What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
Windows 7 Needs An Extra Layer of Security view!
free.avg.com - AVG Anti-Virus Free 9.0 works with Windows 7, to provide the best protection against web threats.
545 Comments
- inactive, on 07/01/2008, -20/+134guns dont kill people, people kill people. and mostly people with ILLEGAL guns kill people. banning guns would be about as useful as a war on drugs or a war on terror.
- gtluke, on 07/01/2008, -9/+103oh no, law abiding citizens with no felony records are going to get guns! whatever shall we do!
- HPCELarry, on 07/01/2008, -14/+98If they didn't have a gun they would have found some other way. Let's not scape goat guns in what is a real problem.
- MadOgre, on 07/01/2008, -25/+108An Open Letter to the Mayor of Washington, D.C., Adrian Fenty.
Mr. Mayor, you have put yourself on one side of the Gun Control argument, and I am on the other. I believe more guns will mean less crime. You happen to be the Mayor of one of the most violent cities in our Nation and this is our Nation's Capitol. Yet you believe that more guns on your streets will mean more crime. I do not believe you and neither do millions of law abiding, gun owning citizens. You have the opportunity to make your point. I humbly submit a challenge to you, Sir.
If the homicide rate in DC increases (as illustrated by public FBI crime statistics) and we see a bloodbath in the streets of DC, then your asinine opinion will be vindicated and you will be able to wag your finger at us... and you will win reelection easily.
However, if the homicide rate drops... if the crime recedes after the implementation of the Heller decision... then Mr. Mayor, I would ask you that you not seek reelection and the people of DC can hopefully get a competent leader that puts public safety ahead of political agenda.
With all due respect,
George Hill
The Ogre of MadOgre.com - MadOgre, on 07/01/2008, -24/+106More Guns = Less Crime. Digg me down, but it's true.
- Murrabbit, on 07/01/2008, -10/+85I can't believe you're being buried. I used to be pretty anti-gun myself - then I actually did the research. Allowing legal firearms and concealed carry permits actual DO wind up correlating to (I'll stop short of saying they cause) lower violent crime rates.
I find that people who used to support large gun control measures the way I used to just won't hear anything of it - they can't fathom how allowing responsible and otherwise law abiding citizens the means to defend themselves against violent attackers could actually lead to lower violent crime rates.
The simple fact is that when petty criminals know a population is unarmed they're going to be a lot more likely to use force or the threat of force to get what they want because they know that their targets aren't going to have the means to protect themselves. Determined criminals will get guns one way or another, the least we can do is allow law abiding citizens the same chance (intelligently and with strict standards of safety and usage of course). - blorc, on 07/01/2008, -20/+89"Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater."
BREAKING NEWS: HOMES WITH POOLS 100% MORE LIKELY TO BE AT RISK FOR DEATH BY DROWNING.
Give me a ***** break. - MortVent, on 07/01/2008, -6/+70Most anti-gun statistics don't mention that the US is one of the few that includes suicide in the gun crimes category... many other nations do not.
- aguynamedjoe36, on 07/01/2008, -13/+61we should put a ban on tall buildings too. people are using them to kill themselves. and it turns out that it is the second leading cause of suicide with a success rate of 34%.
- EddietheHated, on 07/01/2008, -18/+61Australia bans firearms in 1996, look what happens:
"Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:
* Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;
* Assaults are up 8.6 percent;
* Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;
* In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;
* In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;
* There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly."
No matter what side of the aisle you stand on, or how you feel about the NRA, statistically speaking, allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves with firearms decreases crime.
It's pretty simple if you ask me. Criminals, obviously, care nothing for breaking the law, making firearms illegal only prevents you from buying a piece if you follow the laws placed upon your community. - Stevanoski, on 06/30/2008, -57/+98I predict gun deaths decreast as they have through out the nation when gun bans are lifted.
- inactive, on 07/01/2008, -4/+44Ban suicide!
- whatsupimphil, on 07/01/2008, -4/+42All of these arguments completely miss the point of the second amendment. Your constitutional right to bear arms does not exist for sport or self defense. The founding fathers included the second amendment as a last-resort defense against tyranny. When a government becomes too oppressive, the people have the right and responsibility to overthrow it, by force if necessary.
The majority opinion was ridiculous in this case, citing self defense and hunting. The justices base their rulings too much on their political views and too little on the founding documents of this country. - EddietheHated, on 07/01/2008, -1/+38If you're determined to kill yourself, you're going to find a way to do it Chemist... It's not exactly a crime of opportunity.
- pwnerofnoobs, on 07/01/2008, -5/+40Guns don't kill people. Bears kill people.
- gtluke, on 07/01/2008, -0/+34all people willing to use a gun for criminal activity don't give a ***** about your gun laws.
- MadOgre, on 07/01/2008, -6/+37Self Defense is a Human Right.
- wexmajor, on 07/01/2008, -15/+45It boggles the mind how this will be used as a pro gun-control argument.
GUNS MOSTLY KILL PEOPLE THAT WANT TO DIE WE BETTER BAN THEM - EddietheHated, on 07/01/2008, -5/+32Don't get all excited folks. By November, we'll be taking large leaps backwards for second amendment legislation.
# FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
# local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
# Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
# 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
# Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
# Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
# Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
The changes will be believable alright... - inactive, on 07/01/2008, -7/+32A cartoon of Mohammad with a bomb for a turban lead to riots and death. Yet we wouldn't dare have our satirists register their pencils and pens...
See if Times.com would put a cartoon of Mohammad sucking off a Jew. I bet more people would die in 1 week than all the deaths caused by law abiding citizens owning hand guns in the US. - gtluke, on 07/01/2008, -11/+36homicides went UP after the banning.
just like australia did when they banned handguns - Muyoso, on 07/01/2008, -1/+25"So a tyrannical government is going to let you have weapons so that you can overthrow it?"
That's the whole point of affirming the right BEFORE the government becomes tyrannical. That is why it was the second amendment. It is the most important freedom behind the freedom of speech for a reason, it protects all of the other freedoms. - inactive, on 07/01/2008, -2/+26So now guns are bad because people use them on themselves? Since when is it the government's job to make it harder for you to successfully kill yourself?
And, if I might add, what studies "have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater"? This is horrible journalism. Cite your source or shut up. - Murrabbit, on 07/01/2008, -0/+22Sadly yes, prohibition rarely works. Those determined to use violence in a criminal way are going to get guns whether they are legal or not, even if they can't get guns then they'll still obtain the means to use force, be it knives, raw strength or numbers. Conversely what's the best way to keep a young woman safe from rape? Martial arts training sure could come in handy for getting out of a grab or strong armed hold, but frankly if it's someone I knew and loved I'd very much hope she was legally able to keep a concealed handgun in her purse.
- HeyArnold, on 07/01/2008, -16/+37that just blew my mind... out of the back of my head!
oooh, too harsh? - MadOgre, on 07/01/2008, -1/+20I sell guns. Business has been great, and getting better thanks to the election coming up.
- atact88, on 07/01/2008, -10/+29Something Michael Moore omitted to tell you...
- str1fe, on 07/01/2008, -4/+23"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns"
Law abiding citizens in a society that recently banned guns would have to resort to using a knife/crowbar/bat/etc to chase away someone breaking into their house with a gun. If that person is carrying an illegal firearm, he probably doesn't care that it's illegal and probably wouldn't mind using it. Good luck taking him out at (or just getting within) melee range when he has a gun.
Also, could you provide me with links to that research on that legal guns = less crime deal? I've been in debates recently with my Aussie friend (where guns are banned) about the topic, and I can't convince her that guns are necessary. She's convinced that crime rates there are lower because guns are banned, which can't be further from the truth. I can never seem to find solid statistics to back my stance up. - CatsAreGods, on 07/01/2008, -2/+21The Golden Gate Bridge should be closed immediately. It's the most popular bridge for jumping in the country and it's virtually 100% fatal. If it saves only one life, it's worth it, right? So let's cut down on pollution, which people from San Francisco should appreciate, and if folks from Marin County really must get there, they can swim or row, which are more green than driving anyway.
- rockon4life45, on 07/01/2008, -3/+21"Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater."
Apparently when guns aren't inolved your less likely to die from killing yourself or being killed - inactive, on 07/01/2008, -5/+23I truly believe if these suicidal people didn't have access to a gun then at least a fraction of them wouldn't have gone through with it. There is a certain ease in pulling a trigger and getting it over with versus taking the time to set up your own noose or drinking poison... those things can be emotionally draining and I can see people reconsidering during the time it takes to do all that. This isn't an anti-gun rant but I'm just saying, could suicide be any easier than pulling a trigger? It's too bad.
- inactive, on 07/01/2008, -4/+21Don't need government to protect people from themselves..
- styx31989, on 07/01/2008, -1/+18I stopped reading at
"Another reason to amend the constitution to take away the right" - inactive, on 07/01/2008, -0/+16Not only ban it, but strictly punish the criminals. Anyone who successfully commits suicide should face harsh consequences, with long-term imprisonment at least, and the death penalty at best.
- personalj, on 07/01/2008, -0/+16Most criminals work their way up to serious crimes, they start small, they don't go from nothing to armed robbery, generally.
- diggduggjoe, on 07/01/2008, -2/+18Pharmaceuticals are used a lot for suicide, too. Maybe we should ban them. Let's not forget ropes, autos (CO poisoning) and gas ovens.
Suicides are awful, but the truth is they are hard to prevent without intervention. A suicidal person left alone will find a way. - schnikies79, on 07/01/2008, -3/+18Funny thing about guns- they have purposes besides killing people.
- DeskFlyer, on 07/01/2008, -19/+34What?
- LOCK3D, on 07/01/2008, -4/+18and if guns weren't banned on that campus maybe one of those professors or a student would have taken him out before he could kill that many.
- Murrabbit, on 07/01/2008, -2/+16Hi there, pro-gun pro-2nd amendment pro-Concealed Carry liberal here. Don't get your political definitions from Rush Limbaugh and talk radio. I support the bill of rights and human rights in general - all of them - including the right to self defense. Best of all I'm no fluke, and if you look even at the democrats in the congress, especially the house of representatives (guys like Jim Webb especially) you'll see that we're a well represented breed these days.
- b3and1p, on 07/01/2008, -3/+17I'm nothing remotely close to a gun-guy (only touched a gun once), but I hardly think that removing guns will stop people from killing themselves. It sounds like people banning tests because their kids are scoring low, sure it hides a problem a bit more, but its still a problem.
- inactive, on 07/01/2008, -1/+14Use a kangaroo with boxing gloves. That always works on old cartoons.
- BrentDPayne, on 07/01/2008, -1/+14No the article states that 55% of all gun deaths are suicides not that 55% of gun owners kill themselves. Big difference.
- Professr, on 07/01/2008, -3/+16That's why we have the first amendment to protect free speech. If only there were such an amendment to protect our right to keep and bear firearms...
Oh wait.
(I support this guy's post. I am being sarcastic, so no need to get happy with the thumby-button-thingy) - inactive, on 07/01/2008, -0/+13And then eliminate all people. Problem solved. Then arm chimps with guns and declare an era of peace and prosperity, then build a vast chimpilization.
- inactive, on 07/01/2008, -7/+20Ban all laundry detergents, blades and tall builidings.
- MadOgre, on 07/01/2008, -1/+14Amen.
- MikeSD34, on 07/01/2008, -0/+12You can purchase a vehicle without a license.
You can purchase a knife (depending on size) without certification or ID.
You can purchase rope without certification or ID.
You can jump off a bridge without certification or ID.
You can run into traffic without certification or ID.
You can stab yourself with a pencil without certification or ID.
You can cut yourself with a box cutter without certification or ID.
You can jump off a building without certification or ID.
You can put a bag over your head without certification or ID.
You can overdose on over the counter medications without certification or ID.
You can drink bleach without certification or ID.
You can slit your wrists with scissors without certification or ID.
There are more ways to off yourself in this world with common household objects then a person could ever hope to list completely. To try and ban all of those things because there is the possibility that you could do harm to yourself or someone else intentionally or unintentionally is just ridiculous. - Kirizan, on 07/01/2008, -0/+11Nope, but I can walk into Wal-mart and buy a bottle of Unis-om and kill myself with that. Just because it doesn't take a prescription, doesn't mean it's not deadly. I can also go out to the interstate and jump in front of a fast moving truck.
Just because they are more regulated doesn't mean that someone can't just as easily use them to kill themselves. Eddie was correct, if someone wants to kill themselves, the medium they use to do it is irrelevant, they need help far beyond what simple laws can do for them. - inactive, on 07/01/2008, -6/+17Is a firearm in your home "22 times more likely" to be used to kill or injure a family member than to be used for protection? Or "43 times more likely?" How about "18 times more likely?" Anti-gun groups and politicians say it is, citing research by Arthur L. Kellermann, M.D.
Dr. Kellermann's dubious conclusions provide anti-gunners propaganda they use to try to frighten Americans into voluntarily disposing of their guns—in essence, to do to themselves what the anti-gunners have been unable to do to them by legislative, regulatory, or judicial means.
Kellermann admits to the political goal of his work, saying "People should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes." ("Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home," New England Journal of Medicine, Oct. 1993.) Anti-gun groups have seized upon his most recent attempt in this regard, a "study" from which the bogus "22 times more likely" risk-benefit ratio is derived. ("Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home," Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care, Aug. 1998.) The study suffers numerous flaws common to previous Kellermann efforts, including the fact that it is a very small-scale survey of sample jurisdictions that are not representative of the country or even of one another.
Most significant, though, Kellermann severely understates defensive uses of guns, by counting only those in which criminals are killed or injured. Dr. Edgar A. Suter, writing in the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, explains the error in the context of an earlier Kellermann study, which compared family member deaths to killings of criminals: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected—not the burglar or rapist body count. Since only 0.1% to 0.2% of defensive gun usage involves the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000." ("Guns in the Medical Literature—A Failure of Peer Review," March 1994, p. 134.)
Similarly, criminologist Gary Kleck notes, "More commonly, guns are merely pointed at another person, or perhaps referred to or displayed, and this sufficient to accomplish the ends of the user." (Targeting Guns, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, p. 162.) Kleck's 1995 landmark survey of defensive gun uses found guns used for protection as many as 2.5 million times annually. ("Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995.)
Kellermann's "22 times more likely" study suffers yet another flaw: only 14.2% of criminal gun-related homicides and assaults he surveyed involved guns kept in the homes where the crimes occurred. With a similar sloppiness in his "43 times more likely" study, suicides (never shown to correlate to gun ownership) accounted for the overwhelming majority of gun-related family member deaths he pretended to compare to defensive gun uses. -
Show 51 - 100 of 561 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is