Guns or no Guns

[Vince]

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell

Wow. It blows my mind in a way. I see all this stuff - especially recently - of the leaders of Australia and people in Britain saying "You ought to ban them - worked great for us" and yet it clearly didn't. You just listed oodles of stuff clearly showing it doesn't work. Do you think the citizens in those countries honestly believe it's working?

And watch who is saying the stuff like, "You ought to ban them - worked great for us." Political figures? News people? Who? Leaders of Austrailia. OK. They are the ones that must prove the laws they passed, or helped to pass, work. Of course they are going to tell everyone to ban all the guns.

[2ndAmendment (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell

...I've seen news reports recently (in light of the VT shootings) and in the past and seen news articles in various magazines on the subject. BUT THAT'S IT! SO -- I thought I'd ask people who seem to know more about this stuff.

If you take all of your information from those that think guns are evil and not people that illegally use them, then you will not have good information. A gun is an implement, a tool. It can be used properly or improperly just like any other tool. A car can be used to kill on purpose or it can be used to take the kids to a soccer match. A gun can be used to kill innocents or it can be used to have recreational fun or for self protection or protection of others.

VT administration chose to put in place restrictions on students and staff to legally carry concealed weapons. They chose to prevent those with concealed carry permits issued by the state of Virginia from carrying on campus. If one or more students or staff or even a visitor had been legally armed, they may have put an end to the shooting spree by the insane person that did this. Instead of 31 dead and many injured, the numbers could have been much lower.

It is a fact that the police cannot be everywhere at one time; therefore the police cannot protect you. It is up to you to protect yourself. The state of Virginia provided for the ability of citizens to have the means to protect themselves. The administration of VT chose to take that ability away. It is sad that so many were killed and injured, but I think much of the blame for the carnage being so great is the decision of the VT administration to take away the means of self defense.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell

Do you think the citizens in those countries honestly believe it's working?

No - they KNOW it's not working. But they're like us and want to believe what they've always believed, regardless of the facts.

DC Mayors always say that their gun bans work, when they clearly don't. California says that their gun laws work, and they clearly don't. Guiliani is the only one who can point to gun banning and a reduction in the crime rate, but even that's flawed because gun bans were just the tip of the iceberg when he cleaned up NYC.

[Tinkerbell]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

What I do is read the conservative "biased" story, then go see what the libs are saying about it. If their argument begins with "Yabbut...." then I know the conservative story is probably the truth. If the opposing argument brings facts, history and statistics into it, then I know the original story is horsecrap.

I also watch for hypotheticals in an argument. The first side to go into a "what if?" scenario is usually on the wrong side of the argument, especially if it's a really far-fetched "what if".

Thanks. I really try to stay away from politics and things because more often than not it just makes me mad. (ESPECIALLY Child protection issues). Anyhooo... I often don't know who to believe. But, with VT, the gun issue has been in my face quite a bit.

[vraiblonde]

Another thing to watch for is one side or the other presenting a rare, isolated incident as something that "happens all the time". This VA Tech shooting, for example:

The gun banners are going, "See? See? This wouldn't have happened if we had stricter gun laws!!" But the fact remains that VA has had the same gun laws for (however long) and how many times has some college kid shot up a campus? It's not like it happens every day.

And the obvious flaw in their logic is that shooting people is against the law, but the shooter did it anyway. So what are the odds that he'd have followed the law with regard to purchasing a weapon?

[Tinkerbell]

I've grown up around guns my whole life. Dad always had them - for home protection. Now - the hubby has them, he's a great white hunter , but they COULD be used to blow away an interloper. I think it would be weird for me NOT to have them. I wouldn't like an idiot breaking in and bringing his gun and I have nothing to even the playing field.

Yeah, VT certainly would have ended differently if 2/3rd's of the class broke out guns and shot the guy. I sometimes hate hindsight.

[LordStanley]

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell

VRAI: Articles I've read, programs I've seen on various channels on TV, etc.

KEN KING -- I knew this would get people spun up. However, I thought I made it clear in my original post that I was asking because I thought you guys could give me your opinions and knowledge to go by. No need to be snippy.

Whoever brought up Jack the Ripper --- bit of a stretch. Try to stay in the same century - ok?

LORD STANLEY and HUNTER JJD -- You both obviously feel that I'm not thinking straight. You have a chance to help me "get it" and that's the best you can do? I said in my first post that I only know what I've seen. I have not done an in depth Thesis or Dissertation on this subject. I've seen news reports recently (in light of the VT shootings) and in the past and seen news articles in various magazines on the subject. BUT THAT'S IT! SO -- I thought I'd ask people who seem to know more about this stuff.

Ok... Here is your chance. Its as easy as googling Gun Violence.

The problem is you really have to read between the lines on a lot of these studies. Most studies involving gun related deaths are only involving children, not gun violence in general.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared...sNav=nr&id=570
http://www.haciendapub.com/edcor12.html
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/

[vraiblonde]

Another good indicator is when they twist words to skew the debate. Two that come to mind:

Illegal immigration - The pro-illegal crowd NEVER calls them anything but "immigrants" and if you disagree with them, you are "against" immigration. But most people aren't against immigration at all - it's the *illegal* part that they don't like. That didn't work so well, so now the pro-illegals have taken to calling them "undocumented workers", which sanitizes it.

Stem cell research - I don't know a single person who is against stem cell research in and of itself. What they're against is government funding for *fetal* stem cell research, which is taking stem cells from aborted fetuses and using it for research. But you never hear the screamers mention this; they simply call it "stem cell research", which misses the whole point and redirects the argument.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell

Wow. It blows my mind in a way. I see all this stuff - especially recently - of the leaders of Australia and people in Britain saying "You ought to ban them - worked great for us" and yet it clearly didn't. You just listed oodles of stuff clearly showing it doesn't work. Do you think the citizens in those countries honestly believe it's working?

I think its more of Politico's CYA'ing

Look here in Maryland, with the ballistic fingerprinting (of firearms).
All new handguns, before being sold have to have a round fired, and the bullet is indexed for identifing marks. ONLY hand guns are fingerprinted. Shotguns dont have a fingerprint to test for, and they dont fingerprint Rifles.

Only Maryland and New York have recorded the ballistic fingerprints of all new handguns sold. The cost of implementing the program made it unprofitable for gun makers to sell handguns in the state for the first six months of that year. The state government faced a $1.1 million start-up cost and another $750,000-a-year operating cost.

In both states, the costs for dealers, gun makers, and prospective gun owners were responsible for reducing handgun sales to law-abiding citizens. And what was the specific benefit? Almost zero. The programs have not helped solve a single violent crime in either state; they have so far been used only to identify two handguns stolen from a Maryland gun shop and the system has produced just six "hits" -- instances where crime-scene evidence matched ballistics data in the system. None of those has been used in a criminal trial.

The other problem is the "Fingerprint" can be modified, by changing the barrel of the handgun, or just by wear-and-tear of repeated firing.

And the Maryland State Police Forensic Sciences Division want to totally end the program, because its ineffective

But the gun-banners will point to Maryland and New York as examples of a program that works, and none of the Maryland legislators will end it.

Its all BS Politics

[Midnightrider]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

Another thing to watch for is one side or the other presenting a rare, isolated incident as something that "happens all the time". This VA Tech shooting, for example:

The gun banners are going, "See? See? This wouldn't have happened if we had stricter gun laws!!" But the fact remains that VA has had the same gun laws for (however long) and how many times has some college kid shot up a campus? It's not like it happens every day.

And the obvious flaw in their logic is that shooting people is against the law, but the shooter did it anyway. So what are the odds that he'd have followed the law with regard to purchasing a weapon?

And the other side is doing it too.
Saying "if one person had been allowed to carry their firearm in class it could have been prevented. Therefore i should be able to take my gun EVERYWHERE i go...."

the obvious flaw being that their are clearly places and times where weapons are inapropriate.