Re: Guns possessed by citizens and the State


ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2005 06:09:25 -0700, "Phil Smythe" <smytph@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> On 25 Aug 2005 05:52:17 -0700, "Phil Smythe" <smytph@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Charles L wrote:
> >> >> Which is of more concern, firearms in the hands of private citizens or
> >> >> firearms in the hands of the State?
> >> >>
> >> >> Who has the worst record when it comes to the misuse of firearms?
> >> >
> >> >In the US in 2002 12,129 persons died as a result of homicide/legal
> >> >intervention where a firearm was used. Of this total 300 were killed by
> >> >way of legal intervention. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/
> >> >
> >> >So, in terms of raw numbers, as private citizens were responsible for
> >> >92% of US firearm homicides. I have no doubt this situation would be
> >> >similar in other western democracies and possibly more pronounced.
> >> >
> >> >But if we assume that private citizens hold more firearms than the
> >> >state this might explain that massive discrepancy. It might even be the
> >> >case that 92% of guns are in private hands. Even if that were so it is
> >> >beyond dispute that the weapons held by law enforcement are far more
> >> >liley to be used in situations where a death might result than those
> >> >guns held by private citizens.
> >> >
> >> >Based on this I'd say that firearms in the hands of private citizens
> >> >are of more concern than firearms in the hands of the State.
> >>
> >> And, like trevor, you seem to think that a fatality must occur for a
> >> gun to be used defensively.
> >>
> >> Try doing something original like thinking....
> >
> >That's rich. I have stated repeatedly in the ng that I do NOT think
>
> I concur
>
>
>
> > a
> >fatality only involves guns and have provided data to back that up. Yet
> >you keep making this ridiculous claim and then try for the tpg Absolute
> >Hypocrite's Award by then asking me to do some original thinking. Your
> >a one trick pony Glenn, and are headed for the glue factory at this
> >rate.
>
>
> LOL
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> By whom is citizen's liberty more effectively protected?
> >> >
> >> >Clearly the state which is a major reason why states exist, to protect
> >> >liberty.
> >>
> >> Taking away liberty to protect liberty?
> >
> >Absolute rubbish. Nothing more than a throwaway line in lieu of
> >subatantive argument. Unless of course there are absolutely NO
> >restrictions on driving cars where you live?
>
> First, there is quite a bit of difference between an automobile and a
> firearm.

Now it's my turn to concur, this time in all seriousness (if trying to
be smart by misquoting is what you've been reduced to you are really
struggling). Do I have your permission to quote you the next time some
lame brain suggests that cars should be banned because like guns they
are "just tools", ban one tool ban 'em all?

>
> Second, all the restrictions the gun control loons demand concern
> possessing, owning, etc. a firearm. There are very few restrictions
> on possessing, owning etc. a car. You have money, you buy it.
>
> Now - operating a car on a public thorough fare has certain rules of
> the road. And there are laws about safe operation of a firearm - and
> I am not opposed to those.
>
> You do see the difference? perhaps not.

What I and anybody else can clearly see is that there are all manner of
restrictions in life, both on ownership of certain things and their
use. I take it, given your statement above, you are not opposed to a
law that states you may only own a gun if it is kept at a gun club in
safe storage and cannot be removed from the club premises?

>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > Sadly some states, like some people, do not go along with
> >> >this.
> >>
> >> Correct: 38 states permit good citizens to carry concealed firearms.
> >
> >When the bad guys carry guns as often as they do in some states you can
> >understand why some people might be a bit jittery.
>
> I get jittery around any bad guy; they don't have to be armed to be
> danmgerous. And gun control laws effectively deprive me of one of the
> best self defense systems available.
>
> Anyway, gun control laws don't work. We have been down that path
> before. Your 1996 gun control law was enacted and crime overall
> increased.
>
> I have to laugh that you choose to ignore the years in between and
> have failed to respond to why it took 6+ years to show a decrease.

Classic lie. You asked this question and I responded. Problem is that
didn't like the response. Let me explain it to you again, s l o w l y.
An exercise such as a gun buyback cannot be expected to have an effect
from day one. Gun use in violent crime rose in the first year, 1997,
and has in every since bar one. Yet you claimed the laws on guns
"failed to respond" for 6+ years. Laws on guns have most effect on
crimes which involve guns in case you had not thought of that.

Total violent crime rose for 5 years (not 6+) which was a continuation
of a trend. Yet you seem to think a law that directly affected around
10% of violent crimes in 1996 could, from day one, drag those other 90%
down with it. Do not apply for a job as a criminologist any time soon.

Most importantly you appear unwilling to face the fact that the violent
crime has fallen for the past 3 years and firearm crime is way down.
Why is that?

>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >Be glad if you live in a state that does, which about 99% of
> >> >those in this newsgroup would be part of.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Is the State frightened by citizens being armed? If so, why?
> >> >
> >> >No, therefore part 2 of the question is irrelavant.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> If firearm ownership by citizens is banned or hampered with onerous
> >> >> restrictions (which amounts to the same thing really) can citizens trust the
> >> >> State with it's firearms?
> >> >
> >> >Poor question as banning and hampering with onerous restrictions are
> >> >clearly not the same thing.
> >>
> >> Yes they are - you just choose to believe otherwise.
> >
> >Pure bullshit, and you know it. The US presidency has the quite onerous
> >restriction of not allowing those not born in the US to become
> >president, but there isn't a ban on the job.
>
> Constitutional issue.
>
> Quite a bit different - and you know it.

Not from the point of "onerous restrictions" it's not.

>
> Making a literacy test, owning twenty thousand acres, and having white
> skin to vote are onerous restrictions - but one still has the right to
> vote.

So you can tell the difference between an "onerous restriction" and a
"ban"?
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Flying a commercial airliner is highly
> >> >restricted with many strict regulations that must be adhered to, but it
> >> >is not banned. Based on this fact your question is a classic strawman.
> >>
> >> Gee, did you say commercial? Quite a bit different than private
> >> ownership.
> >> --
> >
> >Reading glasses out of focus? So does your response mean there are no
> >restrictions on flying a private airliner? eg John Travolta can fly his
> >former Qantas Boeing 707 simply because he owns it, nothing else
> >required, anywhere, anytime, any altitude.
>
> No; but John's private plane doesn't have the same requirements as a
> mode of public transportation.

Yes, it looks like you can the difference between "restrictions" and
"bans".

.

Relevant Pages