Kilmer17 Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Im just saying that those states SHOULD have the most gun thefts because they have the most guns. Gun safes are a great idea BTW. Isnt it also true that most guns that are stolen are illegal to begin with? IE they are stolen from criminals or from people who aquired them through illegal means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by Burgold I want to commend Code and others in this thread. It has been amongst the most respectful gun control/rights thread debates I have seen. Honest debate and disagreement/compromise is what it's all about. Now, if we could just stop with the conservative-liberal blinders and name calling we could solve all the world's problems or at least generate many more solutions. At the very least, maybe we can all turn our hatred and anger toward the real enemy..... the Cowboy's and Eagle's fans...:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Isnt it also true that most guns that are stolen are illegal to begin with? IE they are stolen from criminals or from people who aquired them through illegal means? How would you track something like that though? I mean would someone who possessed a gun illegally report it stolen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 I Dont have any idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 4. Go before a judge or magistrate and be interviewed as to why you wish to have the permit. Must be a new requirement. I didn't have to do this to get mine although at the time you could ask to go before the judge on appeal if the judge denied your permit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by Burgold None of the descriptions of the .500 make it sound like a weapon that is useful for self protection or hunting. Isn't this all the more reason not to be much concerned by this handgun, Burgold? If it's not much use for self-protection, it's also not much use for criminal activities that you fear. I read an article in the LA Times - not a bastion of 2nd Amendment defense - that had a law enforcement official ridiculing the gun because it's kick was so bad that a person could only get one shot off (likely a high one) and because it was so long there was no way to easily conceal it. It's a novelty weapon introduced for marketing purposes off of the attention it is receiving. Quit the hand-wringing already! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by redman Isn't this all the more reason not to be much concerned by this handgun, Burgold? If it's not much use for self-protection, it's also not much use for criminal activities that you fear. I read an article in the LA Times - not a bastion of 2nd Amendment defense - that had a law enforcement official ridiculing the gun because it's kick was so bad that a person could only get one shot off (likely a high one) and because it was so long there was no way to easily conceal it. It's a novelty weapon introduced for marketing purposes off of the attention it is receiving. Quit the hand-wringing already! You are exactly right......... This gun is for the guy who wants to be able to say, I have the most powerful handgun in the world, and nothing more. When I shot the Desert Eagle .50 cal, I was startled at how bad the kick was. The gun came close to hitting me in my head. I have read stories of people getting hit in the head... that gun is not a threat. If I had to face off against a thug, I would much rather him have that gun than a 9mm because I know he would get knocked on his a$$ as soon as he pulled the trigger. Besides, he's going to have to sell alot of drugs to be able to afford the ammo. 5 rounds are about 40 bucks compared to 50 rounds of 9mm @ 5 bucks or 50 rounds of .357 @ 11 bucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 * Myth #1 "Guns are only used for killing" Compared to about 35,000 gun deaths every year, 2.5 million good Americans use guns to protect themselves, their families, and their livelihoods - there are 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun - five lives are protected per minute - and, of those 2.5 million protective uses of guns, about 1/2 million are believed to have saved lives. [2] Back to the top * Myth #2 "Guns are dangerous when used for protection" US Bureau of Justice Statistics show that guns are the safest and most effective means of defense. Using a gun for protection results in fewer injuries to the defender than using any other means of defense and is safer than not resisting at all. [3] The myth that "guns are only used for killing and the myth that "guns are dangerous when used for protection melt when exposed to scientific examination and data. The myths persist because they are repeated so frequently and dogmatically that few think to question the myths by examining the mountains of data available. Let us examine the other common myths. Back to the top * Myth #3 "There is an epidemic of gun violence" Even their claim of an "epidemic of violence is false. That claim, like so many other of their claims, has been so often dogmatically repeated that few think to question the claim by checking the FBI and other data. Homicide rates have been stable to slightly declining for decades except for inner city teens and young adults involved with illicit drug trafficking. We have noticed that, if one subtracts the inner city contribution to violence, American homicide rates are lower than in Britain and the other paragons of gun control. [2] The actual causes of inner city violence are family disruption, media violence, and abject poverty, not gun ownership. In the inner city, poverty is so severe that crime has become a rational career choice for those with no hope of decent job opportunities. [4] Back to the top * Myth #4 "Guns cause violence" Homicide For over twenty years it has been illegal for teens to buy guns and, despite such gun control, the African American teenage male homicide rate in Washington, DC is 227 per 100,000 - 20 times the US average! [5] The US group for whom legal gun ownership has the highest prevalence, middle-aged white men, has a homicide rate of less than 7 per 100,000 - about half of the US average. [6] If the "guns-cause-violence theory is correct why does Virginia, the alleged "easy purchase source of all those illegal Washington, DC guns, have a murder rate of 9.3 per 100,000, one- ninth of DC's overall homicide rate of 80.6? [7 ]Why are homicide rates lowest in states with loose gun control (North Dakota 1.1, Maine 1.2, South Dakota 1.7, Idaho 1.8, Iowa 2.0, Montana 2.6) and highest in states and the district with draconian gun controls and bans (District of Columbia 80.6, New York 14.2, California 12.7, Illinois 11.3, Maryland 11.7)? [7] The "guns- cause-violence and "guns exacerbate violence theories founder. Again, the causes of inner city violence are family disruption, media violence, and abject poverty, not gun ownership. Accidents National Safety Council data show that accidental gun deaths have been falling steadily since the beginning of this century and now hover at an all time low. This means that about 200 tragic accidental gun deaths occur annually, a far cry from the familiar false imagery of "thousands of innocent children. [8] Suicide Gun bans result in lower gun suicide rates, but a compensatory increase in suicide from other accessible and lethal means of suicide (hanging, leaping, auto exhaust, etc.). The net result of gun bans? No reduction in total suicide rates. [3] People who are intent in killing themselves find the means to do so. Are other means of suicide so much more politically correct that we should focus on measures that decrease gun suicide, but do nothing to reduce total suicide deaths? Back to the top * Myth #5 The "Friends and Family fallacy" It is common for the public health advocates of gun bans to claim that most murders are of "friends and family". The medical literature includes many such false claims, that "most [murderers] would be considered law abiding citizens prior to their pulling the trigger" [9]and "most shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for protection." [10] Not only do the data show that acquaintance and domestic homicide are a minority of homicides, [11] but the FBI's definition of acquaintance and domestic homicide requires only that the murderer knew or was related to the decedent. That dueling drug dealers are acquainted does not make them "friends". Over three- quarters of murderers have long histories of violence against not only their enemies and other "acquaintances," but also against their relatives. [12,13,14,15] Oddly, medical authors have no difficulty recognizing the violent histories of murderers when the topic is not gun control - "A history of violence is the best predictor of violence." [16] The perpetrators of acquaintance and domestic homicide are overwhelmingly vicious aberrants with long histories of violence inflicted upon those close to them. This reality belies the imagery of "friends and family" murdering each other in fits of passion simply because a gun was present "in the home." Back to the top * Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder" To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby. The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count. Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3] Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold. Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2] Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity. Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse . From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes. Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies. Back to the top * Myth #7 "The costs of gun violence are high" The actual economic cost of medical care for gun violence is approximately $1.5-billion per year [20]- less than 0.2% of America's $800-billion annual health care costs. To exaggerate the costs of gun violence, the advocates of gun prohibition routinely include estimates of "lost lifetime earnings" or "years of productive life lost" - assuming that gangsters, drug dealers, and rapists would be as socially productive as teachers, factory workers, and other good Americans - to generate inflated claims of $20-billion or more in "costs." [20] One recent study went so far as to claim the "costs" of work lost because workers might gossip about gun violence. [21] What fraction of homicide victims are actually "innocent children" who strayed into gunfire? Far from being pillars of society, it has been noted that more than two-thirds of gun homicide "victims" are drug traffickers or their customers. [22,23] In one study, 67% of 1990 homicide "victims" had a criminal record, averaging 4 arrests for 11 offenses. [23] These active criminals cost society not only untold human suffering, but also an average economic toll of $400,000 per criminal per year before apprehension and $25,000 per criminal per year while in prison. [24] Because the anti-self-defense lobby repeatedly forces us to examine the issue of "costs," we are forced to notice that, in cutting their violent "careers" short, the gun deaths of those predators and criminals may actually represent an economic savings to society on the order of $4.5 billion annually - three times the declared "costs" of guns. Those annual cost savings are only a small fraction of the total economic savings from guns, because the $4.5 billion does not include the additional savings from innocent lives saved, injuries prevented, medical costs averted, and property protected by guns. Whether by human or economic measure, we conclude that guns offer a substantial net benefit to our society. Other benefits, such as the feeling of security and self-determination that accompany protective gun ownership, are less easily quantified. There is no competent research that suggests making good citizens' access to guns more difficult (whether by bureaucratic "red tape," taxation, or outright bans) will reduce violence. It is only good citizens who comply with gun laws, so it is only good citizens who are disarmed by gun laws. As evidenced by jurisdictions with the most draconian gun laws (e.g. New York City, Washington, DC, etc.), disarming these good citizens before violence is reduced causes more harm than good. Disarming these good citizens costs more - not fewer - lives. Back to the top * Myth #8 "Gun control will keep guns off the street' " Vicious predators who ignore laws against murder, mayhem, and drug trafficking routinely ignore those existent American gun laws. No amount of well-meaning, wishful thinking will cause these criminals to honor additional gun laws. Advocates of gun control rarely discuss the enforceability of their proposals, an understandable lapse, since even police state tactics cannot effectively enforce gun bans. As evidence, in Communist China, a country whose human rights record we dare not emulate, 120,000 banned civilian guns were confiscated in one month in 1994.[25] Existent gun laws impact only those willing to comply with such laws, good people who already honor the laws of common decency. Placing further impediments in the path of good citizens will further disproportionately disarm those good people - especially disarming good, poor people, the people who live in the areas of highest risk. If "better" data are forthcoming, we are ready to reassess the public policy implications. Until such time, the data suggest that victim disarmament is not a policy that saves lives. What does save lives is allowing adult, mentally competent, law- abiding citizen access to the safest and most effective means of protection - guns. [26,27] Brady I and Brady II The extremists at Handgun Control Inc. boast that "23,000 potential felons" [28] [emphasis added] were prevented from retail gun purchases in the first month of the Brady Law. Several jurisdictions have reviewed the preliminary Brady Law data which resulted in the initial Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) overestimated appraisal [29] of the "success" of the Brady Law. The Virginia State Police, Phoenix Police Department, and other jurisdictions have shown that almost every one of those "potential" felons were not felons or otherwise disqualified from gun ownership. Many were innocents whose names were similar to felons. Misdemeanor traffic convictions, citations for fishing without a license, and failure to license dogs were the types of trivial crimes that resulted in a computer tag that labeled the others as "potential" felons. [30] In transparent "governmentese," BATF Spokesperson Susan McCarron avers, "we feel [the Brady Law has] been a success, even though we don't have a whole lot of numbers. Anecdotally, we can find some effect." [31] Even if the preliminary data had been accurate, that data only showed about 6.3% of retail sales were "possible" felons - consistent with repeated studies showing how few crime guns are obtained in retail transactions. A minuscule number of actual felons has been identified by Brady Law background checks, but the US Department of Justice is unable to identify even one prosecution of those felons. [32 ] In such circumstance, the minimal expected benefit of the Brady Law diminishes to no benefit at all. The National Institute of Justice has shown that very few crime guns are purchased from gun dealers. 93% of crime guns are obtained as black market, stolen guns, or from similar non retail sources. [28] Since none of Handgun Control Inc.'s Brady I or Brady II suggestions impact on the source of 93% of crime guns, their symbolic nostrums cannot be expected to do anything to reduce crime or violence. Residential gun dealers The press and broadcast media have vilified low-volume gun dealers, pejoratively named "kitchen table" dealers, yet the claim that such dealers are the source of a "proliferation of guns on our streets" is contradicted by data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). Those data show that 43% of gun dealers had no inventory and sold no guns at all. [33 ]In fact, Congressional testimony before enactment of the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) documented that the large number of low-volume gun dealers is a direct result of BATF policy. Prior to FOPA the BATF prosecuted gun collectors who sold as few as three guns per year at gun shows, claiming that they were unlicensed, and therefore illegal, gun dealers. To avoid such harassment and prosecution, thousands of American gun collectors became, at least on paper, licensed gun dealers. Now the BATF and the anti-self-defense lobby claim BATF does not have the resources to audit the paperwork monster it created. Reducing the number of gun dealers will only ensure that guns are more expensive - unaffordable to the poor who are at greatest risk from violence, ensuring that gun ownership becomes a privilege of only the politically connected and the affluent. Instead of heaping more onerous restrictions upon good citizens or law-abiding gun dealers who are not the source of crime guns, is it not more reasonable - though admittedly more difficult - to target the real source of crime guns? It is time to admit the futility of attacking the supply of legal guns to interdict the less than 1% of the American gun stock that is used criminally. Instead, we believe effort should focus on targeting the actual "black market" in stolen guns. It is equally important to reduce the demand for illicit guns and drugs, most particularly by presenting attractive life opportunities and career alternatives to the inner-city youth that are overwhelmingly and disproportionately the perpetrators and victims of violence in our society. Back to the top * Myth #9 "Citizens are too incompetent to use guns for protection" Nationally good citizens use guns about seven to ten times as frequently as the police to repel crime and apprehend criminals and they do it with a better safety record than the police. [3] About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are loss than 1 in 26,000.[27] Citizens intervening in crime are less likely to be wounded than the police. We can explain why the civilian record is better than the police, but the simple truth remains - citizens have an excellent record of protecting themselves and their communities and NOT ONE of the fear mongering fantasies of the gun control lobby has come true. "Treat cars like guns" Advocates of increased gun restrictions have promoted the automobile model of gun ownership, however, the analogy is selectively and incompletely applied. It is routinely overlooked that no license or registration is needed to "own and operate" any kind of automobile on private property. No proof of "need" is required for automobile registration or drivers' licensure. Once licensed and registered, automobiles may be driven on any public road and every state's licenses are given "full faith and credit" by other states. There are no waiting periods, background checks, or age restrictions for the purchase of automobiles. It is only their use - and misuse - that is regulated. Although the toll of motor vehicle tragedies is many times that of guns, no "arsenal permit" equivalent is asked of automobile collectors or motorcycle racing enthusiasts. Neither has anyone suggested that automobile manufacturers be sued when automobiles are frequently misused by criminals in bank robberies, drive-by shootings, and all manner of crime and terrorism. No one has suggested banning motor vehicles because they "might" be used illegally or are capable of exceeding the 55 mph speed limit, even though we know "speed kills." Who needs a car capable of three times the national speed limit? "But cars have good uses" is the usual response. So too do guns have good uses, the protection of as many as 2.5-million good Americans every year. Progressive reform Complete, consistent, and constitutional application of the automobile model of gun ownership could provide a rational solution to the debate and enhance public safety. Reasonable compromise on licensing and training is possible. Where state laws have been reformed to license and train good citizens to carry concealed handguns for protection, violence and homicide have fallen. [11,26,27] Even unarmed citizens who abhor guns benefit from such policies because predators cannot determine in advance who is carrying a concealed weapon. Fear mongering and the gun control lobby In opposing progressive reforms that restore our rights to self- protection, the anti-self-defense lobby has claimed that reform would cause blood to run in the streets, that inconsequential family arguments would turn into murderous incidents, that the economic base of communities would collapse, and that many innocent people would be killed [26,27] In Florida, the anti- self-defense lobby claimed that blood would run in the streets of "Dodge City East," the "Gunshine State" --- but we do not have to rely on irrational propaganda, imaginative imagery, or political histrionics. We can examine the data. Data, not histrionics One-third of Americans live in the 22 progressive states that have reformed laws to allow good citizens to readily protect themselves outside their homes. [26,27] In those states crime rates are lower for every category of crime indexed by the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. [11] Homicide, assault, and overall violent crime are each 40% lower, armed robbery is 50% lower, rape is 30% lower, and property crimes are 10% lower. [11] The reasonable reform of concealed weapon laws resulted in none of the mayhem prophesied by the anti-self-defense lobby. In fact, the data suggest that, providing they are in the hands of good citizens, more guns "on the street" offer a considerable benefit to society - saving lives, a deterrent to crime, and an adjunct to the concept of community policing. As of 12/31/94, Florida had issued 188,106 licenses and not one innocent person had been killed or injured by a licensed gun owner in the 6 years post-reform. Of the 188,106 licenses, 17 (0.0001%) were revoked for misuse of the firearm. Not one of those revocations were associated with any injury whatsoever. [27] In opposing reform, fear is often expressed that "everyone would be packing guns," but, after reform, most states have licensed fewer than 2% (and in no state more than 4%) of qualified citizens. [27] Notwithstanding gun control extremists' unprophetic histrionics , the observed reality was that crime fell, in part, because vicious predators fear an unpredictable encounter with an armed citizen even more than they fear apprehension by police [34] or fear our timid and porous criminal justice system. It is no mystery why Florida's tourists are targeted by predators - predators are guaranteed that, unlike Florida's citizens, tourists are unarmed. Those who advocate restricting gun rights often justify their proposals "if it saves only one life." There have been matched state pair analyses, crime trend studies, and California county- by-county research [27] demonstrating that licensing law-abiding, mentally-competent adults to carry concealed weapons for protection outside their homes saves many lives, so gun prohibitionists should support such reforms, if saving lives is truly their motivation. The right Importantly, the proponents of the automobile model of gun ownership fail to note that controls appropriate to a privilege (driving) are inappropriate to a constitutional right (gun ownership and use). Let there be no doubt. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged an individual right to keep and bear arms. [35] It is specifically the "weapons of war" - militia weapons - that are protected. The intent of the Second Amendment was to ensure that, by guaranteeing the individual right to arms, a citizen militia could always oppose a tyrannical federal government. That the Supreme Court has acknowledged the right, but done little to protect that right, is reminiscent of the sluggishness of the Supreme Court in protecting other civil rights before those rights became politically fashionable. Need we be reminded that it has taken over a century for the Supreme Court to meaningfully protect civil rights guaranteed to African Americans in the Fourteenth Amendment? Besides Second Amendment guarantees of the pre-existent right to keep and bear arms, there are Ninth, [36] Tenth, [35] and Fourteenth Amendment, [37] as well as "natural right" [38] guarantees to self-protection. Since 1980, of thirty-nine law review articles addressing the Supreme Court case law and history of the right to keep and bear arms, thirty-five support the individual right view and only four support the "collective right only" view [39] (and three of these four are authored or co-authored by employees of the anti-selfdefense lobby). One would never guess such a legal and scholarly mismatch from the casual misinterpretations of the right in the medical literature and popular press. The error of the gun prohibitionist view is also evident from the fact that their "collective right only" theory is exclusively an invention of the twentieth century "gun control" debate - a concept of which neither the Founding Fathers nor any pre-1900 case or commentary seems to have had any inkling. California and Concealed Weapons California has been studied and we discover that the counties that have the lowest rates of concealed weapon licensees have the highest rates of murder and the counties with the highest rates of concealed license issuance have the lowest rates of murder. [27] It has also been noted that current California law gives considerable discretion to police chiefs and county sheriffs regarding the issuance of Concealed Weapon Licenses. Particularly in urban jurisdictions, abuse of that discretion is common. The result? In many jurisdictions only the affluent and politically connected are issued such licenses. In California few women and virtually no minorities are so licensed, even though poor minorities are the Californians at greatest risk from violence. Conclusion The police do not have a crystal ball. Murderers, rapists, and robbers do not schedule their crimes or notify the police in advance, so the police cannot be where they are needed in time to prevent death and injury. They can only arrive later to count the bodies and, hopefully, apprehend the predators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFunky1 Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 You know I'm gonna weigh in with my signature line. As stated, people do hunt with handguns. A friend of mine does. Some states have very slack gun carry requirements... Vermont requires you to have a valid state drivers license, while Florida requires similar things as Virginia. I thought that VA, a right to carry state, did away with the judge thing because of judges refusing to give out CCWs? At least I heard that from a friend in VA. In GA now it is alot easier to get a CCW permit. You fill out the paperwork, get finger printed, pay your money and wait for the background check to be done, once you come back clean the judge issues the permit. Gun controls/restrictions originally were instituted to keep blacks from owning firearms in the post civil war south, and that is where the whole notion of permits, gun taxes, and gun registries came from. If the dems were really about abolishing racism they should be for people to freely carry of firearms without restrictions . That Smith sounds nice, and now that S&W is USA owned again I might consider getting me one. I have no plans of hunting, nor do I want to shoot anyone, I just would like to take one out and shoot it and see what it is like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFunky1 Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 I forgot to mention, I prefer a 12 gauge pump for home defense over handguns... point and shoot. No aiming, and hopefully that racking of the slide would be enough to send the bad guy(s) running. Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Have to agree with "myth #1" Except for that episode of the Simpsons the only use of a gun is to kill... all right, maybe injure. Whether that is killing ducks, pigeons, bear, or humans the express purpose of a gun is to kill. Now, you can kill in self-defense, for food, to protect loved ones and a variety of positive uses, but anyone who does anyone use a gun to avoid violence-- The thing about the .500 the way it was described in the article and by more knowledgeable folks here is it sounded like the perfect weapon for a sniper or terrorist. If it is inaccurate because of recoil it probably would be a terrible weapon both for your average thug and citizen, but this sounded slightly easier to conceal, very deadly, and perfect for any who want to terrorize us like the Sniper did last Fall. Personally, I am wary of guns which puts me in the minority here it seems but, remember this is being promoted as a hunting pistol. Is this the weapon you would choose? To quote Princess Bride, "It doesn't seem very sportsmanlike." and if its not for them and the lower caliber weapon is better for accuracy and home use for most... who is this weapon really best for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by Burgold Have to agree with "myth #1" Except for that episode of the Simpsons the only use of a gun is to kill... all right, maybe injure. Whether that is killing ducks, pigeons, bear, or humans the express purpose of a gun is to kill. Now, you can kill in self-defense, for food, to protect loved ones and a variety of positive uses, but anyone who does anyone use a gun to avoid violence-- You're conveniently forgetting/ignoring the deterrent effect of guns. Criminals have them everywhere. But in those jurisdictions and communities where concealed permits are allowed (obviously, to law-abiding citizens), it has been shown that there are far fewer crimes against people per capita. The point being that criminals don't know who is carrying a concealed firearm, which provides quite the deterrent effect. Also, people forget that what firearms are fundamentally are equalizers. It doesn't matter how old you are, what size you are, what gender, etc. This is of particular use to women who by and large 1) are smaller and physically weaker than men, and 2) who are more prone to be physically assaulted by strangers. Again, in those places where concealed weapons permits are legally obtained, crimes against women are dramatically lower. I've often wondered why more women's groups don't support gun ownership, but I guess that's just the result of left-wing groupthink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Redman, I think it's the word use I was focusing on. When used, IE when fired, a gun really only has one purpose. Now, you can counter and say what about warning shots and I would say that fear the fear which may make guns a deterance is because of its purpose or use. Okay, now if you include a starter's pistol or a flare gun I'm in trouble with this line of reasoning. I would agree that many guns are purchased with the hope that their use will not be necessary and that the purpose becomes that ofdefense versus agression, but once the guns are in play, like a poster said earlier you don't shoot to injure. I have never seen a gun designed not to kill. You are right though, I chose to not include that deterence point in my earlier post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Fine, Burgold. But now I must ask, "What's your point?" Guns are used to kill/seriously injure people. Isn't context important here? This just sounds like an attempt on your part to shock us with the obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 No, just responding to myths... though sometimes myths are true. It did bother me when I read Myth number one. I don't totally know why. Perhaps because that post was so long and seemed to attempt to make guns and gun users so innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by Burgold No, just responding to myths... though sometimes myths are true. It did bother me when I read Myth number one. I don't totally know why. Perhaps because that post was so long and seemed to attempt to make guns and gun users so innocent. I didn't bother to read that long post regarding myths. However, reading myth #1, they've really used poor wording. First of all, guns are used for non-lethal purposes like target shooting and hunting. That's indisputable. Second, even in the context of self-defense, the point was that gun owners are not reckless cowboys who are firing off guns indiscriminatly in the name of self-defense and the Second Amendment. To be more compatible with the point they were making, the heading shoud read something like "Legally owned guns are often used to kill people". If you focus on the specific case of a gun being fired at a person, then of course there's no argument that the only realistic explanation would be to either kill that person or to cause them serious bodily injury (which the law largely does not make a distinction between). But you've then defined away the debate by the assumptions you made in order to make your statement, which prompted my "what's your point" question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by Burgold Have to agree with "myth #1" Except for that episode of the Simpsons the only use of a gun is to kill... all right, maybe injure. Whether that is killing ducks, pigeons, bear, or humans the express purpose of a gun is to kill. Now, you can kill in self-defense, for food, to protect loved ones and a variety of positive uses, but anyone who does anyone use a gun to avoid violence-- The thing about the .500 the way it was described in the article and by more knowledgeable folks here is it sounded like the perfect weapon for a sniper or terrorist. If it is inaccurate because of recoil it probably would be a terrible weapon both for your average thug and citizen, but this sounded slightly easier to conceal, very deadly, and perfect for any who want to terrorize us like the Sniper did last Fall. Personally, I am wary of guns which puts me in the minority here it seems but, remember this is being promoted as a hunting pistol. Is this the weapon you would choose? To quote Princess Bride, "It doesn't seem very sportsmanlike." and if its not for them and the lower caliber weapon is better for accuracy and home use for most... who is this weapon really best for? Again, I feel that this gun if for the guy who wants to impress his friends by saying he has the most powerful handgun. A thug won't bother with it because #1. It's too expensive, #2. the ammo is too expensive, 3. It's very doubtful that you will see these guns on the street anytime soon. I enquired about the Desert Eagle .50, they are on a waiting list because they don't produce that many of them because the demand is not that high. There are far more fake DE .50's in movies like Predator2. Out on the streets, you are going to find many more 9's and 38 specials, they are very common and the ammo is cheap. Guns in the hand of honest folk are like nuclear weapons, they are there to make a potential enemy think twice about attack. Redman brings up great points about crime being less in areas where conceal permits are more common. The thugs are worried that they will pick on the wrong person. Take away the honest mans guns and the criminals will have a heyday. I quoted a joke on another thread that came from Chris Rock..... He says forget gun control, you need bullet control. IF a bullet cost 5,000 dollars, no innocent bystanders would ever get shot... seriously, if ammo was either more expensive or regulated (I am not saying I think it's a good idea) in some way, that would have a better chance of being successful. I mean, come on, how many thugs have a black powder reloading set up in their garage and take the time to pick up their shell casings? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montilar Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Another reason people would use a pistol, not necessarily for hunting but out hiking. What if you are hiking in an area that contains grizzlies? I would feel a bit more comfortable with a pistol handy (and not a rinkydink 22) than nothing at all. A 50 caliber has a heck of a better stopping power than a 22 or 38.... Again, it would come down to training and being able to use it. And if you are hiking in a bear area, you should recieve training on what to do in such a possible confrontation before you ever go hiking. I mention this as back in 98 some friends and I went to Alaska. part of the trip was going back in Denali National Park. They do not allow vehicles other than park buses back there. But they do allow you to hop off at any place and go off on your own hiking and camping. One friend wanted to hop off the bus on the side of the mountain where we had seen some grizzlies in the distance..... The FOOL wanted to get closer for better pictures. :doh: It didn't happen....long range pictures were good enough. Now you're not supposed to carry weapons back there in the park, but out hiking on your own, you never know what you could run into. Bear, wolves, a mother moose defending her calves, etc. it' would be an additional saftey feature...it's best to be prepared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 strange, how two posters have argued thaat guns have multiple puposes besides killing. One listed hunting- when you go hunting your goal isn't to kill your prey? The other mentioned hiking and self defense with bears. Again, from what I know about bears I would hope the shooter isn't using the gun to injure the bear in the hopes that it would run away. I'm not saying that hunting is wrong just that its purpose is to kill an animal. The ethics of hunting is an entirely different issue. One that has to do with animal control, use/nonuse of the carcass etc. There is nothing wrong with hunting in itself, though I do find the idea of tracking and killing an animal for sport (shooting and leaving, not using the hide or meat) and just going on to the next kill terrible. To the issue of this specific gun being to expensive and rare to become criminally popular I will concede, but the cynic in me does do a double take when you say there is a long waiting list because supply can't meet demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 I agree that one of the basic premises of a gun is to kill. I mean you really can't deny that. That's the whole reason they were created. But I don't agree that the only reason that guns are made today is to kill. The main reason I bought my guns was for sport. I love target shooting. The home/personal protection was also a key, but not the only reason. I know people that collect guns. They never shoot them. And obviously, people hunt. I used to but don't anymore. I will agree thought that if I were a hiker and I chose to hike in areas such as Montana that had a grizzly population or other predators such as mountain lions, I would prefer a .50 caliber handgun to assure my personal safety. "Bear" :laugh: in mind that I would try to avoid using a gun if at all possible being the animal lover that I am. A 9mm would do nothing to a bear unless you shot him right between the eyes. I guess what I am trying to say is I personally doubt that Smith and Wesson had a meeting and said "hey, lets make a really powerful gun to kill people". There is a market for these guns. Before I bought my first handgun, I wanted the .44 magnum, because at the time, it was the most powerful handgun. I guess it's a macho thing. My my senses overcame me and I realized that it was not practicle. My wife would not enjoy it and the ammo was too expensive for target shooting on a regular basis. So I went with the .357. It is powerful enough to kill in one shot if an intruder were in my house, but the ammo is more reasonable, and it will shoot .38 cal rounds which are dirt cheap, that makes it a great target gun. Bottomline for me, I can understand anyone's hesitation about guns, I won't try to convince them that guns are for everyone. I enjoy mine for many more reasons than just home protection. Hopefully, I will never need to use them for self defense. I forgot to mention, the place where I go target shooting has a full color target of Bin Laden. That is by far the most popular one, that one and a terrorist with a gun to the head of an old lady. They are really fun targets... And yes, I have killed the old lady from time to time.:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Go before a judge or magistrate and be interviewed as to why you wish to have the permit. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow, I never knew that. I know they do no do this down here in SC. There is a waiting period and somewhat of a background check. I have friends that have marginal criminal records (ie: marijauna poss, dui, etc) and they are still able to purchase guns. I never understood hunting. Feel free to start after me, but I feel the reel rush --id that is the thrill-- would be to surf in 40 degree water while great whites are lurking around. All you want in that case is to surf the wave of your life and survive. Back to the main question. I feel the "Gun" in question spurs so much controversy with liberals and anti-gun activists that it diverts their attention from imposing laws that regulate the control of the old-school guns. I am sure that the number one kileer on the street as far as guns are concerned is the 9mm. Easy to find, cheap and effective. Gun fingerprinting would be a hugehelp, however those who sell their guns or have them stolen, must go out of their way to report what actions occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 I know what you mean about hunting. I used to hunt, until one season, my cousin, who is an avid hunter, took my brother and I on a hunt with dogs where they drive the deer to you. I never went hunting again after that. I do not mean to offend any hunters, because I have no problem with those who like to hunt, but for me, that was a little much. I didn't see the sport in it. In Va, unless something has changed in the past 4 or 5 years, you go before the judge and they ask why you want the permit. I said "because I want to make sure that my guns are registered and if I did have a loaded gun in my car, I would be legal". He asked if I planned on carrying a gun regularly, and I said I did not. I just wanted to be legal. I don't carry a gun. I just could if I wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 I believe that handgun ownership and the knowledge of its use, is not just a right but an obligation. The purpose of the 'Right to keep and bear arms' is almost insurrectionist by nature. In his defense of the ammendment before congress, Tench Coate (sp?) said as much to which James Madison (the guy who penned the thing) offered no criticism. Thomas Jefferson said that a government which restricts gun ownership had relinquished its right to govern (probably a Lockean idea). One could also construe it for its symbolic nature as every freeman in England (around that time) was armed and gun ownership represented the fact that you were, indeed, a freeman. In more modern times, the 'Right to keep and bear arms' has been held by a liberal legal scholar as the most important right in the Bill of Rights. He also concurred with most of the conservative legal scholars that the right was individual. Even if the specific ammendment did not exist, the right would still exist. The govenment cannot GRANT a right to those who chose to be governed by it, it is only prevented from taking rights away or be obligated to defend against those who will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 The most ironic thing about the original article is that the liberal gun haters they interviewed never made the one legitimate criticism about the gun that they could. That is the risk of overpenetration. If fired in a crowded urban area there is a real chance that a powerful round like the .50 cal described could go through your target (if you manage to hit it) through and into an occupied building and hit an innocent bystander(s). For this reason, it really is a poor choice of a weapon for home protection. The same could be said for firing rifle's in urban areas so who knows. Even so, I don't think this gun poses much of a risk because of the costs involved and because the overwhelming majority of people who buy it will use it for hunting only. I own several guns myself one of which is a .40 S&W caliber. It is a downright unpleasant gun to shoot because of the recoil. I can only imagine what a .50 cal would be like. For target shooting, I much prefer my trusty .357 with cheap .38 special ammo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Originally posted by Burgold strange, how two posters have argued thaat guns have multiple puposes besides killing. One listed hunting- when you go hunting your goal isn't to kill your prey? The other mentioned hiking and self defense with bears. Again, from what I know about bears I would hope the shooter isn't using the gun to injure the bear in the hopes that it would run away. I'm not saying that hunting is wrong just that its purpose is to kill an animal. The ethics of hunting is an entirely different issue. One that has to do with animal control, use/nonuse of the carcass etc. There is nothing wrong with hunting in itself, though I do find the idea of tracking and killing an animal for sport (shooting and leaving, not using the hide or meat) and just going on to the next kill terrible. I don't equate people with animals as some far-left activists do, so as you've correctly identified I view the issue of hunting as a separate one from homicide. I'd point out that the moral equivocation that the far-left likes to make about violence (e.g. "all violence is bad") tends to blur this distinction. But that's their problem. Originally posted by Burgold To the issue of this specific gun being to expensive and rare to become criminally popular I will concede, but the cynic in me does do a double take when you say there is a long waiting list because supply can't meet demand. The waiting list is not made up of muggers. Again, the far-left's willingness to equate all gun owners with each other (and, BTW, to assume that they're all criminally inclined) is totally bogus. You're safer amongst a group of NRA members than you are among a group of peace activists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.