What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
510 Comments
- Ysabetwordsmith, on 01/26/2009, -32/+209Gun control may save lives lost to accidents, but proper storage would do as well, without disarming citizens. Remember that a thoroughly armed population discourages oppression: that's why it's in the Constitution.
- inactive, on 01/26/2009, -19/+107Thank you. You couldn't be more correct. Many people ask, "Why do you need *insert gun type here* anyway??" I ask, "Why is that any of your business?" and furthermore, our government was designed to be overthrown by the people. The problem is, they've become smart in their age and have made us feel bad for owning things (or even wanting to own things) that our constitution says we can own. Now we have a tyrannical government who is hellbent on taking our guns away. I say the more guns the better. It's working out for Texas pretty damn good. There is less crime in that state per kappa then any other.
I can hear it now, "starsarebent- are you stupid? You know how many crimes, blah blah blah...."
To that: Do you know how many crimes would have been prevented if every wagging dick carried a 9mm? Do you know how many women wouldn't have been raped if they'd be allowed to carry a firearm? If you were a rapist, would you pick the one carrying a .38? Probably not. - egocogito, on 01/27/2009, -7/+92I have done some legislative work on this issue for a man who was trying to get more rather than less stringent controls on guns and, honestly, banning 'real' assault weapons (i.e., guns that look like m-16s and ak-47s) would have a negligible effect on violent crime on this country. Why? If you are a criminal, you want a gun which is cheap, easy to conceal and will not lead the cops to your doorstep the moment you shoot someone with it. This means that you are going to want a small handgun and it also means that you probably are going to buy it illegally so that you are not in the ATF database. The statistics of violent crimes in this country also speak to these conclusions.
So why do people claim that 2/3rds of violent crime is committed with assault weapons? Because the definition that is used most frequently with this sort of legislation for 'assault weapon' includes any pistol with a 10+ round mag. This means that virtually every semi-automatic handgun in existence (except for places where they are already banned like cali) is considered an assault weapon. - douggmc, on 01/27/2009, -5/+57@chrispchiken .... My honest question to you is:
If said firearm was banned, who do you think would no longer have the firearm? The man carrying to help in his crime or the innocent, law abiding women carrying in self defense? - S1ngular1ty1, on 01/27/2009, -2/+50Weapons don't kill people by themselves. Stupid people with weapons kill people.
- inactive, on 01/26/2009, -8/+53Madison did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment. The right was preexisting at both common law and in the early state constitutions. Fail.
"The same people who champion gun rights also champion the military." Nothing like a good stereotype. I'm glad you know so much about me on a personal level. I don't "champion" the military. I believe in freedom of speech, right to keep and bear arms, and a government of, for, and by the people. It's sad and pessimistic when you lump the views that a nation was founded on, together with fundamentalist views.
"Your argument hasn't worked in quite a long time" - Yes. It does, actually. As mentioned; Texas is a shining example. - ipugh, on 01/27/2009, -11/+56If Obama can't find better stuff to worry about, his priorities are certainly misaligned.
Moreover, if they want my guns, they can come get them. :) - mcquitty, on 01/27/2009, -4/+46Note: All statistics provided by the CDC at cdc.gov.
Deaths by type: Guns
Year - 2005 Deaths - 30,964 (all)
Year - 2005 Unintentional Deaths - 789
Year - 2005 Suicides - 17,002
Notice, over half (17,002/30,964 = 54.9%) were self inflicted. 789 were unintentional, such as kids playing with guns, accidental shootings.
Death by Transportation:
Year - 2005 Deaths - 47,894
Death by Poisioning:
Year - 2005 Deaths - 32,691
Death by Alcohol:
Year - 2004 Deaths - 21,081 (excludes accidents and homocides)
Now, how about the following:
Number of deaths in the US in 2004: 2,397,615
The leading causes?
Heart disease: 652,486
Cancer: 553,888
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,074
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 121,987
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 112,012
Diabetes: 73,138
Alzheimer's disease: 65,965
Influenza/Pneumonia: 59,664
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 42,480
Septicemia: 33,373
So, let take this into context. Guns killed 1.29% of the people who died. If you want to count just unintended gun deaths, it represents 0.03% of all deaths. If you count unintended and other gun deaths (homocides, etc) you get 0.58% of all deaths each year caused by guns.
So, lets count the the leading cause of gun deaths. Suicide. It accounts for over 50% of all deaths. And while each and every murder is a crime, you want to take someone's right to own a gun away for less than one half of 1% of all death causes.
According to reconsider.org http://www.reconsider.org/issues/public_health/est ...
tobacco accounted for 110,640 deaths in 1996. Non-Suicide related deaths (from 2005) compared to 1996 Alcohol deaths is not even 8%.
According to the same website with data collected from Canadian Researchers indicates 30,575 people died of adverse reactions to prescription drugs.
16,926 people died from all licit and illicit drugs in 1998. That's nearly 600 more than homicides using guns.
Note, 0 deaths were caused by marijuana.
With this being said, what if they outlawed smoking. It kills many more people (by sheer number, much less percentage) that guns. Including suicides, it is nearly 4 times as many. Excluding, it is nearly 8 times the amount.
Let's look at diabetes. What if the government regulated food intake (to control obesity, which is a leading fact in diabetes) and forced physical activity. Would you also agree with the government. Diabetes kills twice as many people as all gun deaths and nearly 4 times the homicides and unintentional combined.
What about those big, bad assault rifles? Well, according to Wikipedia, "An unpublished 2004 study commissioned by the DOJ found that "Assault weapons (AW) were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%. Most of the assault weapons used in crime are assault pistols rather than assault rifles."
If you focus on the numbers, you could extrapolate that roughly 2% to 8% of all homicides were caused by assault weapons (2% of 13,962 = ~280, 8% = ~1,117). This is an assumption, because not all crimes cause deaths, but the implied correlation of crimes used with assault weapons (including assault pistols and rifles) versus all crimes.
By that measure, we should outlaw anything that causes more deaths than that.
Are you willing to give up your freedoms of choice for something that causes so few fatalities compared to other causes of death?
What about dying by the following causes? (source http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm )
Pedestrians: 5976
ATVs and Off-road vehicles: 951
All Falls: 18,807
Drownings: 3,308
Accidental Poisonings: 20,950
Even if you don't agree with firearm ownership, considering the number of deaths and those that are actually committed against other people, are you willing to give up your freedom for anything that causes 0.03% of all deaths nationwide? - Johnagain, on 01/27/2009, -3/+45I know it's a sound bite, but it is true - when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. In cities where they have taken the bold step to require a handgun in every household, crime has plumeted. Look it up yourself.
I want to take guns away from criminals, not my neighbors. - curtisag, on 01/27/2009, -4/+45The war against drugs is evidence that a war on guns is folly. Any attempt to round up all the guns in society will leave the criminals with the only access to weapons on the black market. And any criminal looking to commit a crime will feel safer in the knowledge his target has been disarmed.
- Murrabbit, on 01/27/2009, -3/+44Meanwhile the big push in Brittan is to ban knives - because you know, if you outlaw knives no one is gonna have anything sharp to poke anyone else with.
I used to be a big gun-control advocate - but the simple truth is that it just doesn't work. - SuperVepr308, on 01/27/2009, -6/+45May all Second Amendment haters rot in hell. Keep your communist hands off the Constitution.
- nickymouse, on 01/27/2009, -1/+37Ar-15, SKS, AK-47 and other rifles are involved in very few crimes. Let's go and ban single shot bolt action rifle, that's what the DC sniper used and Kennedy's assassin. What about .22 and 9x19 since that is what the Virginia Tech shooter used? The only major crime I could remember being committed with an AR or AK was the Hollywood Shootout in the mid 90's. Our elected govt officials have been watching too many movies.
Ammo capacity is another stupid law. 7 or 33 rounds, it doesn't matter. Reloading only takes a sec. - unusualbob, on 01/27/2009, -2/+36Defending ones household is much easier with a small weapon that can be fired multiple times without having to struggle to reload. If a burglar comes into your house would you rather use a semi-automatic handgun or a single shot bolt-action rifle.
If you didn't choose the handgun you must be really confident that you can hit someone on the first shot and that they would go down with just one shot.
Also I'm going to go out on a limb and say that probably most of the semi-automatic handgun owners in the US are citizens that have never done anything wrong. - Johnagain, on 01/27/2009, -7/+41"An armed society is a polite society"
- 919kwjc, on 01/27/2009, -2/+36Fully automatic guns are already illegal for the vast majority of citizens. We should focus on the bad guys and the laws they break with a gun, rather than attack guns owned and used by reasonable, safe Americans. We don't have a gun problem - we have a crime problem.
- clickmyface, on 01/26/2009, -25/+58Repeatedly putting things in quotes doesn't actually invalidate them, I hope he realizes that.
"President" Obama and "Vice-President" Joe Biden were elected in a "landslide" while making clear what they thought about "assault weapons" so you are right about whats going to happen "Kurt Hofman" of the "examiner."
They won, it's a democracy, someone else will get to decide in 4 to 8 years. - inactive, on 01/26/2009, -9/+39The more you tighten your grip, the more states will slip through your fingers.
- Dimensio, on 01/26/2009, -1/+31The fundamental problem is not with the label of "weapon", but with the label of "assault weapon", which has no technical definition and which has a demonstrably variable legal definition such that it is clear that it is redefined by politicians at will to cover any set of firearms desired banned, regardless of any rational justification for such a ban.
- sturmgiest, on 01/27/2009, -1/+30In terms of rifles, semiautomatic AK clones and AR15s are the most popular rifles and have been for some time. Surprising considering that they are used in less than 3% of gun crimes.
- UTKEngineer, on 01/27/2009, -1/+28You can verify it using the CDC website. More kids (0-18) are killed every year drowning than are shot. Time to make pools childproof and ban assault pools.
- geoken, on 01/26/2009, -1/+25All it does is give people a mental image of Chris Farley.
- griffeycom, on 01/27/2009, -1/+24One statistic I've heard is that a child is more likely to fall into your backyard pool and drown, than they are to find a gun and shoot themselves or another child. I don't have a study to back that up right now, but I have heard it and can see it being true. Guns are just blown out of proportion.
- sturmgiest, on 01/27/2009, -5/+28They were not elected to ban guns. They deliberately downplayed gun control because gun control has been a losing issue since Clinton and 1994. Their position was buried deep in their campaign literature. It was not well advertised.
- frayedstring, on 01/27/2009, -1/+24"Proper Storage" isn't even necessarily required, if by that you mean locks and steel preventing access. Proper Education (or as I like to call it, Proper Parenting) works just as well. I was rased in a rural home and my father had a multitude of firearms, however even from a young age I was taught proper handling and respect for firearms.
I would go out hunting with my dad often, and when I was 12 or 13 took the hunter's safety course so I could also carry a firearm with him and hunt as well. It was a great time of father-son bonding, and at all times we were both as safe as could be because we both knew "Proper Storage" isn't even necessarily required, if by that you mean locks and steel preventing access. Proper Education (or as I like to call it, Proper Parenting) works just as well. I was rased in a rural home and my father had a multitude of firearms, however even from a young age I was taught proper handling and respect for firearms.
I would go out hunting with my dad often, and when I was 12 or 13 took the hunter's safety course so I could also carry a firearm with him and hunt as well. It was a great time of father-son bonding, and at all times we were both as safe as could be because we both knew how to safely and responsibly handle firearms. Likewise, I never ended up shooting myself or my friends while my parents were away because I was playing with something I didn't understand.
Parents need to stand up and be parents. If for some reason you don't want to educate your kid about guns, then by all means lock it up.
As for so-called "assault weapons," I hate how they have such a negative stigma associated with them based solely on their appearance. You take a semi automatic .223 and it's a perfectly fine "varmint" rifle with a legitemate use for farmers and hunters, but take that same rifle and do a few simple appearance mods so it appears outwardly like an M16 and you've got a man killing machine that should be outlawed faster than you can say "bob's your uncle." Gotta love ignorance. - evilesttoast, on 01/27/2009, -6/+28Defending yourself against a tyrannical government. The only true reason for why we have the 2nd amendment.
- richiewrt, on 01/27/2009, -0/+22I'll answer. I own a semi-auto handgun that I use for target practice (I enjoy shooting), and I also keep it for home protection.
- inactive, on 01/27/2009, -2/+23If pulling the trigger only results in one blast, I don't consider it an assault weapon.
Cannons are perfectly legal under the US constitution. - baldwadc, on 01/27/2009, -2/+23The Second Amendment state nothing as to the various types of firearms I may keep. Just that I have the option if i wish to exercise my freedom to do so. If you think that you can pick the pieces away because certain technology didn't exist at that time, what about the internet? The first amendment said nothing about protecting your right to free speech online, that the government cannot censor you online, and yet you see these as completely opposite matters. You worry of assualt weapons and their co killer ammo? A standard hunting rifle used by your great grandfather could rip through a bulletproof est easier than any AK or AR, and yet you don't fear those, yet. A boulder may stand strong, but eventually the wind can wear it down until it is nothing but sand in the wind.
- FoxtrotYankee, on 01/27/2009, -2/+22For starters, you should obtain a clue.
The "Assault Weapons" Ban didn't ban any automatic weapons. Automatic weapons were (and continue to be) made illegal for general possession by the Firearms act of 1934.
It would be more accurate if they called it the "Scary Looking Weapons Ban". - inactive, on 01/27/2009, -6/+26they can take my so-called from my cold dead hands.
- thehawk23, on 01/27/2009, -4/+24Considering the last administration, that "now" is highly ironic.
- cloudcity, on 01/27/2009, -3/+22I keep a bat by my bed. I don't want a gun of any type until somebody tells me I can't have one.
Then I want two. - inactive, on 01/27/2009, -2/+21The thing is you can't take guns away from criminals all you can do is even the playing field by allowing citizens to own guns.
A criminal is not going to care if he or she is not supposed to have something it's just one more law they are going to break. - 13B1303, on 01/27/2009, -1/+20It's a constitutional limited republic....
- StreetPreacher, on 01/27/2009, -0/+19OK, then what about Switzerland? Male citizens of that country have fully automatic weapons (something that is severely restricted here) and ammunition at home as a part of their compulsory military service, and beyond that gun ownership is the norm, with very few restrictions.
And yet it has little to no violent crime. - Willravel, on 01/27/2009, -5/+23There are conservatives on Digg? OH RIGHT, the Libertarians. Carry on.
- inactive, on 01/27/2009, -3/+20Well I already have mine so they can go ***** themselves.
- Dou6, on 01/27/2009, -2/+19WTF is a cop killer bullet anyway? I remember they used to call them "hollow point cop killer" bullets, and spread garbage that they penetrated body armor, when the exact opposite is true, hollow points are the worst thing you could use to attack body armor.
- douggmc, on 01/27/2009, -0/+16... and further ... the so called "AK 47" hasn't been recovered, was reported as an "AK 47" by a witness who said the suspect pulled it "out of his waistband", and said "AK 47" was not firing automatic according to witness.
Conclusion: IT WAS NOT AN AK 47. - inactive, on 01/27/2009, -4/+20Obama really should forget gun control even exists and distance himself from it as much as possible.
We don't need the country divided right now and I'll admit I will not let the gov take my firearms myself they can have them after they pry them from my cold dead blood covered hands. - staticsynapse, on 01/27/2009, -1/+17its in the book freakanomics. if i remember that chapter correctly he argues that backyard pools are more dangerous to kids than guns. interesting read because he backs all his ideas up with lots of data. whether he's interpreting it correctly or not who knows.
- egocogito, on 01/27/2009, -3/+19Not really. I would argue that the difference has more to do with culture than anything else. What about Canada where there is very little gun violence?
- JohnGalt750, on 01/27/2009, -0/+15Consider that the police have no obligation to do anything for you. It's not about defending yourself against a tyrannical government. It's about defending yourself in spite of an inneffective government.
Being disarmed puts every citizen in the position of begging for more law enforcement help. If guns for protection are banned. They don't have to oppress us, they can just choose not to protect us. - lostpunisher, on 01/27/2009, -10/+25"If you take my "legal" gun, I will find an "illegal" gun. If you take my friend's "legal" gun, he will find an "illegal" gun. And soon... You will no longer be the good in the world, but the bad that everyone seeks to destroy." -Unknown
Obama, you have an economy to worry about. Let's just focus on that for now. - superkeer, on 01/27/2009, -1/+15In theory it discourages oppression.
We've done a pretty good job letting ourselves be oppressed regardless of how well armed we are. I'm all for the second ammendment, but I'll be damned if we've ever really made use of it since the Civil War. And even if we did... all the assault rifles and machine guns in the world won't do much against the finest Air Force in existence. - anrkeynkos, on 01/27/2009, -2/+16"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."--George Washington
"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)
Would you call these people frustrated and "paranoid"? Roman slaves weren't allowed to own swords, Hitler banned the citizens from owning firearms, the first priority of any dictator is to disarm the populace. No country is immune to subversion from within. - xixphz, on 01/27/2009, -0/+14There is also a completely different society, criminal justice and penal system. Yes they have far fewer guns and fewer gun related crimes but there is a ***** of social pressure not to commit crimes. Guns arent the only factor that affects crime rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Japan - gtluke, on 01/27/2009, -3/+17Read your constitution, and the reasons behind it. Our forefathers wanted us to keep and bear arms because they wanted the PEOPLE to be ultimately in charge. Meaning they wanted the people to be able to forcefully eject a dictator if we need to. Once we are completely unarmed, it's MUCH easier for us to be controlled.
They never gave a crap about hunting, it's about keeping the power in the hands of the people. - synapz, on 01/27/2009, -2/+16So... lovek... were the founding fathers paranoid idiots, too?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 521 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is