Question for the NRA-lovin' types

[db44]

I'd like to hear your spin on the Munis shootings. Here is a trained sniper, still serving our country, yet he killed his wife before killing himself. Would you call him unstable? He was still a sargeant in the National Guard, so that doesn't sound right. Yet he had the gun, did the deed and presumably was sane enough to be remorseful and punish himself... Would Robin Munis be dead if her husband didn't have access to the 10 or more rifles he owned and maintained?

[Venisenvy]

I just came back late last night and was pretty much closed off to most of the world for those 2 weeks so I don't know much about this except for a quick blurb or two. BUT it seems to me that we cannot always tell if people are stable or not. For example as a WWE fan Chris Benoit was one of my favorite wrestlers, look at what most people who knew Chris Benoit intimately say about him and the kind of person he was. No one saw what happened coming, obviously at one point he was unstable but even a close friend a week before spending a couple days at his house only saw a loving father and husband. As far as I know there was no reason to deny him a gun, no hints of unstableness. I think it is wrong to say hey lets get rid of all guns because some people do bad things with them. Im assuming he was trained and could have killed her with a knife or his hands. the gun was the instrument he was the murderer. other instruments can be easily found and just as deadly.

[pinky]

Welcome back, Luis! Hope you had a good trip.

But I have to ask you this: How about the 14-year-old bike rider in Philadelphia who was shot from a passing car because he didn't get out of the way fast enough?

What other instrument would have been just as deadly? (Note that there was an off-duty police officer in the car behind the shooter.)

[Venisenvy]

Yesterday 200 people passed away because of a plane crash, planes were used to bring planes down on 9/11 should we ban planes?

[pinky]

Planes have a function other than to blow holes into things, so that's an apples/oranges comparison.

[tiger_rascal]

Im not a fan of the NRA.

Im not a fan of guns or knives.

I dont own a gun, but I do need some knives in my kitchen.

I have family and friends that hunt, with guns. I cant justify taking their guns away because some criminals decide to kill people with guns.

I've always had a kind of fear of knives ever since a little incident when I was 13. I lived in a city and my mom wasnt home. One of my sisters friends was running from a guy that wanted to hurt him. Her friends ran into our house to get away from him, but he ran in after him. They struggled in the dining room, on my moms white carpet, and my sisters friend was stabbed several times. I will never forget that red blood on the white carpet. My sister chased the attacker out of the house and called the cops. Thankfully her friend was ok after a hospital visit. But ever since I've had a fear of being stabbed. I dont even like the knives in my kitchen, but I need them sometimes. I even keep them in a seperate drawer by themselves. Should they be banned because bad people do bad things with them? No.

[tiger_rascal]

Oh, and my mom was so mad about the carpet! It had to be replaced. She was mad about that, but glad that our friend was going to be ok. She never did get white carpet again. I mean, what was she thinking putting white carpet in a DINING ROOM?!?

You know what, Im going to call her right now and ask her!

[Richard Tafoya]

I'm not aware of any significant support for the notion of yanking all guns away from anyone.

But there is some serious and, I think reasonable debate over the minimum qualifications for being able to buy a gun.

The NRA position leans toward "if you can fog a mirror, you should be able to buy a gun." They're vocal opponents of waiting periods and background checks that would help prevent the sale of guns to people that would be considered more likely to do criminal harm with that gun.

Many of the same people on the right who argue that the Bush administration's access to phone records isn't a problem because they have nothing to hide go into hysterics if someone suggests a background check before purchasing a firearm.

Even more so at the notion that gun purchase records be shared with law enforcement to better understand if someone is likely to be armed if they later become a subject of investigation.

[tiger_rascal]

Exactly Richard. And the people that I know are for stricter gun laws, myself included.

[pinky]

Also, I don't know of anyone who is seriously suggesting that hunting rifles are the problem. Most people are opposed to free access to concealable handguns and semiautomatic weapons, neither of which are used in hunting animals in the woods (but are often used for hunting people).

[Venisenvy]

.....and protection.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Britain enacted very strict anti-gun laws a few years ago. Does anyone know how well that has worked?

[pinky]

.....and protection.
I know, Luis. But if we got rid of all the unnecessary handguns, what would we need to protect ourselves from?

DES, I'm pretty sure that Britain's handgun death rate is a LOT lower than ours.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I'm pretty sure you're right, pinky. Let me look...

[SparkleHugs]

I know, Luis. But if we got rid of all the unnecessary handguns, what would we need to protect ourselves from?



The people who have illegal hand guns.

From what I understand the police dont even really have guns in England, I was just there and thats what one of the citizens said. He was an overly pompus exaggerator though who wanted to make Britain sound better than America at every chance he could.

[tiger_rascal]

I know, Luis. But if we got rid of all the unnecessary handguns, what would we need to protect ourselves from?

Where to start?

My best friends mom used to carry a legal handgun with her for protection. She is a very petite lady and any big man without a gun could hurt her really badly. Just name something, anything.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Okay, well... this is interesting. Apparently not. A quick perusal brought some surprising results. Of the countries that enacted near bans on guns, crime rose. Here are just a couple of links:

Crime did not fall in England after handguns were banned in 1997. Quite the contrary, crime rose sharply. In May, the British government reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the last four years. Serious violent crime rates from 1997 to 2002 averaged 29% higher than 1996; robbery was 24% higher; murders 27% higher. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the armed robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels. The violent crime rate in England is now double that in the United States.

Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new international study says that America's former master -- Great Britain -- has much higher levels of crime.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.

Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.

The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that "levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime."

Highlights of the study indicated that:


The percentage of the population that suffered "contact crime" in England and Wales was 3.6 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the United States and 0.4 percent in Japan.

Burglary rates in England and Wales were also among the highest recorded. Australia (3.9 percent) and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had higher rates of burglary with entry than England and Wales (2.8 percent). In the U.S., the rate was 2.6 percent, according to 1995 figures;

"After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24 percent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 percent victimization rate," the London Telegraph said.

England and Wales also led in automobile thefts. More than 2.5 percent of the population had been victimized by car theft, followed by 2.1 percent in Australia and 1.9 percent in France. Again, the U.S. was not listed among the "top 10" nations.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902


Australia saw its violent crime rates soar after its 1996 gun control measures banned most firearms. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed than they did the year before the law went into effect. Murder and manslaughter rates remained unchanged, but armed robbery rates increased 74%, aggravated assaults by 32%. Australia's violent crime rate is also now double America's. In contrast, the United States took the opposite approach and made it easier for individuals to carry guns. Thirty-seven of the 50 states now have right-to-carry laws that let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns once they pass a criminal background check. Violent crime in the United States has fallen much faster than in Canada, and violent crime has fallen even faster inright-to-carry states than for the nation as a whole. The states with the fastest growth in gun ownership have also experienced the biggest drops in violent crime rates.

http://www.americandaily.com/article/1340

[SparkleHugs]

My mom is a business owner in our little town and often has to carry thousands of dollars to the bank and back, she could easily be robbed, and hurt in the process. She has talked many times about learning how to use a gun and purchasing one for that reason.

[tiger_rascal]

Im not too concerned about myself, living in a little town, and I like to think I can protect myself against someone as long as a weapon was not involved. I would just scream and act like I know kung-fu, which I kind of do, my step-dad made me learn Tae-Kwon-Do when I was young.

[Richard Tafoya]

I'd consider anything in worldnetdaily or americandaily factually suspect. Check their home pages for a dose of their angle on things.

Try Wikipedia.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Thanks, Richard. Wikipedia had this to say: (for individual references, follow the link.)


In 2005/06 there were 766 offences initially recorded as homicide by the police in England and Wales (including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings),[15] a rate of 1.4 per 100,000 of population. Only 50 (6.6%) were committed with firearms, one being with an air weapon.[16] The homicide rate for London was 2.4 per 100,000 in the same year (1.7 when excluding the 7 July bombings).[17]

By comparison, 5.5 murders per 100,000 of population were reported by police in the United States in 2000, of which 70% involved the use of firearms (75% of which were illegally obtained).[18] New York City, with a population size similar to London (over 8 million residents), reported 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004.[19]

The rise in UK gun crime is a long term trend that is apparently unaffected by the state of UK firearms legislation. [20] Before the 1997 ban, handguns were only held by 0.1% of the population,[21] and while the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094 in 2003/04, and have since fallen to 21,521 in 2005/06. The latter includes 3,275 crimes involving imitation firearms and 10,437 involving air weapons, compared to 566 and 8,665 respectively in 1998/99.[22] Only those "firearms" positively identified as being imitations or air weapons (e.g. by being recovered by the police or by being fired) are classed as such, so the actual numbers are likely to be significantly higher. In 2005/06, 8,978 of the total of 21,521 firearms crimes (42%) were for criminal damage.[23]

Since 1998 number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has almost doubled[24] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 4,001 in 2005/06. "Injury" in this context means by being fired, used a blunt instrument, or as a threat. In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. The number of homicides committed with firearms has remained between a range of 46 and 97 for the past decade, standing at 50 in 2005/06 (a fall from 75 the previous year). Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales. Over the same period there were 107 non-fatal shootings of police officers - an average of just 9.7 per year.[25]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Homicide_and_firearms_cri me)

[pinky]

The people who have illegal hand guns.

From what I understand the police dont even really have guns in England, I was just there and thats what one of the citizens said. He was an overly pompus exaggerator though who wanted to make Britain sound better than America at every chance he could.
I believe I said get rid of ALL the unnecessary handguns. That would include the illegal variety. ;)

[tiger_rascal]

I dont get it pinky.

I think the point is, that would be nearly impossible and we would be living in close to a perfect world.

Thats like saying, lets get rid of all the illegal drugs. Sure, thats a nice thought and something to work towards, but there will always be people that do bad things, they will get those drugs someway, somehow. Same with the guns.

[Venisenvy]

We can ban guns and take guns away from people but the ones that would not have them are the good honest people using it for protection. But the "bad guys" they will always get what they want and no matter what gets banned they will get their hands on them.

[Regis Philbin]

When was the last time someone shot up an NRA convention???

[LesterX]

When was the last time any convention was shot up?

[Regis Philbin]

Okay, well... this is interesting. Apparently not. A quick perusal brought some surprising results. Of the countries that enacted near bans on guns, crime rose.


Nooooooo? Us stump-toothed knuckle-draggin' pickup truck-drivin' conservatives have pointed that out before but have been shot down (pun intended) by the enlightened.

Criminals like to prey on the weak. They like easy targets. If they know there's little chance of resistance they'll be less cautious in who they target.

[Richard Tafoya]

When was the last time someone shot up an NRA convention???

Roughly the same as the last time someone opened fire at a Super Bowl game, at a Mormon church service, at a Springsteen concert or at the annual MacWorld Apple convention.

Basic security measures and common sense at live events and community gatherings keep that sort of thing from happening pretty effectively.

[Sunflowergirl]

Nooooooo? Us stump-toothed knuckle-draggin' pickup truck-drivin' conservatives have pointed that out before but have been shot down (pun intended) by the enlightened.
Not so fast there. Gun advocates like to link gun control with crime, but a lot of other factors go into crime rates. Britain's rising crime rates may not be completely the result of banning guns, but actually the result of a change in the way crime statistics are handled. From the Second Amendment Project, in 2000:

....Britain's justice officials have also kept crime totals down by being careful about what to count. American homicide data are based on arrests, but British data are based on final dispositions. Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all.

Another "common practice," according to one retired Scotland Yard senior officer, is "falsifying clear-up rates by gaining false confessions from criminals already in prison." (Britain has far fewer protections against abusive police interrogations than does the United States.) As a result, thousands of crimes in Great Britain have been "solved" by bribing or coercing prisoners to confess to crimes they never committed.

Explaining away the disparity between crime reported by victims and the official figures became so difficult that, in April 1998, the British Home Office was forced to change its method of reporting crime, and a somewhat more accurate picture began to emerge.

This past January, official street-crime rates in London were more than double the official rate from the year before....
http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/2000/Fear-in-Britain.htm
Could it be that crime has not actually risen, but that it is being reported more accurately?

[pinky]

Nooooooo? Us stump-toothed knuckle-draggin' pickup truck-drivin' conservatives have pointed that out before but have been shot down (pun intended) by the enlightened.

Criminals like to prey on the weak. They like easy targets. If they know there's little chance of resistance they'll be less cautious in who they target.
Read on, Reeg. Those links have already been discredited.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Well, now wait a minute, pinky. Not exactly discredited. Statistics are a tricky thing, and it's all in the interpretation. You can take the same set of numbers, give them to two diametrically opposed groups of people on an issue, et voila! each will make them fit a point of view. Did crime rise after these countries enacted laws? It appears so. Did banning guns have much or little to do with it? Depends on how one interprets the data. In both posts I made, there were multiple sources used to interpret the same data. While some of the articles I found were decidedly slanted to the pro-gun folks, even following the more seemingly credible articles provided by wikipedia yeilded some pretty blatant anti-gun rhetoric. So, the point here, I think, is that gun control is a complicated and emotional issue, so as one tries to sift through all the information, it's best to do so with a sharply critical eye.