Gun Control!

Make them illegal, but put a stiffer penalty on them. Let's say for instance you're caught with an illegal gun:

You get to be boiled in oil in front of all your friends, and your parent/spouse/kid has to lower you in head first. Don't just stop there either, if it's one of those that the number's been filed off of, then go after the one who sold the gun and do the same thing, on down the line.

I'm in a strangely bloodthirsty mood tonight. o_o

I like guns. I dislike zombies.

Considering the above, all of your arguments against firearms are moot. Goodnight.

Your alternative future scenario gives me a cynical wet dream. Let's make babies.

1. You are no less dead after being killed with a peanut as with a gun.

2. Peanuts are sold openly in petrol stations to children without causing any notable social problems.

3. Therefore guns should be sold openly in foil packets, and in several different tasty varieties.

I understand if we include places where guns are banned there is much more gun violence, such as New York or Washington DC. But if we look at places where gun ownership is encouraged, we see a decrease in gun violence.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.

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

In 1996, Dr. John R. Lott of the University of Chicago Law School published the results of a crime study conducted using FBI data for all 3,045 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992.

* The study sought to answer the question, "What happens to crime when states adopt right-to-carry laws?"

* Between 1977 and 1992, 10 states adopted right-to-carry laws. Dr. Lott's study found that the implementation of these laws created:
-- no change in suicide rates,
-- a .5% rise in accidental firearm deaths,
-- a 5% decline in rapes,
-- a 7% decline in aggravated assaults,
-- and an 8% decline in murder

for the 10 states that adopted these laws between 1977 and 1992.
* Using 1995 numbers, this amounts to:

-- 1 more accidental gun death,
-- 316 less murders,
-- 939 less rapes,
-- and 14,702 less aggravated assaults

in these 10 states annually.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

Please, feel free to post statistics to make your point. I'm not afraid of facts.

By assuming I see everything in a certain way, you are assuming to know me by association of other groups. It's a way to stereotype people who disagree with you, placing them in tidy little boxes. That way you don't have to consider their opinions independent of the others in the box. It's a lazy way to debate issues imho.

It may be easier to use a hunting rifle to shoot someone 100 yards away, but the risk of capture is equal. Shooting people often leaves evidence, such as a bullet, and can be traced back to the gun from which it was shot, if the gun can be found. Guns are loud.

It may be easier, but a smart murderer will do it in a way to make it appear to be a suicide or an accident.

How does one use a peanut to kill? Why would I ask? Just wonderin'

Pardon me, Stewardess, can I get another honey-glazed AK-47 over here? This in-flight movie sucks!

I agree. Gun killings are just easier and faster for the quck types such as armed robbery and the likes. While a few of em get away, the majority of gun related criminals get caught pretty rapidly or their identity is known. The murderers that perhaps scare me the most are serial murderers. From the case studies, not too many of them use guns but rather strangle or inflict a killing knife wound. Serial Murderers are freakishly over planning types and the worst part is they look just like you and me. The punks that run around with guns to cause trouble scare me less because chances are any shot that does manage to hit is a lucky shot and the chances of that lucky shot being fatal is even lower as most of em just own/carry the gun for the fear factor as opposed to actually knowing how to handle it. Heck, ask any one of em what round is chambered and you will most likely get a huh out of em. A 115g FMJ round will do far less damage than a 115g JHP.

We can do away with the weapons all we want to, until we can do away with the intentions of people, nothing will change. A gun may be long distance but so is a good quality compound bow or a good crossbow, may not have the extreme distance factor but it is a heck of a lot quieter. Guns,knives,bows,swords and any weapon used for killing is just a tool in the hand of some lunatic out there. Remove the tool and you would still have the lunatic.

There are some people with deadly allergies to peanuts. Doctors say children under a certian age should not eat peanuts or foods containing oils from peanuts.Not for fear of suffocation but to prevent the allergy from forming.

Ah, so to kill a person with a peanut, one must first find someone with a sever allergy to peanuts, then force them to eat peanuts. Good way to kill an enemy? No.

How to implement gun control:

1. Take your gun and point it at someone.
2. Shout: "If you don't do what I tell you, I'm going to blow your F*****ng head off!"

When said person starts doing what you tell them, you have sucessfully implemented gun control.

Yeah, unfortunatly it would take a lot of leg work to find someone who is deadly allergic to peanuts. So you are right, not a good way of going about it. I am sure that you could fashion a high-powered peanut launching device using old air rifle valves and co2 cartdriges though. Accuracy would be another issue, the peanuts would need to be out of their shell to be anywhere near aerodynamic. Imagine the headlines "Man shot to death with nuts, more news at 11"

I think one of the best depictions of guns in movies was in eXistenz. And maybe Videodrome too, that really made me think about weaponry as an extension of someone, yet becoming their own personal failure. Bless you Cronenberg!

Aspergillus flavus

PWNED

Kevn, I haven't stereotyped you , and had you read my post a little more closely, you'd have seen that type of behavior is more or less what I was protesting.

I showed you in another thread that the burglary rate in Florida dropped by over 100,000 incidents per year from 1989 to 2000 in Florida (which you ignored), without your new law that you're salivating over because it gives you the right to cap someone in the skull for sticking their head in your window. Such a nice, Christian thought process that is!

Now, you can talk about DC and NYC and ONLY focus on ONE part of the issue - gun laws, or you could maybe try and see that there are many, many other social issues which lend themselves to these problems. That's up to you, and all I have said to you is that these are much more complex issues than you give them credit for. It's not as easy as allowing or disallowing handguns, as much as you may wish it is to support your rather simplistic argument for extrememly liberal gun laws.

Nolan,

The reason we saw a huge drop in the early 90's is Clinton was elected, and talk of gun laws made headlines. That, in turn, made many people go out and buy a gun. The media was appalled by this, and reported on it widely, suggesting crime would increase, and children would die by accidental shootings.

The criminals read the newspapers too, and they realized it was not very safe to enter homes where people might be home. That's when the rates in person-to-person crime started to decline rapidly.

The point I made in my post in this thread was that by taking guns from those who follow the law, more crime was committed.

The more liberal a state has been with gun laws shows less person-to-person crime. That means less violence against people.

If my argument is simplistic, feel free to bring other points that would help clarify the misunderstandings.

I laugh at all you gun toting yankydoodledandies when you hear the words "gun control".

First thing out of a gun advocate's mouth are things like "OMFGBQQ Hippies are trying to take our guns away" or "Rapists can get guns anytime" or "Enter my house, I'll blow that fucking [enter racial epithet]'s head off!

Truth is, here in Canada we have as many guns per capita as Americans, yet we don't jump up and down and scream bloody murder when laws are imposed.

Gun control does not mean you lose your weapons or the right to defend yourself, family or property. It means that STRICT regulations are applied when it comes to aquiring, storing and transporting them.

Hand out life sentences for walking around with an unlicensed handgun, maybe people will think twice about doing it.

Weedy,

Licensing a gun does not stop it being used to kill people.

Canadian gun laws are wonderful for Canada. The wonderful part of living in the World is we don't all have to be/think/act the same. You can live in Canada, with many restrictions on your rights, and I can live in Florida (where, btw, many Canadians come to live) where my freedoms are greater.

While it may be true freedom requires responsibility, and some aren't responsible, we prefer to punish the offenders rather than punish everyone with stricter laws.

That would just make it harder to protect ourselves from the police.

Life sentence for having an unlicensed gun. Yikes! I think our Bill of Rights addresses cruel and unusual punishment.

I do believe in swift and harsh punishment for violent offenders. Since the War on Drugs, a person is more likely to get prison time for growing pot than beating and robbing and old lady. Speaking of cruel and unusual.

There are a lot of gun laws that are poorly enforced. I think the US needs to tighten up on enforcement instead of making more laws to be ignored by criminals.

You fail to see the double standard of your statement.

It's not ok to walk around with TNT taped to your body, even if you don't intend on blowing yourself up. The responsible thing to do, is keep the dynamite locked up. Bring it out only when you need to move a rock or a stump.

Your logic dictates, well, I better tape some TNT to my body, in case I encounter a rock or a stump.

Right, I see no double standard in my statement.

I bet China has less gun crime. I'm just not willing to give up freedom in exchange for security. If I were, I'd move to China, or Canada.

EXACTLY! There are people sitting in prison, serving 10 to 30 years, in some southern states, for simply being caught with a small amount pot more than once (most of them are minorities - go figure!). The same politicians and pundits who support those sentences, which simply make hardened criminals out of drug users, will cry cruel and unusual if someone suggests harsh sentences for unlicensed gun possession (no I am not talking about Life sentences, that is absurd). Don't even get me started on the draconian search and seizure laws exploited by some police and sheriff's depts. (generally used against traveling non-residents) in those same states, which is basically legalized theft by the authorities.

Agreed.

Kevn, I am going to withdraw from debating you on this. If you can't see why your line of reasoning about guns is simplistic, especially with statements wholly and directly attributing a 15 year drop in crime in your state to Clinton taking office in 1993, then I just can't have this conversation with you.

Murder and burglary in Florida were well into a downswing, 4 years before Clinton took the oath.