Topic: HAND GUNS Friend or Foe (Put your goves on and come out FRIENDS)

[TwoTired]

I am really glad that I live and work somewhere where I will never even remotely consider owning or operating a handgun. I am sad that our country still has places that people have the need to keep handguns at the ready for armed or unarmed intruders. I thought that Clint Eastwood and Steven Segal movies were the stuff of fiction, but apparently not. I guess things really haven't changed in over 200 years.

Human nature is still the same.  There has been no evolution (well, almost zero) of human thought capability.  Only the knowledgebase on which it operates has improved.  Historical events will bear that out as long as records have been kept.  Species= homo sapien.

But, I'd like to know where I can live where there is no chance of natural disaster.  Or, where there is absolutely NO chance malice can be introduced.  Sounds like heaven.  But, is it earth?

The founding fathers, whatever their intent, seem to have prepared us for even this unforseen eventuality. I would gather that they had no clue that this would even be a matter of debate 200 years after the American Revolution.

It was highly debated and quite controversial while it was being written, too.  The records are there if you wish to verify.

I am glad that people that need handguns have the ability to buy and keep them, but I stand by the assertion that most people who have them don't need them.

Well, the same argument can be made about insurance companies.  How many people really need insurance?  Insurance companies make a tidy profit on those that don't and who may never file a claim.

Also, we aren't a "needs" based society.  But, rather a "wants" based one.  Do you need a big screen power hungry TV?  A car or motorcycle that can exceed the posted speed limits?  Or, and entire case of caustic drain cleaner?  What about 25 screwdrivers?  Or, egad more than one motorcycle!  Who needs that!

Also that most times a handgun is drawn and fired and someone is killed, it is an accident or a homicide, not a homeowner or dutiful citizen protecting his family and house from unlawful seizure or attack.

Please state the source of that assertion.  Is that your opinion, or is there a qualified source of data to support that statment?
A gun used to protect and defend is not always fired. About two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime.  Doesn't have to be fired to be a deterent, but, certainly can be to great effectiveness.

http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html

[TwoTired]

yea,as much as i love the 2nd ammendment,this is getting tired.

You mean tootired? 

[dusterdude]

yea i suppose you could put it that way,btw your responses were well thought out and well presented.

[jaannaktin]

In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S:
17,108 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,829 homicides (39% of all U.S gun deaths),
762 unintentional shootings (3% of all U.S gun deaths),
and 300 from legal intervention and 243 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2005.


While handguns account for only one-third of all firearms owned in the United States, they account for more than two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths each year. A gun in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used to commit a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to attempt or commit suicide than to be used in self-defense.

-A Kellerman, et al. Journal of Trauma, August 1998; Kellerman AL, Lee RK, Mercy JA, et al. "The Epidemiological Basis for the Prevention of Firearm Injuries." Annu.Rev Public Health. 1991; 12:17-40.)

I really don't want to continue this thread either. As Raul has nicely pointed out, we are not likely to come to agreement on this divisive and polarizing issue. The "burden or proof" is usually placed on the accused, such that "innocent until proven guilty." In the gun debate, the burden of proof seems to fall on the minority opposition which is underrepresented and poorly funded. I have very little faith in our elected representatives to make an honest decision about this issue, let alone many other issues, because of the financial interests involved.

The proof is quite plain from the "numbers," and I would waste a lot of time and space posting references for every statement I made. I do not claim to be any authority in this subject and in fact have never really explored my own stance on the issue. I'm afraid that any statistics or numbers, or references for that matter, are likely to be picked at as being biased, or from uncredible sources. The two I have posted here are mainstream, and the CDC is one of the few places you can get great information that is NOT politically biased. In my estimation, the only productive use of our federal tax dollars.

I restate that I do not want nor need a handgun, and am happy that people who want or need them can get them. I also restate that most of the time they are used, it seems to be for suicide or homicide, and not defense of one's family or furniture.

Peace.

 

Jaan

[Quail "Owner of the comfortable k8"]

Blame this thread on the Ozzie Terry it was his Idea.  I think we should go down there and string him up.  We'll get Raul's nut back and he won't be so #$%*y, then he can go back to just testie.  I just might pop a cap in Terry's a@@ just for good old USA fun.  If that makes me feel bad enough I just might shoot myself.


More cows die every year in the USA from bolts being drivin through their skulls than in any other country.
May 2003   Slaughter House Monthly,   issue 78  By  Ima Killer


Terry (this thread was not my idea) Quail

So shoot me.

[TwoTired]

Ah yes the CDC and Kellerman’s "study".
Kellerman was vehemnetly Anti-gun well before he collected data for his study and the $2 million grant from the CDC.  He and the study fit well into the CDC’s plans to increase their government funding by including guns as a disease to report on and then offer services and expert adivise.

The major flaw in these efforts was that there was never any data collected to show what, if any, beneficial effect guns had on crime, deaths, or the saving of lives.  There were many other
I other words they didn’t look for or present any data that wouldn’t support their going in assumption that guns should be taken away from citizens.  I believe this is called bias.

If you want to prove motor oil is bad for engines, just note how many engines fail with the presence of oil in the engine.  Gee, they all fail eventually, therefore oil must be bad for engines.

Criminologist studies have shown the use of guns have saved 25-75 lives for every one lost by gun use.  This I found with a simple google search "CDC guns".
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no20/vo12no20_guns.htm

If the CDC is your only source for firearm statistics, it is little wonder you have your current viewpoint that "most of the time they are used, it seems to be for suicide or homicide, and not defense of one's family."

Some boring background about me…
Until about 1980, I was pretty much an anti gun person, having really only been exposed to anti gun information sources.  However, I was also an engineer and learned that in order to diagnose a problem, you collect test  data, then analyze it, and most often it will point to where the problem lies and where to correct it.  If your test equipment and methodology was good, then so were your conclusions and efforts to correct the problem.  Then, I learned to fly airplanes, where much training is given for the eventuallity of something going wrong.  Part of that is the realization that you may have to crash, in a remote area, where help may not find you for days or weeks.  The Air Force survival manual (and many others read), all recommend a firearm as part of the survival kit, both for small game as well as for signalling means.  Further research and study found me with my first gun, an AR-7 Survival rifle. Among the research and study, I found many reasoned, analytical, and sensible arguments for gun possesion, where cause and effect  was carefully weighed on the gun control/gun possession issue.  I was converted by sound data acquisition over the course of a year into a gun advocate.  The anti gun side has yet to provide any sound evidence that I would be better off without the life insurance offered by my firearms and my abilities.

All the best,

[Badboy]

As far as people shooting themselves on purpose, I have not seen to many cases like that around here. Most of the problems involving guns are people on drugs ,boose and now and then wacked out. I have known a lot of people around this part of the woods,cause of my line of work. A big % of them own or at least are not anti-gun. The anti-gunners in this country like to harp on sidearms or what else they take a notion to harp on ,but let me tell you ,I own a few sidearms,BUT the weapon of chouce if I HAD to defend myself, would be my Mossburg 500 . 8 rounds of buckshot,I can take on a few punks that think [might think I would make a good victim.  BUT the anti-gunners here are not to worried about this weapon to much[of course they would like to take them all away],so much for their blather.  The real reason we have the 2d amendment here is what King George was doing to us 240 years ago or so. Read up on our history ,and see for yourselves. However,the facts remain,that if the courts here did their duty ,most of the time there would be no need to carry a gun. Our legal system is broken and corrupt,and needs to be fixed.A good example of the problems here is less than a month ago a trucker got into an acident and killed a person. Not that simple,he did the same 10 years ago,had a record long as your arm [driving on a suspended liceinse,unregistered,and who knows what else]and dig this one ,the day that he appeared in court ,he was caught driving his auto home from the courthouse.The last I heard he was in jail. That is where he should be for a VERY long time. But don't hold your breath. Some of the blather that I hear from polititions is we need more laws,I agree, against them! There would not be the murders etc here if the system did it's job.

[Terry in Australia]

If you haven't got the nuts to swing a punch, then I suppose it's ok to hide behind a gun. I've read nothing in all the other posts that convinces me otherwise. Sorry guys, but you just don't need 'em, if you're that frightened of living in the "Land of the free" then come over here and you can live next door to me, I'll look after you! Cheers, Terry.    

[74cb750]

Having witnessed gun violence first hand, and being splattered with my friends' brains, guess what I think of guns? .......You're wrong, I still own several. For protection? I doubt I would have it available when I actuallyneed it. Just target and skeet shooting for me.

[eldar]

Terry, I would be more afraid of you (especially at night!) than anything that comes to mind right now!
I think the idea is that many criminals that mugg or break into homes are armed with some kind of weapon be it a knife or bat or gun. The idea of having a gun then levels the field a bit and most criminals will break and run when confronted by their "victim" which happens to be armed. Of course this can backfire but then I would rather have a chance then have no chance at all. It is like the  age old question of doing or not doing. You could be screwed no matter what choice you make but I believe it is better to try and fail then not try and probably fail anyways.
The thing is, no one really knows how they will react till actually confronted with the situation.

I myself will still get a gun just for sport shooting. That is no different than riding a motorcycle really cause you can still die and even kill others with a bike.

At the end of the day though, I believe that the people who accept weapons, protect those who do not accept weapons. It does not happen the other way around.

[Terry in Australia]

Terry, I would be more afraid of you (especially at night!) than anything that comes to mind right now!

I myself will still get a gun just for sport shooting. That is no different than riding a motorcycle really cause you can still die and even kill others with a bike.

At the end of the day though, I believe that the people who accept weapons, protect those who do not accept weapons. It does not happen the other way around.

Hey Eldy, no need to be afraid of me, I'm just 6'4'' and 260 pounds of "friendly", ha ha! Cars and Motorcycles kill plenty of people, no doubt. Difference is, we NEED cars and Bikes, we DON'T NEED guns.

Actually it's an interesting point, people get more "everyday" training in their cars and bikes than they'll ever get using their guns, so why does anyone think that the minimalistic training required to legally own a gun and bugger-all follow-up training is gonna put them in good stead if an "emergency situation" arises? Sport-Shooting? What's that? Chasing a bunny rabbit with an AK47? That's better odds than Australia has against the English cricket team!

As far as gun owners protecting the "un-believers" goes, hmmnnnn, aren't they just "protecting" them from other gun owners? Don't get me wrong, I've got half a dozen old guns and rifles in my wardrobe in the spare bedroom, some dating back to the Napoleonic wars/American Civil War etc, beautiful old things they are, but I like 'em for what they are, interesting old curios, not "argument winners" or "odds-levellers".

Yeah, I know it's legal, so is homosexuality, but I'm not converting just because it's a "right", ha ha! Sell the guns and buy some boxing gloves fellas, and the world will be a better (if not slightly bruised) place for it! Cheers, Terry.

[eldar]

Well we civilians can sell all the guns we have and be no better off cause we have worthless governments!

For me sport shooting is not hunting an animal. If you wanna do that, use a spear or something that truly tests a person. No I like to target shoot.
But then I also like goose guns too.

[Uncle Ernie]

If people get training in their cars and bikes in AU, maybe I should think about moving there. I should get a book about Australia. The language shouldn't be that much harder than "Southern".

[Terry in Australia]

I tell ya what Unky Ernie, send me the latest copy of Hustler and I'll send you a book all about the Australian culture, before long you'll sound just like that twerp the Crocodile Hunter! There's a house two doors up from me for sale, and if you bring your bike over I'll even let you borrow my tools! Cheers, Terry.

[Quail "Owner of the comfortable k8"]

Difference is, we NEED cars and Bikes, we DON'T NEED guns.

Terry Terry Terry,  Its time to take off your vintage rose colored glasses and look at the world aroud you.  Go to Afganastain (spelling) and tell the people that lived under the Taliban "your didn,t need a gun you needed a bicycle or a 72 Vega"!  All Goverments go bad sooner or later and if your not armed you will submit or die.  Don't worry when your fair goverment turns on you the USA will be down to bomb the hell out of you'all too.

[Uncle Ernie]

Terry, send your address. Still can't believe you don't have them in Au.

Quail, if this gov't gets a bug up it's butt, privately held peashooters aren't going to do a thing against black helicopters, missiles, tanks, grenade launchers blah blah blah.  Are you old enough to remember nuclear blast protections in the grade schools?  We would squat under our desks and tables, clasp our hands behind our bent heads, and try to kiss our own asses good-bye.

[Quail "Owner of the comfortable k8"]

Uncle you may be right but after they drop me I can only hope one of the anti-gun people find my piece and shoot themselves with it.

[Terry in Australia]

Difference is, we NEED cars and Bikes, we DON'T NEED guns.

Terry Terry Terry,  Its time to take off your vintage rose colored glasses and look at the world aroud you.  Go to Afganastain (spelling) and tell the people that lived under the Taliban "your didn,t need a gun you needed a bicycle or a 72 Vega"!  All Goverments go bad sooner or later and if your not armed you will submit or die.  Don't worry when your fair goverment turns on you the USA will be down to bomb the hell out of you'all too.

You know, a bunch of Aussie soldiers are about to redeploy to Afghanistan, seems that them uppity Taliban wankers are worrying George W., so he's asked the Aussie SAS and Commando's to get back over there and sort it out. Anyway, a friend of mine told me how last time he was there he'd set up an OP (Observation Post) on a house that was suspected of being a meeting place for Al Queda.

Anyway, one night he was sitting in his "hide" freezing his ass off when about a half a mile away there was a hell of a commotion, huge explosions lighting up the sky etc, so he radioed back to his operations officer to find out what was going on, and his "Opso" told him that the Americans had put in a fire mission on the house he was "OP-ing".

He told his Opso that was a bit difficult because he was observing the house in question, and there was no movement. It transpired that that house that the US forces "hit" was the scene of a wedding celebration, but the helicopter pilot had observed men with guns, the house was close enough to the grid reference on the map he'd been given, so he "lit it up".

Now I know that it's easy to make mistakes when under pressure in an operational environment, and no matter how little we care about human life in countries far far away, but from memory 13 innocent(?) civilians were killed (including the bride) and about 40 injured in the assault, so I can understand why people question the US' "Shoot first, ask questions later" mindset?  

As far as governments going bad though, how do you rate your government's performance now? If the "Minutemen" are ever gonna rise against a crooked government, isn't now as good a time as any?  Ha ha, Cheers, Terry.  

[74cb750]

Whoa Terry,
THose words will get you in jail in the USA. Don't you know the new Patriot Act has been passed and now you can have your house/property observed for 7 days without your knowledge. This means, no more need of Habeous Corpus, if you have a jerk for a neighbor, the polize can come into your house w/o your knowledge etc etc....The things you write could instigate this, if you lived in the usa. Makes me wonder: how come the only nations that freaked out after 9/11 were USA and England. THe rest of Europe did not pass any of these vile laws. Maybe I should move back to Free Canada, where the people aren't so paranoid.?

[750deepsouth]

Might I suggest another country that freaked out, although for different reasons 

Afghanistan.

Probably several others in that area, whom knew they were in for collateral damage,
one of which subsequently got it.

[Terry in Australia]

Whoa Terry,
THose words will get you in jail in the USA. Don't you know the new Patriot Act has been passed and now you can have your house/property observed for 7 days without your knowledge. This means, no more need of Habeous Corpus, if you have a jerk for a neighbor, the polize can come into your house w/o your knowledge etc etc....The things you write could instigate this, if you lived in the usa. Makes me wonder: how come the only nations that freaked out after 9/11 were USA and England. THe rest of Europe did not pass any of these vile laws. Maybe I should move back to Free Canada, where the people aren't so paranoid.?

So........ What happened to the "Land of the Free"? About a year after 9/11 attacks, Bali was bombed by Jamal Islamia, the Asian Muslim terrorist organisation that has links to Al Queda. The target was Aussie tourists, and as a result of the bombing of the "Sari Club" around 200 tourists died, and many more were horribly injured. This was a reprisal against Australia being part of the "Coalition of the Willing". and even though our government tightened security at airports, government buildings and defence bases around the country, ostensibly not much else has changed.

I guess we've accepted that there's always a chance that "JI" or Al Queda will carry out an attack here on Aussie soil, but we're not that worried, if #$%* happens, then it happens. Most of Europe backed away from this conflict, so there's no reason for them to be concerned, and to be honest, Al Queda's biggest support base isn't in Iraq or Iran or Afghanistan anyway, it's in Saudi, but do you think we're ever gonna attack one of our biggest trading partners? Anyway, it seems we've moved away from the handgun debate, so my apologies for that, don't shoot me! Cheers, Terry.      

[Einyodeler]

Whoa Terry,
THose words will get you in jail in the USA. Don't you know the new Patriot Act has been passed and now you can have your house/property observed for 7 days without your knowledge. This means, no more need of Habeous Corpus, if you have a jerk for a neighbor, the polize can come into your house w/o your knowledge etc etc....The things you write could instigate this, if you lived in the usa. Makes me wonder: how come the only nations that freaked out after 9/11 were USA and England. THe rest of Europe did not pass any of these vile laws. Maybe I should move back to Free Canada, where the people aren't so paranoid.?

This about sums it up:

[Badboy]

The world is in a BIG mess,but don't underestimate the power of the people when have had it. Study up on the French revolution if you think a government that has been screwing it own people and think they have disarmed them,etc,can come out on top. In that case most of them had their the head and body sent to different places. Think about it.

[jaannaktin]

I withdraw my post -- sorry.

 

Jaan

[TwoTired]

Terry, send your address. Still can't believe you don't have them in Au.

Quail, if this gov't gets a bug up it's butt, privately held peashooters aren't going to do a thing against black helicopters, missiles, tanks, grenade launchers blah blah blah.  Are you old enough to remember nuclear blast protections in the grade schools?  We would squat under our desks and tables, clasp our hands behind our bent heads, and try to kiss our own asses good-bye.

I wonder if you actually believe this tripe.  But, assuming you have a shred of sincerity, there are two rather obvious flaws to your assertion.
1. With small arms, you can acquire larger arms, should that be come necessary.  Iran-1979, Romania-1989, and the USSR are fairly noticeable examples, should historical events be of any interest to you.
You can overthow without small arms, too.  But, a larger amount of the desireable population is lost in the process, and living conditions have to get much worse before such action.

2.  Governments exist to control its populace.  Eliminating the populace with WMDs is abhorant to government. Because then they might have to actually do real work, instead of directing minions to do their bidding.  Futher, they need a populace to extort funds from.  How much of your income and infrastucture are you willing to eliminate to support your viewpoint or powerbase?

And, if you really think there are no handguns in Australia, you've been eating too much pie in the sky.  All they did recently was to insure criminals would have guns instead of the peaceable ones.  Perhaps it was to be expected, the british did seed the population with criminals way back, now, didn't they?  Who knew the attitudes would be pervasive, take over the goverment, and then make laws to insure criminal prosperity and heritage for generations to come.