> the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they <u>thought</u> the victim might be armed. Source: James Wright and Peter Rossi, "Armed and Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms", New York: Aldine, 1986

<b>Fact:</b> Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot. Source: Ibid

<b>Fact:</b> 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are "hot burglaries". By contrast, the U.S., with laxer restrictions, has a "hot burglary" rate of only 13%. A "hot burglary" is when a criminal enters a home while the residents are there. Source: Dr. Gary Kleck, Florida State Universtiy (1997) and Kopel (1992 and 1999).

<b>Fact:</b> Washington D.C., has banned gun ownership and has a per capita murder rate of 56.9. Across the river in Arlington, Virginia, gun ownership is not regulated, and the murder rate is a mere 1.6 per capita. Source: FBI, "Crime in the United States", 1998

<b>Fact:</b> 26% of all retail buisnesses report keeping a gun on the premises for crime control. Source: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Federal Firearms Offenders study, 1997. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcertated Felons," Research Report, July 1985

<b>Fact:</b> In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year. Source: Dr. Gary Kleck, "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force", Social Problems, February 1988

<b>Fact:</b> A survey of felons revealed the following:
<ul><li>74% of felons agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."
<li>57% of felons polled agreed, "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim then they are about running into the police."</ul>
Source: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistice Federal Firearms Offenders study, 1997. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research Report, July 1985</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

In responce to Epidemic-- earlier in the thread, it's been reported several times that the number of crimes committed with assault weapons approaches zero. In the 3.3 document, there's an easy table of contents that you can use to look at the ".50 Calibur Rifles" section. It'll only take you a few seconds to read, but it supports this claim. Banning something not historically (nearly ever, possibly never) used for criminal intent seems a little specious to me, wouldn't you agree? If it's not used for criminal purposes, wouldn't that imply that the usage of such weapons is solely for legitimate purposes? And isn't banning something solely used for legitimate purposes an unnessesary loss of freedom?

As for a comment on the 2nd hand smoke thing, I've read many reports on both sides of the issue, and have personally come to conclude that 2nd hand smoke may or may not be deadly. Kind of like being agnostic, except in regards to 2nd hand smoke and not about God. It's a confusing issue, with reports directly conflicting with each other nearly point for point. The ramifications of this is that discussing anything involving 2nd hand smoke should probably be split off into its own thread... please consider NOT talking about it here?

<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>Edit for tag fixes</span>

Marine0I · January 2004

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Jan 10 2004, 08:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jan 9 2004, 06:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Negative. All have other primary purposes, all were created strictly with some other "benefit" in mind, even if that benefit is addiction/escape from reality. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Goddamnit, does anyone read all these posts all the way through anymore or bother the look at the whole topic. Not 2 hours ago I corrected myself and said that I was using a bad word, and substituted 'result' for 'purpose'. I have half a mind to nuke your whole post to prove my point that if you folks are not going to follow the forum FAQ about showing respect for other posters and reading everything they had to say, including previous retractions, corrections, and the rest, I will start making access to this forum much much less lenient. This is my final word on this. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I almost feel like I should apologise for reading your statement exactly as it was...

I did read you correcting yourself in a previous post, but I had absolutely no reason to take that and extrapolate it to all your posts. If a man corrects himself once, I take it that he will be able to correct himself again/avoid the same error the next time. Things will get very complicated here very quick if people start making exclusions/requests such as "In all corresponding posts, when I say banana, I actually mean apple, and you are all expected to substitute it as such".

I respect your posting, and if anything perhaps brush all to quickly over others in order to read yours first. I do read what you type, I did read your correction. I just assumed you would attempt to prevent yourself from making the same mistake again.

EDIT I see I have my post chronology mixed up. You are right, you did correct yourself in a post further down, and its not unreasonable to expect me to apply that to a post further up. My apologies. In that case, please do similarily for me and substitute purpose for result in my post.

UZi · January 2004

See...Fieari reads books with legitament sources of government agencys. But even legit sources like government files are often bloated to increase funding.

UZi · January 2004

Whats wrong with Biathalon (which I competed in) and Hunting. Those are legit reasons to own a gun?

Alot of us just shoot for fun. So like fencing swords should be banned as well!

Dread · January 2004

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Jan 10 2004, 12:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Jan 9 2004, 03:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Really? It doesn't say that anywhere. Could it be that you have actually mistaken, as it says in the site: "Estimated annual deaths and illnesses among nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke." It's a site directed to young people, but the stats seem to be(what I gathered after all the searching) about ALL secondhand smokers, unless it especially mention kids like "Respiratory Effects in Children"

I touched the SIDS because first, the number was way off and second, it was the only death cause that only affected children. Lung cancer and Heart attack and stroke were about all ages. If I'm wrong about this one, I apologize. If I'm not, I'm expecting one from you <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

PS. Damn, I'm away one day and it's 3 more pages :/ </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Since it specifically mentions children throughout multiple times (including the title banner of the page - look up at the top of your browser: "Effects of Secondhand Smoke on Children") and also is targeted as a site about children's health, why don't you give me the benefit of the doubt.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
<a href='http://www.lungusa.org/diseases/lungcanc.html' target='_blank'>This is when</a> I got suspicious. LungUSA.org says
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Many of the chemicals in tobacco smoke also affect the nonsmoker inhaling the smoke, making "secondhand smoking" another important cause of lung cancer. <b>It is responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and as many as 50,000 deaths from heart disease annually.</b></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Excactly the same numbers as your source has, however here it states that there's 3000 second hand smoker lung cancer deaths every year. Nothing about all of those 3000 being children. Same with the heart disease. My guess is that your site is trying to scare the kids not to smoke(rightfully so), and quotes the biggest numbers related to second hand smoking deaths it can find, no matter if they've been caused to kids or adults, which should lower the helpless children being murdered with second hand smoking -> which leads to my arguments earning a bit more credit than you gave them <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'> I don't want to sound like a broken record but I just wanted to make sure you don't keep me as a total arse for not reading your post/ignoring it.

Otherwise, all is well. I'm kind of getting bored with the topic as we're going from guns to cars to smoking and it seems like it'll never end <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'> It feels too much like studying when I have to go through all these facts and rates about all these different subjects, not to mention there's so much misunderstandings and confusion <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

UZi · January 2004

Lets get off the topic of 2nd hand smoke will we and get back to Firearms?

taboofires · January 2004

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Jan 9 2004, 11:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I know you're going to just say "but a gun's only purpose is to kill people and those other things are designed for pleasure and relaxation"</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
You said the word! the gun's only purpose is to kill, and while I'm sure murderers find it relaxing and enjoyable to kill as well, there are certain level of risk there can be allowed. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
The purpose of a gun is not to kill. It exists for the purposes of defense and assault, like any weapon does. Killing is an unfortunate side effect, taking place when one side is better armed than another and/or the peace process fails. Two opposing sides, being equally armed, should not desire the massive losses on both sides that armed conflict would bring. Thus, conflict is avoided. Domestic squabbles are just on a smaller scale: criminal versus civilian interests compete. If there was an equally high risk of death/incarceration and success upon mugging someone, how often do you think it would take place? Throw in some forensics, and the odds are stacked even higher against the criminals, making crime not pay.

It's the same with the atom bomb - to actually use it is very unpleasant for the whole world, but the threat of its existance is an effective deterrent. Sure, in an ideal world that deterrent wouldn't even be needed, but the world is sadly far from it. A somewhat uneasy peace is still peace.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that more effective weapons result in greater body counts when peaceful processes fail. The solutions are therefore 1) universal disarmanmant, which includes civilians, governments, and lawless individuals or 2) ensuring that forces remain in balance. Banning any weapon to any group of people will result in an imbalance, and conflict is more likely to ensue.

Monse, as far as I'm concerned, all <i>things</i> should be legal, but certain actions (attacking someone with a weapon, driving intoxicated, etc.) should be kept illegal. Throw in just enough regulation to keep things out of the hands of those who don't know any better, and things will work out. edit: excepting WMDs, naturally, and anything else that it is not possible to apply in a constructive or at least benign way.

Code9 · January 2004

Monse, killing *IS* always bad, regardless of wether you're the kill-ee or the kill-er. It's just (very sadly) necessary to keep you and yours breathing at times.

Marine, So, you don't seem to mind people hunting, and target shooting which you described as "training to kill someone", as long as its not with a gun? Maybe i'm missing the logic. Also no one responded to one of my previous posts, in which I said the discus, shot put, hammer, javelin, etc. all had military origins. Are you also against these track & field events? The olympics as well? Shall we ban all things spherical and heavy, long dowels of wood or iron (they could get sharpened you know!), and anything around the size and shape of a small plate? Fencing as well?

Epidemic · January 2004

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Jan 10 2004, 12:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Jan 9 2004, 11:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I know you're going to just say "but a gun's only purpose is to kill people and those other things are designed for pleasure and relaxation"</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
You said the word! the gun's only purpose is to kill, and while I'm sure murderers find it relaxing and enjoyable to kill as well, there are certain level of risk there can be allowed. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
The purpose of a gun is not to kill. It exists for the purposes of defense and assault, like any weapon does. Killing is an unfortunate side effect, taking place when one side is better armed than another and/or the peace process fails. Two opposing sides, being equally armed, should not desire the massive losses on both sides that armed conflict would bring. Thus, conflict is avoided. Domestic squabbles are just on a smaller scale: criminal versus civilian interests compete. If there was an equally high risk of death/incarceration and success upon mugging someone, how often do you think it would take place? Throw in some forensics, and the odds are stacked even higher against the criminals, making crime not pay.

It's the same with the atom bomb - to actually use it is very unpleasant for the whole world, but the threat of its existance is an effective deterrent. Sure, in an ideal world that deterrent wouldn't even be needed, but the world is sadly far from it. A somewhat uneasy peace is still peace.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that more effective weapons result in greater body counts when peaceful processes fail. The solutions are therefore 1) universal disarmanmant, which includes civilians, governments, and lawless individuals or 2) ensuring that forces remain in balance. Banning any weapon to any group of people will result in an imbalance, and conflict is more likely to ensue.

Monse, as far as I'm concerned, all <i>things</i> should be legal, but certain actions (attacking someone with a weapon, driving intoxicated, etc.) should be kept illegal. Throw in just enough regulation to keep things out of the hands of those who don't know any better, and things will work out. edit: excepting WMDs, naturally, and anything else that it is not possible to apply in a constructive or at least benign way. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I'll argue that the best defense isn't to not have a gun but to live in a country where guns are banned.
Fear is not a permanent solution to a problem(Example is jail and death penalty, people do crimes anyhow and doesnt really solve anything), and only a good one if you want to live in a country where the next guy could have an assault weapon stashed away in it's coat and ready to massacre.
About the atom bomb, it got me thinking, is 500,000 americans life worth more than 2 million japanese?

EDIT, Fiera, I see nothing about the use of .50s by criminals in the 50s column. Also one funny thing is how they claim .50s cant shoot trough 2 meter reinforced concrete and then state it as a fact they can (with 300 rounds though) <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

MonsieurEvil · January 2004

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Jan 9 2004, 07:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Otherwise, all is well. I'm kind of getting bored with the topic as we're going from guns to cars to smoking and it seems like it'll never end <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'> It feels too much like studying when I have to go through all these facts and rates about all these different subjects, not to mention there's so much misunderstandings and confusion <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
I agree. In fact, I don't think i'm going to post here for a while at all. Too many people have failed to read and understand what I said <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=58692&st=15' target='_blank'>here</a>, and certainly not what Nem and I have said <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=43638' target='_blank'>here</a>. The point of this forum isn't to change your mind, it's to make you <i>think</i> about whether your preconceived ideas may have other sides. This topic highlights the failure of this idea in practice.

And this one is done. Everyone has said everything, people are too busy writing to bother reading, and it's frankly another banner day for thinking inside the box.

Assault Weapon's Ban

Comments