Right to bear...AK-47s?

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 9/15/2004, 10:48 am

I'm pretty sure I've said this before but I'll state it again. Gun violence is not a ratio of population ALONE. It is a ratio of population DENSITY. That means the more crowded people are, the more gun violence you have. There have been studies that have matched Canadian cities with US cities of similar size and density and the number of gun violence crimes are nearly identical. Canada is a lot more spread out the the States, that is why your crime level is lower... not because of gun bans.

Also, I'm going to provide an argument as to why citizens want the right to own assault weapons. Not because I agree with it but because I hate the GANG mentality where everyone here seems to agree so that means anyone who doensn't is either a) a moron or b) Satin himself.

Provided a group of militants get together who have already acquired assault weapons, they could easily cease a town, mowing down people who would be utterly defenseless against them. These weapons were smuggled in despite the "ban". The town's people's puny handguns would be no match. If they were to legally own the same type of weapons that could destroy them, maybe they would be able to put up a fight. These weapons however would be legally acquired with the Government's full knowledge of who has them and where they are located. Easier to keep track of. Probable? No. Possible? Why not? Again, not a big assault weapon buff, but there you have it.

I have a hunch that a lot of you gun ban supporters also support legalized drugs with the argument that if they were legalized, things would be more controlled. Same concept.

Oh, one last thing.... some of you need to lay off the Michael Moore references. Seriously... Gun rallies? A bank that just gives you a gun with an account? (that was staged by the way) And this concept that the NRA is some evil killing mob. Correction, the NRA seeks to educate and ensure that guns are used correctly and safely. Again, just sticking up for the little guy,

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 9/15/2004, 11:23 am

I agree with everything you said.

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 9/15/2004, 5:52 pm

Korzic wrote:I have a couple of issues to raise.

First of all, why is there the need to go out and shoot a hundred rounds at a hay bale? Surely there are other less... destructive, more contructive things to do.

2ndly. I live in a country where guns are not part of the culture so I may be missing something here. But surely you don't need an AR 15 to protect your family. IMHO the "right to protect myself with gun" argument i sone of the key pillars to gun owndership. But surely, if there weren't as many guns out there, you wouldn't need one to defend your family with.

3rdly. The fact you are allowed to own these guns makes them more accessible. and the more accessible they are, the easier it is for the ones who use them with "alternative" intents to lay their hands on one. And that makes it a bad thing. There are those who dont share the same morals as some of us and will willingly sell their firearms to less than reputable characters while maintaining a squeaky clean record.

For once, I actually Agree with you. Completely.

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » 9/15/2004, 7:45 pm

xjsb125 wrote:
Rusty wrote:I never saw the fascination of collecting things designed to kill things.

Me either.

Saying that owning guns is a typically southern thing is wrong. There are a lot of owners in the mid-western United States, and north in Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas, etc.

What the hell do you need all those guns for? I bet they all cost a pretty penny with the accessories and stuff too, good grief.

Corey wrote:I'm pretty sure I've said this before but I'll state it again. Gun violence is not a ratio of population ALONE. It is a ratio of population DENSITY. That means the more crowded people are, the more gun violence you have. There have been studies that have matched Canadian cities with US cities of similar size and density and the number of gun violence crimes are nearly identical. Canada is a lot more spread out the the States, that is why your crime level is lower... not because of gun bans.

Also, I'm going to provide an argument as to why citizens want the right to own assault weapons. Not because I agree with it but because I hate the GANG mentality where everyone here seems to agree so that means anyone who doensn't is either a) a moron or b) Satin himself.

Provided a group of militants get together who have already acquired assault weapons, they could easily cease a town, mowing down people who would be utterly defenseless against them. These weapons were smuggled in despite the "ban". The town's people's puny handguns would be no match. If they were to legally own the same type of weapons that could destroy them, maybe they would be able to put up a fight. These weapons however would be legally acquired with the Government's full knowledge of who has them and where they are located. Easier to keep track of. Probable? No. Possible? Why not? Again, not a big assault weapon buff, but there you have it.

I have a hunch that a lot of you gun ban supporters also support legalized drugs with the argument that if they were legalized, things would be more controlled. Same concept.

Oh, one last thing.... some of you need to lay off the Michael Moore references. Seriously... Gun rallies? A bank that just gives you a gun with an account? (that was staged by the way) And this concept that the NRA is some evil killing mob. Correction, the NRA seeks to educate and ensure that guns are used correctly and safely. Again, just sticking up for the little guy,

First off I'd just like to point out that places like China have a very population dense area and they have very little gun violence hmmm. Same with other areas of the world...hmmm anthropology isn't the answer answer here, maybe if we used sociology. Maybe it has something to do with North American culture and society that causes all the violence....

Secondly in reply to your little militia scenario. A highly trained militia rushes into town with assault weapons and begins mowing people down. The police and the army? Psh who cares about them action must be taken, so lo and behold the citizens of the town bust out some automatic weapons charge into the streets and these untrained, unskilled, scared, and confused citizens defeat the militia that threatend them all. Wow I needed a myth for class, I think I just got one. In truth if that were to happen those that weren't too busy shitting themselves from fear would probably end up killing each other in the madness and confusion of it all and then the evil milita would have siezed the town, taken the spoils and yadda yadda yadda.

Thirdly, despite the bias in michael moores films, what he said is still true and factual. Perhaps the name DOCUMENTARY rings a bell? The things said must be TRUE to be put out or he could be sued, I havn't heard of him being sued have you? The bank really did give away guns thoug, he may have presented it in such a way that it looked like it took a few minutes, but that doesn't change the fact that they still gave them out! Of course the NRA is there to eduacate about guns and such, but with a motto such as "from my cold dead hands" it's pretty easy to see how some people might see it slightly differently. Secondly you're not sticking up for the little guy if you're sticking up for the NRA they're the big countrywide association thing, with millions of members. Remember thats why they couldn't not go to that town after columbine because they couldn't notify everybody in time, or did you forget that detail? You sided with the big, rich guy. The little guy would be those against guns. People against guns are the MINORITY. If we were the majority they're wouldn't be as many guns out there as there is. I'm just sticking up for the TRUE LITTE GUY thank you.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 9/15/2004, 8:26 pm

Yes but who said anything about China? Totally different culture there where as the US and Canada are nearly identical. Plus, China has many more problems than gun violence, like oh I don't know, food for example? Hardly worth the comparison.

The militia example, is just that, an example. Considering it is all hypothetical, your conclusion is no more justifiable than mine.

Again, using Michael Moore's documentary as the gospel. "my cold dead hands" is taken out of context, and I'm pretty sure it isn't the "motto" of the NRA. If I am mistaken, please enlighten me.

Finally, in the sense of the CLUMSYMONKEY (that is where I'm posting is it not?) the NRA is the LITTLE GUY because less voices are speaking out for them. So thank YOU very much. Of course, I could be like you and jump on the ban wagon and hate everything that this entire community also hates without considering the other side.

Post by **xjsb125** » 9/15/2004, 8:37 pm

Secondly in reply to your little militia scenario. A highly trained militia rushes into town with assault weapons and begins mowing people down. The police and the army? Psh who cares about them action must be taken, so lo and behold the citizens of the town bust out some automatic weapons charge into the streets and these untrained, unskilled, scared, and confused citizens defeat the militia that threatend them all. Wow I needed a myth for class, I think I just got one. In truth if that were to happen those that weren't too busy shitting themselves from fear would probably end up killing each other in the madness and confusion of it all and then the evil milita would have siezed the town, taken the spoils and yadda yadda yadda.

You've been watching too many movies.

First off I'd just like to point out that places like China have a very population dense area and they have very little gun violence hmmm.

That's because their government has all the guns and kills the shit out of the people whenever they try to voice their opinions.

Maybe it has something to do with North American culture and society that causes all the violence....

According to your earlier post, culture isn't to blame for gun violence.

Of course the NRA is there to eduacate about guns and such, but with a motto such as "from my cold dead hands" it's pretty easy to see how some people might see it slightly differently.

Yeah, I scoured their website for that quote as thier motto. If you find it on there, screencap the page and post it here. All I found was a quote from the second ammendment.

Thirdly, despite the bias in michael moores films, what he said is still true and factual.

They are cut and paste jobs that are misleading.

Bandalero · Post by **Bandalero** » 9/15/2004, 8:43 pm

the assumption is of course that these people have these guns and use them to 'go out and shoot a hundred rounds at a hay bale' thus helping them with practice in terms of how to operate a gun and maintain control and hit a target. the penalty in china for intent to sell drugs is death, so what are the odds that commiting a crime with a weapon is death?

if you can't open your eyes and read through the lines of mike moore's movies, then your no better then those that follow bush blindly. take off the blindfold, let go of the man's hand and walk by yourself. your all big kids now.

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » 9/15/2004, 8:50 pm

xjsb125 wrote:
Secondly in reply to your little militia scenario. A highly trained militia rushes into town with assault weapons and begins mowing people down. The police and the army? Psh who cares about them action must be taken, so lo and behold the citizens of the town bust out some automatic weapons charge into the streets and these untrained, unskilled, scared, and confused citizens defeat the militia that threatend them all. Wow I needed a myth for class, I think I just got one. In truth if that were to happen those that weren't too busy shitting themselves from fear would probably end up killing each other in the madness and confusion of it all and then the evil milita would have siezed the town, taken the spoils and yadda yadda yadda.

You've been watching too many movies.

Funny I find it's in the movies that the citizens are able to defeat the militia not the other way around.

First off I'd just like to point out that places like China have a very population dense area and they have very little gun violence hmmm.

That's because their government has all the guns and kills the shit out of the people whenever they try to voice their opinions.

I don't support the government killing people part, but the part where the government has all the guns and somehow there are less gun related murders....makes you think.

Maybe it has something to do with North American culture and society that causes all the violence....

According to your earlier post, culture isn't to blame for gun violence.

I look for the pychological and sociological viewpoints, but my main focus is usually on pychology with individuals but i also look at sociology and find what similar traits every gun related thing has in common that is what I meant to say.

Of course the NRA is there to eduacate about guns and such, but with a motto such as "from my cold dead hands" it's pretty easy to see how some people might see it slightly differently.

Yeah, I scoured their website for that quote as thier motto. If you find it on there, screencap the page and post it here. All I found was a quote from the second ammendment.

I'm sure everyone is very familiar with seeing the NRA president stand there holding a gun and shouting "from my cold dead hands." It was on banners and stuff. Or is that just a personal thing he likes to say? It was stated very clearly in bowling for columbine, or does that not matter because micheal moore made the film?

Thirdly, despite the bias in michael moores films, what he said is still true and factual.

They are cut and paste jobs that are misleading.

Most media is.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 9/15/2004, 8:57 pm

I don't support the government killing people part, but the part where the government has all the guns and somehow there are less gun related murders....makes you think.

Oooh, I'm so glad you took that position. You see, that is why we have the amendment in the first place. Remember the revolutionary war? Yeah big bad government had all the guns and was not very good to its people. So people got guns and overthrew the government. That is why we have the right to guns. You seriously are more comfortable with the government being the only ones allowed to have guns? China's goverment has all the guns and life in China sucks..... you're right.. it really does make you think.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 9/15/2004, 9:06 pm

Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver in defiance to Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon being given the handmade musket he's holding, at that annual meeting. A key word there is 'annual.' Although Moore successfully makes it appear that Heston has held the rally in response to the Columbine massacre - the gathering was preplanned.

Korzic · Post by **Korzic** » 9/15/2004, 10:55 pm

Corey, I'd like to know where you got your figures in stating that gun crime is a ratio of population density. I was always under the impression that gun crime was relatied to socioeconomics rather than density

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 9/15/2004, 11:11 pm

I think it has to do with socio-economics as well. I agree that density may play a role, but I think social class plays a larger role.

As for Moore, his books are much more legit than BFC was. At least in the book he sources everything.

There isn't much else I can add that hasn't been said already. In essence the only thing that can solve this problem is no guns for anyone, and that surely won't happen. Gun violence happens. Even if guns weren't around crime wouldn't cease to exist anyways.

I AM ME · Post by **I AM ME** » 9/16/2004, 1:33 am

Can someone explain why there's almost no gun violence in Britain? The sops don't even carry guns in most cases!

I AM ME · Post by **I AM ME** » 9/16/2004, 1:38 am

Can someone explain why there's almost no gun violence in Britain? The sops don't even carry guns in most cases!

stlloki · Post by **stlloki** » 9/16/2004, 9:24 am

I AM ME wrote:Can someone explain why there's almost no gun violence in Britain? The sops don't even carry guns in most cases!

Gun Violence in Britan

"Interestingly, the same thing occurred in Great Britain. Following a 1996 massacre of school children by a madman in Dunblane, Scotland, the British government banned and ordered the confiscation of most firearms. Since then a horrific crime wave has taken place in England and Scotland. In 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice declared that the rate of muggings in England had surpassed that in the U.S. by 40 percent, while assault and burglary rates were nearly 100 percent higher in England than in the U.S."

Gun crime soars by 35%

Soozy · Post by **Soozy** » 9/16/2004, 1:06 pm

OK, I need to respond to this.

First I need to say that if Sean got his point from where I think he did that the person who said it originally, in my experience, has a slightly rose tinted view of the UK! Having said that, while there is a growing gun problem in this country, it is still nowhere near the level of the problem in the US.

The first story on that link you have to the guardian talks about a boy who shot his parents. Initial reports were that he'd shot them, but it turned out they'd actually been stabbed: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/mers ... 636576.stm

The overwhelming majority of other shootings in this country are gang related or to do with problems between people involved in organised crime. I can only think of 2 instances in my whole lifetime (27 years) of crazy people getting hold of guns and going on random killing sprees. One was the Dunblane massacre which you mention, the other was the Hungerford massacre back in 1987.

To say that "a horrific crimewave" has taken place since the post-Dunblane firearms crackdown is just misleading. Where are the figures for the comparative crime rates pre and post this crackdown? It say that assault and burglary rates are 100% higher than in the US, but I don't see what this has to do with the guns issue.

Personally, I have absolutely no fear of gun violence at all. I can walk around London at night and not worry. I don't know of anyone who owns a gun, there's just no need. And I'm really glad that things are like this. I really feel uncomfortable when I go to other countries and see the police with guns. It doesn't make me feel safer at all, in fact it makes me more scared.

stlloki · Post by **stlloki** » 9/16/2004, 1:25 pm

And I hope you didn't think I was saying anything disparaging about England. That wasn't my intent. I was just merely pointing out that even though a gun law was passed, that didn't stop the criminals. And IMO, the laws should be directed more at punishing/eliminating criminals than at the tools that they can and will use no matter what law is passed.

Soozy · Post by **Soozy** » 9/16/2004, 2:19 pm

I just wanted to point out that it's not as bad as you were making out. But you're right, it doesn't stop hardened criminals who will always find ways to get their hands on them, or non-gun-related crime. As a general citizen I have no fear of gun crime, whereas I don't think that would be the case if I lived in the States. Less guns just randomly "lying around" (for want of a better term, I know they're usually locked up and stuff) means less chance for them to be used against ordinary people.

Bandalero · Post by **Bandalero** » 9/16/2004, 4:17 pm

reguardless of guns or lack there of, crime is still something you need to worry about, not so much the guns.

Korzic · Post by **Korzic** » 9/16/2004, 4:26 pm

I'd just like to point out that percentages can be misleading. you can have 1 gun offence in a year. the next year have 10 (small number but the rate has risen 1000%. You can see where Im going with this